Nov 162018
 

By Gerald

I represented two workers at two in person hearings with a member of the DRDRB on Nov. 14, 2018. The first claim was an appeal of decision to deny house keeping allowance, home maintenance allowance and personal care allowance. Two WCB policies were discussed which were WCB policy 04-07 Part I and II and WCB Policy 04-10 Part I and II. The DRDRB specialist had to have it explained to him how to interpret a serious injury from a severe injury. I had to explain to him that a severe injury was an injury that was prolonged and a serious injury was an injury that was not prolonged. The definition of a severe injury had changed in 2000 by WCB to conform with medical sciences definition by using the word prolong to define a severe injury. This change was also made by the Federal Government by Services Canada to comply with the definition of a severe injury. Severe injury was also defined by AISH. Obviously an injury cannot be considered to be severe if the injury is not prolonged as injuries that are not prolonged will result in total recovery. Having said that, WCB has been defrauding workers since 2000 who have been diagnosed with severe injuries that are prolonged and did not pay them to what they were entitled.

The next issue we discussed was the difference between an impairment and a disability which he argued is the same thing which it is not and was determined in 1993 that an impairment rating was not the same as a disability rating. This also was determined by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Yukon Supreme Court. Questionably is whether he could read and comprehend as he stated that he had read the case specific to the Penny case by the Court of Queens Bench and subsequently appealed to the the Alberta Court of Appeal. According to him the Alberta Court of Appeal over turned the decision of the Court of Queens Bench which if any one can read, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the Alberta Court of Queens Bench and dismissed the appeal of the Appeals Commission. The Penny decision was also reviewed by two Appeals Commissioner Rodney Fong (lawyer) and J. McKenna (lawyer) who also claimed that the Alberta Court of Appeal had over turned the decision of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench. Any one who can read knows that the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Appeals Commission and upheld the decision of the Court of Queens Bench that had determined that using impairment ratings to determine a disability was not in compliance with the “Act”

For those interested in checking what I have said about Fong and McKenna being idiots who can’t read, go to Appeals Commission decision on Canlii cited as 2016-0810go down to para 68 and 69 and this is all the proof a person needs to show what kind of idiots that are selected by the Government to adjudicate claims. The other idiot involved in this was Jossa who along with Fong are no longer Appeals Commissioners although McKenna is still there. What is needed is to do a whole shakeup of the entire Appeals Commission, terminate them all and attempt to select intelligent people rather than idiots who cannot read. On Feb. 20, 2019 we will be going to court to have this issue of impairment and disability being settled, once and for all.

Nov 162018
 

By Gerald

Most people are aware that lawyers have very little or no integrity or principles which is evident when performing surveys involving trust. Lawyers are always at the bottom of the list. The case I am presenting is why all long standing claims must be reheard by unbiased, knowledgeable people with integrity. Grandfathering claims that has resulted in grievous harm to workers should be as important as grandfathering the grievous harm caused by Governments to natives and the grievous harm done to Albertans who were forcefully sterilized due to the governments belief in eugenics. Much of the harm done to workers should fall under the criminal code based on criminal fraud not honest mistakes and the people involved including Wispinski  incarcerated. Aiding and abetting criminal action is an indictable offense. Should the Appeals Commission be headed by some one who has allegedly committed an indictable offense. I think not.

The case I am presenting may be be found on Canlii although the Judicial Review presided by Justice Millar was not put on Canlii for obvious reasons because the harm it could of caused WCB and the Appeals Commission. This particular claim goes back to 2007 when the worker was injured although he is still fighting two claims specific to work related accidents that happened 45 years ago. In the 2007 accident, unbeknown to the employer, the worker applied for the job despite the fact that he was on CPP disability and also AISH because WCB on the two previous claims dating back 45 years illegally denied his benefits that he was entitled to. The Case Manager (Neil Swancar) had advised the worker that he was unemployable and that he must lie or hold back any information about his medical condition to obtain work. He followed the directions of Mr. Swancar and on the first day of work slipped on some stairs, fell into a pile of rocks and had to go to the emergency in Olds, Alberta where he was found to have suffered internal injuries and was passing blood in his urine. WCB accepted his claim and a WCB doctor, Dr. Henderson opined he would recover in 3 months. The workers Case Manager told the worker that the employer had offered modified work which was a lie and verified by the employer that it was a lie. The intent by the Case Manager, Carole Couture was to terminate his claim to claim her bonus provided to all Case Managers by WCB to terminate claims. This practice was verified by John Wollcott, another Case Manager with WCB who claimed all Case Managers did this.

