california disability law

On April 19, 2004, the California Legislature approved SB 899, a law that overhauled the entire Workers' Compensation system. The focus of this law was the radical change in the permanent partial disability system. The original California permanent disability was completely abolished. The legislature changed the definition of disability from diminished ability to compete in the labor market at a reduced long-term employee future earning power. An employee of the diminished future earning capacity is defined as a numerical formula based on empherical data and results, that the aggregation of average percentage of long-term loss of income from each type of violation for a similar employee.

The law says that in determining the percentage of permanent disability to take account of the nature of the injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee and his or her age at the time of injury, taking into account the specific employee at a reduced future earning power .

The law further states that the nature of the injury or disfigurement, the descriptions and measurements of physical impairments and the corresponding percentages of impairments in the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for the evaluation of permanent impairment (5th edition). The purpose of the new permanent disability rating system is to promote uniformity, consistency and objectivity.

I am aware that the last three digits are complex and difficult to understand. In fact, the new rating system makes even less sense and is less than the old system. The system, as it works now is very confusing, not based on any empherical data, and is now even more convoluted in the light of recent rulings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

The AMA Guides for the evaluation of permanent impairment is supported by the American Medical Association. The guides give percentages for depreciation. AMA impairment defined as the loss of function of an organ or system. The percentages are the loss of the ability to express oneself in activities of daily living such as bathing, eating, elimination, sex ban, and the reduced ability to focus at work. The percentages in the guides are not on the science or studies.

A guide editor testified in a deposition, when asked why the percentages for the impairment of the upper extremities were injured fell in the 5th Edition of what they have in the 4th Edition, acknowledged that there is no science, the acceptance that the AMA had a lot of constituencies to answer, and that the shares were taken by consensus. There are no studies that show that a single-level lumbar spine with pain in the legs has a lower percentage of impairment as a multi-level lumbar spine with the same pain.

In a lecture I attended, one of the advisors for the Chapter 18, the pain chapter, tells us that the consultants responsible for this chapter wanted up to 80 points, as an add-on. The insurance industry was not in this, so the border to discuss the pain is a measly 3%.

Author Bio