Dec 142018
 

By Gerald

For people who have been around long enough to see the many  investigative commissions appointed by the Government, no commission has found that it was a good system and there have been numerous  recommendations hoping to improve the system. The problem is that no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it will still be a pig.

Dec 142018
 

By Gerald

Click on the following link:

 https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/opinion-story/9081455-peterborough-letters-wsib-caught-up-in-culture-of-denial/ 

Where have we heard this before with a reference to a culture of denial. This was the findings of Justice Friedman. As usual, the problem with the system is causation. No system can operate when the deciding factor is causation as in most cases no one knows why an injury or disease developed other than to provide opinions that will not and have not stood up in the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC makes a decision and workers compensation systems in Canada ignore the findings of the SCC and carry on as they did before. In Alberta we have a Justice Minister that also ignores the findings of the SCC and allows the Alberta WCB to circumnavigate the law. We have a toothless tiger in charge of WCB and when asked what her responsibilities are by being in charge, there is no answer. The last MLA who was in charge of the WCB, Iris Evans when asked the same question replied that she is not in charge of the WCB, she is responsible only for the WCA which then leaves the question, “who is in charge of WCB”?  

It is about time that a task force be appointed to determine if the system is working. Problem with a question like this is that it is working but only for those workers who suffer an acute injury that after a short healing period, the worker makes a full recovery. The major costs of the system are those 20% of injuries or diseases where the worker never does recover, their claim is terminated and all of these workers apply for Social Services and becomes the responsibility of tax payers. No one has or will ever deny that WCB does in fact deny claims and benefits when a causal relation cannot be determined and the benefit of doubt then goes to employers whose premium are kept artificially low by not having to accept claims and provide benefits. 

I have said it before and I will say it again, the system should be abolished and disability benefits should be paid without causation which is the provided to public servants, many unionized workers and MLA’s themselves who have dual benefits through workers compensation and private disability insurance through most likely Sun Life. When a public servant is injured, suffers any sickness or disease, they immediately receive benefits with out having to fight WCB for 40, 50 or more years. There have been numerous comparisons to the two systems and private insurance is far better than anything that is offered by WCB. It is rare to hear of a worker committing  suicide, attempting suicide or threatening to kill any one who is providing disability insurance privately. When Meredith proposed some sort of disability insurance for workers, there were no private insurers that offered this type of insurance so this was better than nothing and in today’s workers compensation system, nothing is what workers get.

Dec 142018
 

By Gerald

Questionably is why workers are forced into a system that is totally corrupt. Just when a person thinks it could not get worse, it does. It all revolves around causation which is what workers compensation systems thrive on as it employs hundreds or thousands of people, mainly doctors who pretend to know what causes diseases. If these doctors knew what caused any disease, no one would be dying from these diseases. The State of Washington passed legislation to provide presumptive status for workers exposed to nuclear radiation and the U.S. Federal government is suing the State of Washington to overturn the presumptive legislation as the workers employed at the site were workers living in Washington but employed by the Federal Government. This was the headline;

DOJ files suit over Hanford nuclear site presumption bill

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state of Washington on Monday over a presumption law passed earlier this year that cleared red tape in the workers compensation system for people suffering from cancer and other ailments after working at the 75-year-old Hanford nuclear site.

Dec 102018
 

By Gerald

According to the historic agreement, adjudication within the workers compensation system is supposed to be based on an inquiry system, not an adversarial system. At some time in the past, this all changed from an inquiry system to an adversarial system. Rather than a worker being a claimant, they are considered to be the person bringing forth an action as a plaintiff. No one including Notley, Gray, Ganley or the former Conservative Government would explain or define what an inquiry system is based on.

I have had over the last several years, had to argue that the burden of proof is on the Board with Case Managers, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission who are adjudicating claims based on civil law which is clearly the incorrect legal standard in workers compensation.  Yesterday, I talked to a Case Manager who in a case I am representing a worker argued that the burden of proof is on a worker, not the Board. I attempted to explain to her how an inquiry system is supposed to work and she said that has has no idea what an inquiry system is and that all her colleagues place the burden of proof on the worker despite the WCA and WCB policy that clearly places the burden of proof on the Board. I have had that same argument  presented to me by a senior member of the Appeals Commission during a heated discussion at an in person hearing, who is a lawyer and oddly enough makes over $175,000.00 a year as a hearing chair. Her argument was quashed at a Judicial Review by a Court of Queens Bench Judge who had to explain this to the Appeals Commission’s and WCB’s legal counsel how an inquiry system works and how it differs from civil law. 

