> Best Records > Best Service > Online Advantage > PV Calculations > The PerfectFiler? > A1 + MedLegal > Customer Service > Employment > Feedback
GetRecords: We copy, analyze & archive legal records



The Premier Resource for Records, Orders, Duplication and Subpoenas.

Find a vast array of information access, document preparation, customer focus and speedy performance.

> Best Records
> Best Service
> Online Advantage


> Green Campaign
> Present Value Calculations
> The Perfect Filer?
> Going Paperless: A1-Law+Med-Legal

>
People
> Employment
> Feedback/Comments




Thirty-Thousand Reasons
to Go With a Med-Legal
PV Rating.


In a recently settled case, a judge or the parties
had the DEU do a present value. The DEU got a
present value where the attorney fee is $42,476.19.

Med-Legal got an attorney fee of $72,253.60.
That's nearly $30,000 increase in attorney fee.
That is a significant amount and well worth it for the firm to have ML on their team.
And this is just one case. We have done lots of present values
for them a well as lots of Ogilvie calculations.

Checking the Calculators? Calculations

Another present value example where we recovered more money for the attorney: From the beginning, we used a P&S date of 12/1/2007 because the DEU used a P&S date of 8/1/2007 with 123 days of TTD after that.  That would be equivalent to a P&S date of 12/1/2007.

The starting life pension weekly payment is $85.04. This is calculated by using the maximum of $515.38 as specified in LC 4659(a) last sentence. In this case the date of injury was 11/3/2006. This is after 1/1/2006 so the last sentence applies. The weekly earnings for the applicant were $580.05 so the maximum of $515.38 must be used.

It appears that the rater may have mistakenly used the payment rate for temporary total disability as specified in LC 4653 because they took 2/3 of $580.04 to get $386.70.  That's the figure they used in the life pension formula. This is wrong. The formula uses the average weekly wages and not the TTD payment rate.  Note also that LC 4453(b) does not apply because it says, "...except as provided in Section 4659..."

As a check on this the Example E in the back of the Lexis-Nexis book calculates the formula using the maximum weekly earnings the same way I do.

To be on the conservative side, we used the 2000 United States Decennial Life Table rather than the latest life table.

The SAWW increases were started on 1/1/2007 based on the Duncan case. 
The Duncan case says that SAWW increases could start of 1/1/2004 but since the life pension maximum jumped on 1/1/2007, we used that date because it is more fair to the defense.

The rater probably used tables that started the SAWW increases at the start of life pension payment. That's what the raters previously did. This is not correct according to the Duncan case.

The discounts for interest and probability of mortality start at the date of commutation (same as date of calculation) of 3/1/2010. The program calculates the present value of each payment whereas the rater used a table.  We cannot tell what calculations or presumptions were used to generate the table.  A problem with the table method is that there must be an interpolation for age for a whole year and another interpolation for deferral period for a whole year. This method introduces inaccuracies.






Records: Order Online | Order Status | Download | Zing | Forms & Authorization
Get Records Advantage | Process Service | ScanFiles | Online WC Tools | Site Map
2010 getRecords.com. All rights reserved.


getRecords is a subsidiary of
MedLegal, Inc.