This claim went through the appeals process and two years later, without any investigation by WCB, at an in in person hearing the Appeals Commission determined that the worker was not entitled to a temporary total earning loss for 3 months but was only entitled to a one month temporary earning loss because according to the Case Manager, Carole Couture modified work had been offered but the worker refused the offer of modified work. Questionably is why the Appeals Commission would not have simply sent the claim back to WCB and directed that there be a written offer of modified work from the employer rather than to assume that the Case Manager was honest which questions their decision making capabilities. Stupid people do stupid things. Needless to say, the Appeals Commission directed that WCB pay one month loss of earnings and denied the additional two months loss of earnings because they assumed that the employer had offered modified work because the Case Manager said that the employer offered modified work.

Undaunted we then put in a claim for a temporary partial loss of earnings which was denied by another Case Manager. Her decision was upheld by the DRDRB even though over 3 years later, WCB had still not investigated or contacted the employer as to whether modified work was ever offered. On appeal to the second group of misfits (3 stooges selected as Appeal Commissioners) I requested that the employer and the Case Manager be subpoenaed to prove that no offer of modified work had ever been made. This request was denied because the 3 stooges decided that documentary evidence was adequate to make a decision which as any fool knows, documentary evidence is only accepted by fools and is rarely or ever used in real courts presided by real judges rather than the stooges or monkeys selected by the Government who are as dumb as the people they select.

During the in person hearing, a question was asked by a member of the Appeals Commission, Patty Whiting if modified work was discussed which was a stupid question as discussing modified work is not the same as offering modified work. Rather than answering the question, the employer replied that had he known the worker had work restrictions was on CPP disability and AISH, he would not have hired him in the first place. This seemed to go over the 3 stooges heads and the claim for temporary partial loss of earnings to the end of May was again denied. We requested a reconsideration based on the fact that I contacted the employer and asked if he had ever offered modified work through the Case Manager or  contacted the worker directly to offer modified work and his reply was that he did not at anytime offer modified work. Not getting any where with these assholes who clearly should have or could have been replaced by monkeys we chose to go to Judicial Review.

The Appeals Commission and WCB in their statement of defense, suggested that the burden of proof was on me to prove that modified work was not offered and suggested that during the in person hearing attended by the employer via teleconferencing that I should have asked the employer if he had offered modified work. The issue of modified work should have been cleared up at the initial stages of WCB’s investigation and not having me having to ask a question that the Appeals Commission should have considered and not after the fact blame me for not asking a question that WCB by law and policy were responsible for obtaining during an investigation. In Justice Millar’s decision the decision to deny the claim was based on their belief that the burden of proof was on me and that it was up to me to contact the employer or ask the employer at the in person hearing if modified work was presented. Per verbatim, Justice Millar replied to this, “with respect, this appears to be the flimsiest of evidence with respect to the offer of modified work.When confronted with Mr. Miller’s repeated denials that no modified work had been offered and no written documentation had been produced, the decision of the Appeal Commission in this regard is under review, which would be respected if it is reasonable. In my view, it was not reasonable. The case notes of the WCB Case Manager is barely worthy of note and amounts to an absence of evidence. To suggest that the Appeals Commission needs more evidence by suggesting Mr. Miller had an opportunity to ask the employer has some merit. However as noted by the applicant, this is an inquiry system, not an adversarial system.  Justice Millar after rendering his decision, he stated per verbatim, “In the result, I find the approach of the Appeals Commission was not reasonable. It is for the Appeals Commission to determine if they will require some written confirmation of the offer of modified work or in its absence, subpoena the employer with a notice to attend to confirm the offer of modified employment. That question should be referred back to the Appeals Commission for a reconsideration with a new panel”  The claim was referred back to the Appeals Commission and they refused to contact the employer as they knew that there was never any offer of modified work, they knew the Case Manager had lied and they knew they had naively believed her making them look like fools. Not wanting to look like fools, they denied the claim for a second time stating again that the burden of proof was on me and that I should have asked the employer at the in person hearing if modified work had been offered despite the fact that Justice Millar had already determined that in an inquiry system, there is no burden of proof on any one other than the “Board” who had not done their due diligence and performed a thorough investigation. Note: in this particular workers claim, it was determined that there need not be a written offer of modified work and when looking on Canlii on an Appeals Commission decision, an employer appealed a decision of the DRDRB specific to whether there need be a written offer of modified work and the Appeals Commission determined that there must be a written offer of modified work, signed by the worker and the employer and dismissed the appeal of the employer because the worker had not received the written offer of modified work because the written offer of modified work went to the wrong address and was therefore not signed by the worker. Either a written offer of modified work is required in all cases or a written offer of modified work is not required. This would be a valid complaint to the human rights commission based on differential treatment. I suspect that every claim would result in differential treatment and result in a human rights complaint due to inconsistent decisions that result in discrimination.

