California publishes worked rating examples — in the 2005 rating schedule itself and in the DWC’s FAQ. Here is each one as printed, beside what RateString’s engine computes from the same inputs. The engine side isn’t typed in: it was computed as this page loaded.
4 of 4
published examples reach the printed final rating
7 of 8
printed rating strings come out identical — the other differs, and why is explained below
4,950 of 4,950
printed Combined Values Chart cells match the engine
Three examples come from the 2005 schedule itself (PDRS, Section 7) and use its method for 2005–2012 injuries, where an earning-capacity rank — the bracketed [1] to [8] — adjusts the impairment. For injuries from 2013, SB 863 replaced that step with a flat 1.4; the DWC’s own example (DEU FAQ) shows it. The occupational, age, and combined-values steps are the same in both.
The DWC’s own illustration of how the flat 1.4 replaced the FEC ranks for injuries from January 1, 2013: a lumbar diagnosis-related estimate (DRE) II, 8% WPI, for a 2013 date of injury.
Engine inputs: injured July 1, 2013 · age 47 · occupational group 340
The FAQ prints no age. Its last step, 13 → 15, is the age adjustment for ages 47–51 only, so the engine is given 47.
Any 2013 date gives the same rating; the engine is given July 1, 2013.
Example A — Multiple impairments within a single extremity
A 30-year-old stevedore (occupational group 351) injures his right arm: limited motion of two fingers, an 18% hand impairment that converts to 10% WPI, and a shoulder at 30% of the upper extremity, 18% WPI.
Engine inputs: injured June 15, 2007 · age 30 · occupational group 351
The schedule’s examples carry no date of injury. They show the 2005–2012 method — the earning-capacity (FEC) ranks in brackets — so the engine is given a 2007 date.
A 30-year-old stevedore (group 351) injures his left leg: a below-knee amputation (80% of the lower extremity, 32% WPI, plus a 3% add-on for pain) and limited knee motion (35% LE, 14% WPI). One leg can’t rate higher than losing the whole leg: 40% WPI before adjustments.
Engine inputs: injured June 15, 2007 · age 30 · occupational group 351
The schedule’s examples carry no date of injury. They show the 2005–2012 method — the earning-capacity (FEC) ranks in brackets — so the engine is given a 2007 date.
Example C — Multiple impairments to different regions of body
A 30-year-old stevedore (group 351) with the right-arm injuries of Example A, the left-leg injuries of Example B, a herniated lumbar disc (DRE category 3, 10% WPI), and limited right-knee motion (8% LE, 3% WPI).
Engine inputs: injured June 15, 2007 · age 30 · occupational group 351
The schedule’s examples carry no date of injury. They show the 2005–2012 method — the earning-capacity (FEC) ranks in brackets — so the engine is given a 2007 date.
Why they differ: The printed string adjusts a 3% WPI to [2]4, but the schedule’s own earning-capacity grid (Section 2, rank 2) turns a 3 into 3 — a 4 is what the unrounded 3.2% (8% LE × .4) would give. The engine follows the grid. The case total is 71% either way: 70 C 4 = 71.2 → 71, and 70 C 3 = 70.9 → 71.
Combined, as printed
50% PD (left leg) C 32% PD (right arm) = 66% PD
66% PD C 13% PD (back) = 70% PD
70% PD C 4% PD (right leg) = 71% PD
Combined by RateString
Right arm: 24 C 11 → 32
Left leg: 44 C 16 → 53, capped at the leg amputation value 50
50 C 32 → 66
66 C 13 → 70
70 C 3 → 71
Final ratingprinted 71% PDRateString 71% PDIdentical
On the printed page: Steps 2 and 3 of the printed example put the right arm at 39% PD and the left leg at 61% PD, but its own combination in step 5 uses 32% and 50% — the results of Examples A and B, which is what the engine computes too. The printed final, 71%, follows from step 5.
The tables behind every rating, checked cell by cell
Every table the engine reads from the 2005 schedule was re-extracted from the DIR’s PDF by script and compared with the engine’s copy, value by value. Last run October 18, 2026: no mismatches. The Combined Values Chart is compared again every time this page loads.
What the schedule leaves to the evaluator stays with you: the WPI comes from the medical report, and apportionment from the physician’s opinion. The engine applies the schedule to them. The full method, step by step, is in the methodology; the schedule itself is explained on the 2005 PDRS page.
How this page stays true
The examples above are one list, and RateString’s automated test suite runs the same list — so an engine change that broke one fails the suite (750+ tests in all).
The page checks itself: if any engine result here stopped matching, the site’s build would refuse to publish it.
Where the engine differs from a printed example, the difference is shown and explained here — not quietly corrected.
Have a rating that doesn’t match yours?
Send the inputs and both strings to [email protected] — we’ll check it against the schedule. Or paste the string into the rating-string decoder, which re-derives every segment from the PDRS tables.