EAMS Document Separator Sheet (form 10232.2) Date Bug

Closed Forum - older posts now retired. This forum is read only. You can search and view posts in this forum but you cannot reply or create new posts in this forum.
Post Reply
LMSSC
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:46 pm

EAMS Document Separator Sheet (form 10232.2) Date Bug

#1

Post by LMSSC » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:19 pm

Dear Michael,

One of our Secretaries, Elaine, discovered a minor bug with WC EAMS DWC-CA Document Separator Sheet (form 10232.2).

Versions:
A1 Version: 6.7.7A
Verified on Windows 2000 & Windows XP - Adobe Reader 9.2

-In the "Document Date" area if you type in the year as 09 rather than 2009 (for example 12/03/09), it:

1. Shows a Warning Box: "Warning Javascript Window. Warning! Future Date Entered. May be Invalid."

This makes sense if the date entered was in the future... but it has this issue with today's date as well as dates in the past.

2. It fixes the date to the full MM/DD/YYYY format (which is good). However if you click back in the box it changes it back to the format you typed it in.

So if you typed it in as: 12/03/09... it would fix it to 12/03/2009... but if you click back in the box it changes it back to 12/03/09.

Hope this helps!
Sincerely,
Michael Lerner
Network Administrator
Lerner, Moore, Silva, Cunningham & Rubel
www.injuryatwork.com
(909) 889-1131

Anonymous User

Re: EAMS Document Separator Sheet (form 10232.2) Date Bug

#2

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:28 pm

You're right however it's the official EAMS document sep sheet from the DWC web site so you'll have the same problem with their form. Another (and possibly better) solution is to use the A1-Law EAMS form. So, rather than use form 10862, use the Sep Sheet Package (almost at the top of the list) form 10888 or form 10887 as an example. You may easily copy these forms below form 10000 and create your own sep sheets for any situation already filled out. You can create one or several sep sheet packages depending on what you often need them form.

Mike

Post Reply