A number of years ago, I had a letter from a former Minister in charge of WCB who told me that WCB rarely if ever performs any investigations involving a claim because it was to time consuming and expensive thus resulting in numerous claims being denied because WCB did not do their due diligence to perform any investigations and when the claim was illegally denied, the blame for not providing the evidence was placed on the worker who they claim has the burden of proof, not WCB. 

Oddly enough, the Appeals Commission when a worker requests to subpoena a witness or witnesses, the Appeals Commission refers to the Alberta Rules of Court which are rules for civil procedure where a plaintiff who brings an action has to pay for the attendance of witnesses which they should. Why should workers have to pay for the attendance of witnesses when WCB can have witnesses subpoenaed and have the witnesses conduct fees paid out of the accident fund. Questionably is why  WCB Medical Advisors who are the worst offenders when knowingly providing false medical evidence do not have to sign an affidavit to swear that the evidence they are submitting is true and when it is proven to be false, they should be charged and imprisoned.Section 151.1(1) does make it illegal for any one to provide false or misleading information to the Board and that would include their own employees. According to Section 152(1) of the WCA a person can be fined up to a maximum of $25,000.00, a further fine of $10,000.00 a day if the offense continues or in lieu of a fine be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 6 months. Problem is that we have a Justice Minister that would not allow charges against any one in the system, thus negating the WCA. What is the point of enacting laws if these laws are not used to punish people for contravening the law. 

While it cannot be disputed that WCB places the burden of proof on workers, the Appeals Commission also places the burden of proof on the worker. This fact is presented in their rules specific to reconsideration where they do in fact undeniably place the burden of proof on a worker. This is proven by the Appeals Commission stating that “with due diligence, the evidence could have been presented at the previous in person hearing. What evidence could be presented when WCB has exclusive jurisdiction to gather the facts and their own policy directs that they perform a thorough investigation to gather the facts. A good example of this is in a case where a Case Manager lied about the employer offering modified work and the employer and worker both presented evidence that there was no offer of modified work. WCB and the Appeals Commission acknowledged that modified work was never offered but refused to pay the worker the loss of earnings he was entitled to and had been directed by the Court of Queens Bench to pay the worker $9000.00 in earning loss. This was refused by the Appeals Commission who should have complied with the Judge, sent the claim back to WCB and direct that this sum be paid. Instead, Wispinski, the now head of the Appeals Commission represented the Appeals Commission which questions her ethics and sense of decency to represent a body who would defraud a worker from what he was entitled to and his entitlement had been determined by a Judge. The second incident I was involved in and still am is specific to concurrent earnings.  The worker at the time of her injury had two sources of income and WCB did not investigate contrary to the WCA and their own policy. and using only the one income to determine an ELP. Once this was brought to their attention, they denied the second concurrent earnings because they believed that the worker had the burden of proof to provide this evidence. Most, if not all workers have no idea what concurrent earnings are and would not have the knowledge to question WCB as to why only their earnings from the accident was used to determine a loss of earnings. Gathering this evidence is the sole responsibility of WCB, not the worker. These are fundamental questions that WCB must ask a worker during the course of their investigation.  

In reviewing the revised WCA, it appears in the preamble that the purpose of the workers compensation system is to provide appropriate compensation to workers and the central focus of the workers compensation system is the health and well being of workers, this is a lie and is proven to be a lie based on my own personal experience in the workers compensation system. The central focus of all workers compensation system is to protect the accident fund to maintain low premiums for employers to encourage or maintain employment. Accepting claims and benefits destroys jobs and the economy as opposed to denying claims and benefits that increases employment and the economic benefits of low premiums. What was considered the “grand bargain”is not and has not been a grand bargain for workers but has been a grand bargain for employers who cannot be sued and have their premiums subsidized by tax payers who pay taxes and these taxes are used to provide income support for disabled workers through social assistance. As well, Alberta Health Care provides medical care and benefits for disabled workers. No one can deny that this is not true. If it was not true, then then why are there so many disabled workers on social assistance. If a person can name one, one is too many and when naming one, some one else could name other disabled workers who are on social assistance. Why is the Government so secretive about this. Perhaps this would be a request submitted to FOIP. Obviously, the Government knows when a person applies for social services what medical condition they have that is considered to be prolonged and severe and whether the injury or disease is work related or not work related..