According to the principles of stare decisis ( When an issue has been been preciously brought to court and a ruling issued) the same issue cannot be brought back to be re-adjudicated) The principles of res judicata (an issue that has been determined by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties) and as well the principles of issue estoppel. After denying the claim for a second time we again had to request another Judicial Review. Rather than WCB having their Legal Counsel represent WCB and Wispinski represent the Appeals Commission, Wispinski represented both WCB and the Appeals Commission which clearly was a conflict of interest as the Appeals Commission is supposed to be a neutral body, not a body representing WCB. Representation was discussed with Yamauchi and Wispinski made it quite clear to Yamauchi that she would not allow me to represent the worker because it was apparent that I knew more than her and after two of their senior legal counsel losing the case before Justice Millar, she could not allow me to represent the worker. Rather than Wispinski doing the right thing and acknowledging that there was never an offer of modified work, an honest person with any integrity would have advised the court that she could not defend the Appeals Commission to criminally defraud the worker out of the two months entitlement for a temporary loss of earnings making her an accessory to an indictable offense which is criminal fraud. Based on the same evidence that was before Justice Millar, Justice Yamauchi should not have allowed the Judicial Review to proceed based on the principle of stare decisis and not disagreeing with Justice Millar and disrespectfully disagreeing with Justice Millar determining that we had the burden of proof in determining whether modified work was offered or that I should have requested this information at the in person hearing which is patently unreasonable as this should have been determined by WCB who were not in compliance with their own policy by not investigating the claim two years before the in person hearing. We could have appealed the decision of Yamauchi to the Alberta Court of Appeal but with limited finances, the worker like thousands of other workers face the procedural unfairness of having to pay for a lawyer while both the Appeals Commission and WCB use money out of the accident fund that belongs to workers which does not belong to them but is held in trust by WCB and not to be used to bully workers into not going to the courts for Judicial Review.

It is apparent that the whole reason by the Appeals Commission not complying with justice Millar’s directive was to teach us a lesson after they had lost the court battle between their senior legal counsel, WCB’s senior legal counsel and I by making this a vindictive and retaliatory lesson for workers who would dare question their expertise in adjudicating claims and then making them all look like fools.

Still not backing off, we filed a multi-million dollar civil action suit against the Appeals Commission suspecting that their statement of defense would be based on Section 13.1 (9) of the WCA which removes or forbids any action against the Appeals Commission if their decision was made in the honest belief that it was within the Appeals Commission to make. Having them admit they made a mistake in denying the claim was worth the $200.00 it cost to file the civil action. Despite in the statement of defense, they admitted to making an honest mistake, they still refused to apologize or pay the worker the $8,000.00 dollars they owed him which questions the integrity of Wispinski and Tadman who should have sent the claim back to WCB directing that WCB pay the worker..

Having experienced shit like this I do not question why workers take the law into heir own hands and seek revenge. According to the criminal code, it is legal to take the law into your own hands when local authorities refuse to protect you as long as you use reasonable force. At the time that Patrick Clayton decided to take matters into his own hands in all the forums that I read, most people agreed with what he done. I also believed that he was justified what he did and in a CBC interview, I expressed my views and when asked if I believed that incidents like this would happen again, my reply was, most certainly it would.

The WCA was changed in 2018 specifically to how the WCB BoD must be selected. The same selection process should be used to select Appeals Commissioners as per Section 5(1.1) effective in 2018 where an equal number of Appeals Commissioners are selected from a list of persons chosen by workers, an equal number selected from a list chosen by employers and an equal list chosen by members of the public rather than now where Appeals Commissioners are chosen based on their political affiliation. There is presently 43 Appeals Commissioners which would mean if this method was put into place, the Government would select 14 Appeals Commissioners from the lists presented by injured workers groups, 14 Appeals Commissioners representing employers and 14 Appeals Commissioners representing the general public. As any monkey could serve as the Chief of the Appeals Commission, this selection could come from the Calgary zoo. At present, at an in person hearing there are no worker representatives and is the reason why over half of the appeals are denied because when choosing the three panel members to serve at in person hearings, all are professional, business, management, former government employees, lawyers, former WCB employees, union business managers with only one of the Appeals Commissioners (Stephan Dussault who has only been in Alberta for 5 years and has never participated in any in person Appeal Commission hearings) being a blue collar worker.

There needs to be some one in charge of the of the WCB and the Appeals Commission as at present no one is in charge or taking responsibility for the corruption that workers experience. Incidentally, I did hear that the person selected to be the head of the Fair Practices Office would be Tadman.

