Source: http://www.pdrater.com/tag/court-of-appeal/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 03:22:50+00:00

Document:
So, what does this new Ogilvie decision mean for us?
The calculations from the en banc decisions of Ogilvie I/II are no longer valid.
An injured worker can still rebut a scheduled rating in accordance with [Download not found] and [Download not found].
Demonstrating “a factual error in the application of a formula or the preparation of the schedule.” (Ogilvie III, p10-11). Given the examples provided, probably references proving a defect in the [Download not found] itself.
Demonstrating “the claimant’s disability has been aggravated by complications not considered within the sampling used to compute the adjustment factor.” (Ogilvie III, p13). This appears to be a two-step process of having to prove a complex injury and then proving that the sample for the adjustment factor didn’t account for such injuries or complications.
Download [Download not found] aka Ogilvie III right now!
Some commentators have suggested that the recent Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.) case creates a “double dip” for injured workers entitled to permanent total disability benefits. 1 While I would take issue with much of that commentary, I would agree that permanent total disability benefits are affected by changes in the state average weekly wage twice under Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.). Of the four benefits in California workers’ compensation system that are affected by changes in the SAWW, only permanent total disability benefits are affected twice.
When determining the proper starting rate for a permanent total disability case, you must first turn to Cal. Labor Code § 4453(a)(10). This statute dictates that the limits (as in the statutory minimum and statutory maximum limits) are to be increased by the increase in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).
However, according to Cal. Labor Code § 4659(c) as interpreted by Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.), the benefit rates themselves are then increased by the increase in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).
Is it “double dipping” to have both the upper/lower limits and benefit rates increased by the SAWW?
Perhaps, but that’s what the two statutes say and what the Court of Appeals has decided.
For more background on Smith/Amar, check out my prior post discussing the oral argument.
Smith involved an informal denial of medical treatment without a formal petition to terminate medical care under L.C. 4607, after an award of permanent disability. Eight years after Smith’s award, SCIF refused to authorize epidural injections. Smith’s attorney sought utilization review, Smith was reexamined by the AME who said the injections were necessary to relieve from the effects of the industrial injury. Although SCIF then authorized the injections without the need for a hearing, Smith’s attorney sought fees under L.C. 4607.
The WCJ denied Smith’s attorney’s petition for fess since there was no formal petition to terminated medical care. The WCAB denied reconsideration on the grounds that SCIF’s was not denying all medical treatment.
Amar is substantially similar to Smith, except that in Amar the workers’ compensation judge took the extra step of opining that SCIF’s denial of medical treatment was made in good faith, not unreasonable, and not improper.
I would love to watch the oral argument on this case – but Los Angeles is a bit of a hike for me. 1 I am very very interested to see how this case shakes out.
Benson v. WCAB and The Permanente Medical Group, affirmed!
The basic upshot is that barring “limited circumstances” each distinct industrial injury will require its own Award.
First Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman, now Benson? Its been an exciting two weeks to be a Workers’ Compensation attorney.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 4453
 § 4659
 v. 
 v.