If in fact, the Fair Practice Office does determine that the Board has the burden of proof in an inquiry system, the only remedy is to re-adjudicate all long standing claims on the correct legal standard and in compliance with Section 157.1 rather than to continue to believe that the Government and the courts should provide deference to the Appeals Commission when they have been adjudicating claims on the wrong legal standard. While it is not surprising that Case Managers and the DRDRB  would not be expected to understand the difference between an adversarial system and an inquiry system, Appeals Commissioners who earn close to two hundred thousand dollars a year should not be pleading that they were making honest mistakes by using the incorrect legal standard when adjudicating claims.

WCB is sending a message to workers who have long standing claims that to have their claim accepted or to receive any benefits, that a worker must commit suicide, threaten to commit suicide, attempt to commit suicide or threaten to kill WCB employees or Appeals Commissioners. Gregory Jacks committed suicide and WCB apologized to his family and provided compensation to his widow. Another fellow set himself on fire and received compensation. Patrick Clayton threatened to kill WCB employees and was sentenced to prison. When he got out, he received compensation for his work related injuries which indicates that had WCB provided him with compensation he was entitled to, he would have not of had to threaten to kill WCB employees and then be sentenced to prison. I have a copy of one of his checks for fifteen thousand dollars presumably for a NELP as WCB did not explain what the fifteen thousand dollars was for with several hundred thousand dollars still coming in for an ELP. Obviously this should indicate to workers that to receive their entitlements, they have to either commit suicide, threaten to commit suicide, attempt to commit suicide or get a shot gun, take hostages and threaten to kill WCB employees. 

Rather than continue beating my head against a wall arguing with Case Managers, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission, I sent the following letter to the Fair Practice Office who now have to explain what an inquiry system is and who has the burden of proof in an inquiry system.

Fair Practices Office

Braithwaite Boyle Building

602 1701 Centre Street NW

Calgary, Alberta

T2E 7Y2

Dec. 3, 2018

This is a question that needs answering. Workers compensation in Canada is based on an inquiry model, not an adversarial model. There is no one who disagrees that workers compensation is based on an inquiry model, yet there is a reluctance by WCB, DRDRB, Appeals Commission or the Alberta Government to explain how an inquiry system works. The question that seems to be evasive is “who has the burden of proof in an inquiry based system”.

The gold standard for adjudicating claims in Canada is found in Dr. Terrence Ison’s book Workers Compensation in Canada 2nd Edition. According to Dr. Ison who was Canada’s foremost expert on workers compensation systems who is now deceased, he states in his book, “The Acts provide for an inquiry system, not an adversarial system. There is, therefore no burden of proof on any one except the Board. In common law litigation, it is normal to place the burden of proof upon the plaintiff and in medical science, the negative is commonly assumed from the absence of positive data. Neither of these approaches is appropriate to a workers compensation system operating in an inquiry model. The worker, the employer and the attending physician are responsible for supplying information to the Board which is within their power to provide. With regard to any other information that may be required, the obligation rests with the Board to make the necessary inquiries. The absence of any evidence on any point leaves the adjudicator in a neutral position that calls for further inquiry. It is not a ground for any particular conclusion. Where an injury arose in the course of employment, the claim must be allowed unless there is affirmative evidence of an alternate cause and evidence that the employment was not contributory”

In the workers compensation system in Canada, adjudication by WCB, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission is therefore not based on the correct legal standard as the burden of proof has been placed on the worker as evidenced by numerous decisions of the Appeals Commission. As noted by the SCC adjudication in workers compensation systems is based on a lesser standard than civil standards, which ranges from a trivial contributory factor to a balance of probabilities. If a claim remains in the neutral state, the benefit of doubt is supposed to go to the worker. Many claims submitted to WCB have unknown etiologies which should result in a neutral state but the claim is denied despite no evidence to the contrary. If in fact it cannot be determined whether an injury or disease arose out of and occurred in the course of employment, WCB must provide an alternate cause as the negative cannot be assumed from the absence of positive evidence.

On Judicial Review where I was allowed to represent a worker, Justice Bruce Millar had to explain to the Appeals Commission Legal Counsel and WCB Legal Counsel that in an inquiry based system the burden of proof is on the Board and not on a worker. This decision is not on Canlli but I have the transcript of the action and Justice Millar’s explanation. This question was also asked to the Office of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman also verified that in an inquiry system the burden of proof is on the Board.

Section 17(1) of the WCA provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Board to examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under this Act. Read correctly, only the Board has jurisdiction to gather evidence and it would be contrary to the Act for a worker to gather any evidence which thus would prohibit a worker or an employer from having any burden of proof. Section 17(4.1) also provides direction to adjudicators that when a claim remains in a neutral state, the benefit of doubt goes to the worker. Section 20 of the WCA also gives WCB all the powers, privileges and immunities of a commissioner appointed under the Public Inquiries Act. Questionably then with absolute and exclusive jurisdiction to gather evidence, how then could the burden of proof be put on a worker or an employer.