Nov 082018
 

By Gerald

While reviewing case law I came across a decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal which I had to read several times. I always thought that when a worker filed a claim that WCB was the unbiased neutral party.  Apparently this is not so as explained in a decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal. Click on the following link and scroll down to paragraph 83 https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2005/2005abca276/2005abca276.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGZGF2aWNrAAAAAAE&resultIndex=3

According to the court it is stated that;  As to the third and fourth factors, it should be noted that Klemke has a more limited interest in this process than the WCB or Mr. Davick. Here, the ultimate dispute is between the worker and the WCB, as any awarded benefits are paid from WCB coffers. The employer has an indirect financial interest only, through a possible increase in WCB premiums.

It would be fair to conclude that when a worker files a claim that WCB takes on the role of the defendant representing the employer who has only an indirect role in the claim and any dispute is between the worker and WCB This being the case, how then would this not give a reasonable apprehension of bias if the dispute is between a worker and WCB with no direct interest by the employer. This certainly is some bastardized part of the law which obviously is not a civil legal standard or any other legal standard. 

Jun 212018
 

By Gerald

WCB policy 03-01 Part II Application 7 specific to chronic pain and chronic pain syndrome is broken down into two parts, one part of the policy is specific to chronic pain and the other part of the policy is specific to chronic pain syndrome. According to the policies and how they are interpreted by WCB, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission, workers diagnosed with chronic pain will not receive full compensation benefits as would other workers who are diagnosed with discernible organic diagnosis. Workers diagnosed with chronic pain may receive treatment only as per WCB policy, with no monetary benefits or any rehabilitation benefits. Clearly, this is discrimination. WCB policy 03-01 Part II Question 2 states in part: “WCB may consider treatment for chronic pain” but only if chronic pain has the prescribed characteristics found in question 2. WCB Policy 03-01 Part II Question 3 states in part; “chronic pain syndrome may be compensable” meaning that chronic pain syndrome is compensable ( Compensation is based on loss of earnings,  if a worker meets all the prescribed conditions as well as marked life disruption

If a worker is diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome, according to WCB policy, they will receive full compensation which would include monetary benefits and vocational rehabilitation which also results in discrimination against workers diagnosed with chronic pain who only receive treatment for chronic pain and is contrary to to Alberta Human Rights Legislation and Section 15.1 of the Charter. This is not rocket science and questions what convinced Smallwood and Mason to  dismiss my complaint despite being upheld by the Southern Regional Director (Pardeep Gundara), the Southern Regional Investigator, Shirleen McGovern( Lawyer) and the Director’s Legal Counsel, Jim Foster. Questionably is if WCB paid Mason and Smallwood to dismiss the complaint because the overwhelming cost of having to rehear all claims involving chronic pain and having to pay workers hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution along with interest for the benefits workers are supposed to be entitled to. The complaint was so simple that any moron should have been able to understand, yet Smallwood and Mason dismissed the complaint based on what they considered to be lack of prima facie evidence to support the complaint. Clearly if workers diagnosed with chronic pain  would only receive treatment, no monetary benefits, no vocational rehabilitation, they are not being treated equally but clearly being treated differently than other workers who received full monetary benefit.

As every one knows or should know, Section 56 of the WCA provides a lifelong pension for an impairment rating that WCB were using illegally as a direct method of rating a disability. That has been factually proven by the Alberta C of QB and the Alberta Court of Appeals, the courts in Nova Scotia and the Courts in the Yukon. This means that in order to be assessed a PPD in compliance with Section 56,  a worker must receive a PCI rating. If a worker does not receive a PCI rating, a worker would not be entitled to a PPD and life time pension meaning that all workers diagnosed with chronic pain would not receive a PCI rating, no PPD rating and no lifetime pension. PCI ratings are derived from the Alberta Guides and if the Alberta Guides are silent or deficient, then a physician in order to provide a PCI rating may use the AMA Guides latest edition. The Alberta Guides do not and and to this day never have provided a PCI rating for chronic pain which leaves only the AMA Guides that did not provide a PCI rating for chronic pain until 2007 when the AMA Guides 6th Edition were published. Questionably then if all workers must be assessed a PCI rating, what “Guides” did WCB use to assess a PCI rating prior to 2007.  Impairment ratings cannot fluctuate by any more than 10% which would mean that physicians had to have some sort of guidelines to ensure consistency. No one in WCB can answer this question as no one knows how they could have assessed a PCI rating without any “Guides” Further questioning is, “can foreign doctors who have no standings in Alberta or Canada determine on behalf of WCB what compensation workers in Alberta will receive. In my legal opinion, this would be illegal. No one at this time knows who provided the impairment ratings for the Alberta Guides and we know that American physicians provided impairment ratings for the AMA Guides meaning that foreign physician are in fact determining what benefits workers in Alberta would receive.

