#lc charon

[saphirdevil]

recents vergils i made

[angealainn]

Y’all ever just accidentally a 5* and their signature light cone or is that just me for the third time in a row?

So anyway I have a new Acheron team.

[actual-haise]

Vroom-Vroom

[correct-limbus-company]

{*seing eye test*}

Charon: Uh... E... K... L... smiley face... smudge... guy giving the middle finger, smudge, smudge- they're all smudges from there.

Ishmael: Oh my god, you drove us here!

[sleepyminty]

SPOILER FOR CANTO 7

i feel like theres a consistent theme playing around for each patch of three canto

The first three canto is how unfinished the cantos are but slowly develop as the story march on (sinclair leaning more to the realm of darkness but in a good way, rodya started to doubt her conviction and gregor, uh, well he did acknowledge his ‘mom’ presence in heath canto so he will get his turn)

The second patch of three canto is how one’s return their place of trauma after pursuing limbus company to reform themselves (yi sang meeting his old friends from the League, ishmael returned to the Lake and meeting Ahab, and heathcliff going back to his former abusive family, and all three of join LC with a hope of getting what they wish or what the company promise)

And now if i’m right, this third patch of canto is don, hong lu and ryoshu and while this is just speculation, hong lu’s family member just deadass showed up and ryoshu keep dropping hint of her having a family in don canto make me think this theme will center around family (bloodfiend’s hierarchy based on family so there’s that) and the boundary of illusion and reality (i dont need talk about don we are playing her canto, the title that hong lu based on how fleeting the material world is, and ryoshu? Yeah idk maybe it will play out in her canto)

But thats all a speculation

Tho i wonder what the forth patch (meursalt, outis faust?) will be like

where does that leave Dante? He gonna be a stand alone story or grp up with verg and charon thus creating leviathan 2: fuck capitalism i guess idk

[bigkickguy]

I'm sorry but I have another stupid limbus theory about Dante's identity! I think it is even sillier than my last one but also i like it way more haha Lobotomy corporation spoilers ! Leviathan spoilers !

cogito straw jump scare !

Ok I like the idea that Dante used to be a member of the original L corp as an employee for the Extraction team. It would be cool if they were specifically the employee who had Express Train to Hell extracted from them back in the first lab. 1. We know from wonderlab that all of the Lcorp employees use they/them and I've seen people mention that is because there was no place to record the gender of employees in-game? I have no idea if that is true and I would think it is slightly less fun than just a 100% cast of characters without gender on random chance all working for the same place - but for the sake of my crack theory let's assume its true for a second here! (I think it's a hilarious theory in many ways and I enjoy the absurd concept of LC somehow stealing employees' gender but I will not go into that now.) 2. We also know that Dante has the same 2 weird dot's on the front of their clock that Express Train to Hell has. That lines up with many of Vergilus' lines about going to hell and the whole Dante's Inferno pile of references and why the bus is actually looking like a train. I don't remember if it's implied or mentioned but Faust built both the train and Dante's new head so I'm pretty sure they're connected (they at least seem that way visually) 3. I think it is funny that rolling the gatcha for characters uses the same term extraction as the process that Binah was in charge of for filling up the lab with abnormalities. Binah mentions that Carmen and cogito basically do all the work inside someone's head and then the extraction team pulls it out. I'm assuming that means making the abnormality a physical separate entity. Binah specifies that the employees don't watch or listen to what they are doing - they just follow her instructions. She implies looking too hard into the eyes of the employees who are injected with cogito and are extracted from would cause many people to go mad.

How does this relate to what Faust told Vergilius in leviathan? I wonder how similar the strange cogito state is compared to how Charon lost her memories of being Lapis. It's possible that when Faust mentions Vergilius can save Lapis and Garnet she is referring in part to restoring Lapis' original identity. This would line up with the motivation (assuming Faust was telling the truth) to make Vergilius sign on as the Limbus Company Guide.

And if this theory is true that opens up a lot of interesting ideas for what the company is after. If the original employee super dosed with cogito is looking into 'the well' of human consciousness or whatever the phrasing was - what will they remember when they wake up? What is on the other side in there - is limbus company after that information? Do they know something is there and they want more details? Do they want an example that the theoretical way to rehabilitate people from this state works? Did they pick Dante on purpose due to some properties of the Express Train to Hell - or would they have picked at random with any intact employee they could find? It feels more like a mission a corporation in the city would realistically take.

