Workers' Compensation Discussion Forums
CA PD offer by City - Printable Version

+- Workers' Compensation Discussion Forums (https://www.workerscompensation.com/forums/general)
+-- Forum: Category (https://www.workerscompensation.com/forums/general/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Injured Worker Forum (https://www.workerscompensation.com/forums/general/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: CA PD offer by City (/showthread.php?tid=18032)



CA PD offer by City - Boyington214 - 09-29-2019

Hello,

I am in law enforcement in CA. I was 41 at the time of my injury, which occurred in 2016. The City accepted the claim and the QME results are the following:

Cervical: 6 WPI plus a 1 WPI for pain

Thoracic: 6 WPI plus a 1 WPI for pain, with 25% apportioned to a previous WC
injury.
Lumbar: 6 WPI, with 50% apportioned to a previous WC injury.

The QME report states I have an 18 WPI total. However, that doesn't add up with the 2 WPI for pain? Does that sound correct?

I was offered a 27% PD for $32,697 plus future medical.
My question is, is the 27% PD correct? I came up with 32% when using the PDrater, but maybe I did not enter everything correctly.

Thanks for your help.


RE: CA PD offer by City - 1171 - 09-30-2019

when converting to PD, the spine is considered a single body part.
however the AMA guidelines allows individual impairment ratings for parts of the spine and then has a separate table that gives the physician a combined rating.
that may be whats happening. I'll check further and see what i can find out.
but even with basic addition it comes out lower then 18 % WPI:
(50%x6)+(75%x6)+6+2=15.5

were you given the full PD rating equation? probably started with 18.1-
if so, I can look it up in the manual:
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/PDR.pdf


RE: CA PD offer by City - Boyington214 - 09-30-2019

(09-30-2019, 12:40 AM)1171 Wrote: when converting to PD, the spine is considered a single body part.
however the AMA guidelines allows individual impairment ratings for parts of the spine and then has a separate table that gives the physician a combined rating.
that may be whats happening. I'll check further and see what i can find out.
but even with basic addition it comes out lower then 18 % WPI:
(50%x6)+(75%x6)+6+2=15.5

were you given the full PD rating equation? probably started with 18.1-
if so, I can look it up in the manual:
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/PDR.pdf

Hello,
Thanks for your response. I was not given the PD equation. I have asked for information on how they calculated 27% PD. Additionally, I made an error in my first post. My lumbar was rated at a 5 WPI not a 6 WPI.

Thanks


RE: CA PD offer by City - 1171 - 09-30-2019

that's too bad. with your age at date of injury and occupation you can try to use the manual and rate your 18% WPI.
without the formula or those 2 variables .there is no way the 27% can be verified.
the court will review all ratings for accuracy before approving any finalization.


RE: CA PD offer by City - AnnBlair - 09-30-2019

(09-29-2019, 11:06 PM)Boyington214 Wrote: Hello,

I am in law enforcement in CA. I was 41 at the time of my injury, which occurred in 2016. The City accepted the claim and the QME results are the following:

Cervical: 6 WPI plus a 1 WPI for pain

Thoracic: 6 WPI plus a 1 WPI for pain, with 25% apportioned to a previous WC
injury.
Lumbar: 6 WPI, with 50% apportioned to a previous WC injury.

The QME report states I have an 18 WPI total. However, that doesn't add up with the 2 WPI for pain? Does that sound correct?

I was offered a 27% PD for $32,697 plus future medical.
My question is, is the 27% PD correct? I came up with 32% when using the PDrater, but maybe I did not enter everything correctly.

Thanks for your help.
I hope, you found anybody to count everything?


RE: CA PD offer by City - Boyington214 - 10-01-2019

I spoke to a WC attorney who reviewed the QME and said my PD is 29%. I spoke to the adjuster and presented the attorney's reco and the adjuster agreed with the 29%.


RE: CA PD offer by City - 1171 - 10-01-2019

They said it was 27, now 29. They could be wrong again.