Worse yet because impairment ratings do not measure a workers ability to work, workers who were diagnosed with erectile dysfunctions, had difficulty reaching an orgasm, brushing their teeth, defecating, urinating prior to Jan 1, 1995 would receive up to a 15% PPD rating for the rest of their lives when WCB were illegally using impairment ratings as a direct method to determine a PPD rating and after Jan 1, 1995 would receive a 15% lump sum payment for a NELP as opposed to workers diagnosed with chronic pain who received nothing  but treatment  How then could Mason and Smallwood determine that workers diagnosed with chronic pain were being treated equally. Receiving no benefits other than treatment for chronic pain while other workers receive full benefits such as a loss of earnings, vocational rehabilitation and as well medical treatment would not be considered to be equal treatment.

Any one who claims that the administrative law system is far better than having claims heard in the courts has to have rocks in their head. Administrative law systems and adjudication by morons who have no training in medicine, no training in law, have no idea how to interpret legislation, regulations or WCB policy should not be adjudicating claims when no one has a clue what they are doing has no advantage over having claims heard in the courts under civil law. Administrative systems could work if we had a Justice Minister who was an expert in administrative law as it pertains to workers compensation, a minister in charge of WCB who knew the system inside out and a premier who also was an expert in administrative law as it pertains to workers compensation. Unfortunately this is not the case with all of the a fore named people having as much of a clue as the people adjudicating claims. If administrative law  was better why is it that claims that go back nearly 50 years are still being disputed and there are thousands of disputed claims with many workers simply giving up or committing suicide. The same crap that existed when the Conservative Government were in power is the same crap that will continue during the time the NDP Government is in power with very minor changes being made to a corrupt and badly managed system to the detriment of workers. Anything worth doing is worth doing right and if you cannot do it right, scrap the entire system, entitle workers to social services benefits and allow workers to sue the employer under the rules of civil procedure and not give workers the false sense of security that this is an inquiry based system and all they have to do is file a claim if they are injured and WCB will look after them. This is nothing more than a crock of shit and not realized by workers until they are injured, only to find they are on the outside looking in.

The whole system is convoluted and ambiguous with no one including the Office of the Ombudsman. I requested that the Office of the Ombudsman make this determination as to whether the system is an Inquiry system or an Adversarial system. The answer to this was that when a claim is filed, it is an Inquiry system and the burden of proof is on the “Board” It becomes an Adversarial system when a worker appeals the decision of the Case Manager  according to the Office of the Ombudsman. According to Justice Millar who presided over a Judicial Review which we won, the system is based on an Inquiry system and remains an Inquiry system throughout a claim. Question is, does any one really know how the system works. You would think that after over 100 years that the system would be a smooth running system rather than a system that no one can explain the purpose and philosophy of workers compensation and if it is even required being that the majority of workers wind up on Social Services or CPP Disability.

Mar 042018
 

By Gerald

Click on the following link: http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/investigations/2018/01/22/dueling-doctors-muddle-compensation-claims/1041800001/

Based upon my own research and reading articles like this, it is apparent that the workers compensation system is broken in all States and Provinces. Being that the system in Alberta is beyond repair perhaps it is about time that the Government appoint another Review Panel that is far more knowledgeable of how the system works rather than appoint former bureaucrats that know very little about how the system works and how to fix it. To suggest that the system in Alberta is not corrupt indicates the total ignorance of people like Gray, Ganley and Notley when it can be proven that WCB Legal Services have lied to the courts, lied to the Human Rights Commission. I shall commence in my next e-mail to explain how WCB has deliberately defrauded workers by citing WCAT decisions and Court decisions supporting me.

Feb 062017
 

By Gerald

I believe that it is deplorable what has happened to this couple who were only attempting to help farm workers. What they accomplished is admirable and as long as farm worker’s injuries are short term acute injuries that result in total recovery, workers compensation is a good system for all workers, however if any worker’s injuries or disease is determined to have an unknown cause or the injury does not result in total recovery, farm workers will realize just like every other worker
that the system does not work and that there is a culture of denial. Farm workers like every other worker will be faced with poverty,  marital breakdowns, suicide and homicidal ideations when legitimate claims are turned down or farm workers are deemed to be able to perform some imaginary job and paid in imaginary earnings and then have their claim terminated.

Click on the following
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/eric-musekamp-darlene-dunlop-life-after-bill-6-1.3945333link;