Jan 152019
 

By Gerald

Click on the following link:
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/9123231-rubber-workers-should-be-allowed-to-sue-miners-advocate-says/

Just because the WCA protects employers from civil litigation, there is 
nothing in the “Act” that protects WCB from civil litigation. 
Questionably is why the burden of proof is placed on workers when the 
burden of proof is and always has been on the “Board”.  Not only is the 
burden of proof on the “Board” to prove causation, they also have the 
burden of proof to provide evidence of an alternate cause. If not, the 
claim remains in a neutral state and the benefit of doubt goes to the 
worker.

Determining causation according to the SCC does not depend on medical 
certainty as this is too high a standard and all that is needed is to 
determine that the work environment was a contributing factor, even a 
trivial contributing factor. Workers compensation systems are 
prehistoric remedies that a hundred years ago may have had some 
significance but in today’s world, there are better systems that 
guarantee acceptance of claims without spending decades fighting for 
compensation when a mandatory system that does not depend on causation could be brought in which would more than likely result in getting rid of a lot of deadwood at WCB and forcing doctors to get real jobs rather than providing medical opinions that are based on nothing but their 
opinions.

I have in the last several years assisted two workers, one whose claim 
goes back to 1973 and another to 2009, both long standing claims which 
are now under investigation by WCB due to obvious errors by the WCB, 
DRDRB and the Appeals Commission. I suspect that the decisions were 
deliberate but I cannot prove malice or deliberate denial of the claims, 
therefore I have no choice but to call them errors. As well a Judicial 
Review is coming up on Feb. 20, 2019 specifically on how impairment 
ratings have been illegally used as a direct method of rating a 
disability. On top of this I have the Fair Practice Office attempting to 
determine who has the burden of proof and who has the burden of proof of 
an alternate cause which is how the inquiry system is supposed to operate.

The writer also hit the nail on the head when it is a proven fact that 
workers whose claims and benefits have been illegally denied are being 
supported by taxpayers through our health care plan and social 
services. Of course no government wants to admit that this is the way to 
keep premiums low to benefit the economy.