Do they want to become the next L Corp? Are they looking for that singularity to replace them? It lines up as a feasible way they could do that while taking they actions they have so far in the story i think? It's another silly crack theory but I enjoy thinking about it all :)

[vanlegion]

Okay, I'll bite.

Here's my craziest theory that I'm considering making into a fic. I legit only have .05% stock to this so it's fun to laugh and think about but I know it's so far off the wall:

Carolina discovers a last final Fucked Up Project bullshit file folder burried in what's left of Dr. Leonard Church's personal belongings/everything involving project Freelancer and finds it odd that South Carolina was a reserved name never put into play and she became the only Agent Carolina.

Further more the file contains transcripts between LC and the head of a company called SIMTech, which is the company that makes all the advanced suits, tech and weapons Project Freelance recieved and tested, because ST also works/is funded through the UNSC and has/had connections to Charon Industries.

Said transcripts involve a few conversations about the effects of mind erasing twin children, as well as if a connection between siblings would still be felt/manifested if split and raised apart for x years until the proper time for reintroduction (but truth still withheld to test theories, and see how they fight/work together on a team).

Obviously appalled by this and assuming this to be about North & South, she keeps dwelling on it, until she starts getting headaches and breif flashes of things she doesn't remember.

As this all would take place post Chrous War (and post Timey Whimey Shennenigans maybe) the crew would all be either back on Iris or Chrous or even Earth maybe, attempting to have post war lives. Carolina would have been able to become even closer to everyone. Having learned to relax and open up a bit through Grifs teachings, shed have gotten comfortable with being a little more chummy with certain people, including Simmons, who'd offered to teach her some type of cooking/baking.

At some point, joking around with the two reds, Carolina would scoff at some really lame retort Simmons makes towards Grif, and before Grif can fire back, she'd roll her eyes and say "And that's why your ridiculous, Richie.."

Which just makes them all go quit, as Carolina starts freaking out and then the boys freak out because wtf why is Carolina Crying?! Is this the end of days!?

Now she's reaching out and tugging Simmons into a hug he just might die from due to lack of breathing and suddenly he's crying, not sure why, until he's starting to think the mocking phantom face in the mirror was never actually his to begin with.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

team only 4 days left until restoration time to throw out your craziest theories so you have a record in case they actually come true

[punibird]

To all employees: Always remove and properly dispose of any mental hazards before entering shared common spaces !!!

[zerocorpseblog-blog]

Atualização do LC sobre os jogos de CHARON, conheça mais sobre o grupo famoso por suas histórias com garotas yanderes.

[saphirdevil]

modern au where the three play acnh

[leeannclymer]

Blog Post: California: Apportionment Determinations and Petitions to Reopen: A Primer on Methodology

A persistent problem area for workers’ compensation practitioners, physicians, and WCJs is to understand and apply the proper methodology to determine apportionment related to Petitions to Reopen for New and Further Disability under the WCAB’s en banc decision in Vargas v. Atascadero State Hospital (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 500 (WCAB en banc).

The recent case of Wilson v. 20/20 Administrative Services, The Hartford Insurance Company 2016 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 654, graphically illustrates the problem.  Both the reporting physicians as well as the WCJ were unable to properly assess and apply the correct methodology for determining apportionment in this rather common Petition to Reopen fact pattern.

Following trial the WCJ issued an amended Findings and Order related to a cumulative trauma from April 2007 to April 2008, where applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck, back, upper extremities, psyche, internal system, high blood pressure/nervous system, and sleep, with permanent disability of 68% after non-industrial apportionment of 12% related to applicant’s psychiatric disability and 80% to her internal cardiovascular disability.

Previously, applicant had received a Stipulated Award on January 25, 2012, for 68%.  Given the prior Award, the WCJ found the present permanent disability of 68% was no greater than the prior award of 68%, and that applicant take nothing further related to her Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability.  Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration arguing that the AME in psychology and the PQME in internal medicine had both found new and further permanent disability and that any apportionment related to the new and further disability found by the WCJ was not supported by substantial medical evidence.  Applicant also argued defendant had not timely raised the issue of apportionment before the case was tried and submitted.

Whether defendant properly raised apportionment as an issue before the case was tried and submitted:  On Reconsideration the WCAB found that defendant had properly and timely raised the issue of apportionment.  In that regard the WCAB stated:

Even though the “apportionment” box on page three of the Pretrial Conference Statement of July 13, 2015 was not checked, the “other issues” box at the bottom of the same page was checked, and “LC 4664” was handwritten within the list of “other issues.” Secondly, the issue of permanent disability was identified in the “Stipulations and Issues” statement in the Minutes of Hearing at trial on February 3, 2016, and although “apportionment” was not specifically raised, the identification of permanent disability as a disputed issue was sufficient to raise the issue of apportionment.  (See Bontempo v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 689, 704 (74 Cal.Comp.Cases 419): (Raising the issues of permanent disability (Lab. Code §4660) and apportionment (Lab. Code, §§4663, 4664) was sufficient to raise the 15% increase in permanent disability under Labor Code section 4658(d).].)

The reporting physicians in psychiatry and internal medicine and the WCJ failed to properly determine apportionment related to applicant’s Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability: Under the facts of Wilson, the reporting physician in orthopedics determined there was no new and further disability.  However, the AME in psychiatry found there was new and further disability, but also applied 12% nonindustrial apportionment to applicant’s psychiatric disability. The PQME in internal medicine found there was 80% nonindustrial apportionment to applicant’s cardiovascular disability related to the Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability. However, there was no indication by either of these reporting physicians that the percentage of nonindustrial apportionment was determined related to the specific time frame from immediately after the prior Stipulated Award of January 25, 2012, for 68% up until the dates of their respective MMI/P&S evaluations and related reports.

Moreover, in Wilson, the WCAB determined that the PQME in internal medicine’s opinion on apportionment did not comply with the Escobedo standards since he did not describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability caused by applicant’s preexisting hypertension and that the physician was “opaque” in setting forth the basis for his apportionment opinion.  The WCAB also took issue with the fact the AME in psychology may have derived his apportionment percentage determination from the flawed apportionment opinion of the PQME in internal medicine.

As a consequence, the Board found good cause to develop the record further on the issue of apportionment and remanded the case for supplemental opinions consistent with their analysis.  The WCAB stressed in Footnote No. 2 that, “the question for both physicians is whether there is a medical basis to apportion applicant’s present new and further permanent disability, if any, without reference to any apportionment that may have existed at the time of the prior Stipulated Award.”

Comment & Practice Pointers:  In the first few years after SB 899 and Labor Code §§4663 and 4664 were enacted, physicians, attorneys, and trial judges had an exceedingly difficult time determining how to properly calculate and determine apportionment in cases involving Petitions to Reopen for New and Further disability.  This led to the WCAB’s en banc decision in Vargas v. Atascadero State Hospital (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, which provides explicit guidance with respect to the correct methodology in determining and applying valid legal apportionment under Labor Code §§4663 and 4664 related to Petitions to Reopen For New and Further Disability.  For a medical opinion to constitute substantial medical evidence an applicant’s new and further disability over and above a prior award, the determination of valid legal apportionment must be based on a focal timeline between the date the prior Stipulated Award issued and the MMI/P&S evaluations in any related medical specialty.  It is only during this defined and limited timeframe that any contributing nonindustrial causal factors of the applicant’s new and further disability must be determined without reference to any apportionment or basis for apportionment that may have existed at or before the date of the prior Stipulated Award.

For other cases illustrating the correct application of the methodology under the WCAB’s en banc decision in Vargas, see Charon v. WCAB (Ralph’s Grocery Company (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 869 (writ denied) (Valid 10% nonindustrial apportionment in a Petition to Reopen in a psychiatric case based on applicant’s nonindustrial issues and interactions with her daughter and grandchildren that all occurred after the original Stipulated Award of 48% in February of 2000.  Applicant’s award of 100% PTD on the Petition to Reopen was reduced to 90%), see also, Rocha v. TTX Company 2008 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 348 (WCAB panel decision); Bunnie Orange v. Hilton Hotel Corp., Specialty Risk Services 2008 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 14 (WCAB panel decision); Cruz v. Santa Barbara County Probation Dept. 2008 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 427 (WCAB panel decision);  Milivojevich v. United Airlines (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1415, 2007 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 322 (writ denied); Wilson-Marshall v. WCAB (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1736 (writ denied); Johnson v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1, Court of Appeal (not certified for publication, 18 ½ page decision!); Rowe v. County of San Diego 2009 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 470 (WCAB panel decision); Balderas v. GTE Corporation 2010 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 270 (WCAB panel decision); Tull v. General Lighting Service (CIGA) 2010 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 391 (WCAB panel decision); Ortiz v. Orange County Transportation Authority, PSI 2012 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 429 (WCAB panel decision); Bates v. WCAB (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 636; 2012 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 80 (writ denied).

© Copyright 2017 Raymond F. Correio. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Blog Post: California: Apportionment Determinations and Petitions to Reopen: A Primer on Methodology published first on http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/rss.aspx