Adding to this is WCB Policy 02-01 Part I, it states in part, “When WCB is notified of an accident, it initiates inquiries to obtain all relevant evidence and adjudicates the eligibility of the claim based on the weight of that evidence” Interpretation 4 of the same policy then states “if the information received on the required reports is not sufficient to adjudicate the claim, WCB is responsible for gathering additional evidence relevant to the claim”This then is contradicted in WCB policy 01-03 Interpretation I where they state “A worker is not required to prove beyond any reasonable doubt in support of a claim for compensation” This would indicate that the worker is required to bear the burden of proof which in essence is typical of an adversarial system and not an inquiry system where the burden of proof is on the Board.

Going into this further, it is apparent that the “but for” test and “material contribution” test that is used in civil law is being applied in the lesser standard of proof in the workers compensation system. This can be found in WCB policy 02-01 Part II Application 7. Curiously, when reading this policy, WCB places the civil standard on themselves as having the burden of proof, yet when adjudicating a claim, they place the burden of proof on workers. Even in civil law, the burden of proof is shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant if the defendant is more knowledgeable then the plaintiff. Refer to the SCC decision cited as Snell v. Farrell. This case was also based on precedence cited by McGhee v National Coal Board. Clearly, WCB is the knowledgeable party, has exclusive jurisdiction to gather the facts and yet places the burden of proof on workers with no burden of proof on employers questioning what system are adjudicators using, an inquiry system and a lesser standard of proof, an adversarial civil standard where workers filing a claim are considered plaintiffs without any defendants as employers rarely bother to get involved resulting in WCB representing employers as the defendants. This being said, how then would workers have the burden of proof. This is an extremely important question that has to be answered as the Fair Practice Office has a responsibility to ensure the correct legal standard is being used when adjudicating claims.

Dec 102018
 

By Gerald

Click on the following link: 
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/12/09/wsib-staffers-decry-chaos-caused-by-broken-system-thats-putting-injured-workers-at-risk.html

Sadly  enough, the system in Alberta has been broken for years and 
questions why the system is not simply abolished as it serves no useful purpose other than to create jobs for doctors who evidently have taken over the system and has become a total disaster. Questionably whether any system can work when the medical profession gets involved and the 
whole adjudication process is based on medical opinions as to causation, work restrictions, impairment ratings, compensation, psychological evaluations.etc. Any body, organization or system that is based on doctors opinions are doomed for failure.  Workers lives are turned upside down by doctors, especially WCB doctors who provide opinions that are totally false and any one with any access to real medical experts or reliable internet medical information can provide a better medical opinion than WCB Medical Advisors who clearly are not medical experts. I have yet to come across a complex claim and I have reviewed hundreds or thousands of claims.

Why ask doctors anything when the Supreme court of Canada has determined that in the workers compensation system, claims should be based on common sense and logic rather than waiting for decades to determine a claim on medical certainty which in the workers compensation system is not required. No one has to spend millions of dollars on medical studies when the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that in all workers compensation systems there only needs to be a trivial probability of a work related cause.

A much better system could be provided by removing causation from the system and simply going to a system where workers are provided compensation without the need for doctors opinions as to what caused the injury or disease. Who cares other than doctors whose livelihoods are maintained through medical piss fights with each other with the worker caught in the middle. Rather than having employers fund the system which is a lie as employers do not have the financial capability of funding the system so the Government subsidizes the system through our tax dollars by having taxpayers provide income support through Social Assistance and Alberta Health Care. To deny this, a person would have to deny motherhood. A much better system could be put into place where 
employers and employees share the cost of premiums with the same agreement where a worker cannot sue the employer or other workers, causation is no longer the deciding factor and every one could get on with their lives with doctors having to work for a living rather than to prey on workers and fill the heads of ignorant Case Managers, DRDRB deadheads and worse yet the apathetic deadhead Appeals Commission who have been given absolute power to destroy peoples lives whose decisions cannot be overturned by the Minister in charge of these retards who in reality are in charge of the Minister.

We elect governments to be innovative, not to carry on with a dead horse that has long been dead but every one is attempting to resuscitate a horse that has been dead so long that all of the body cavities are filled with rot and maggots. We have had numerous investigations over the last 40 to 50 years and none of these investigations have found anything good about the system and attempting to fix the system has been a dismal failure.

Dec 032018
 

#WorkersCompIsARight December Week Of Action

Join us for a province-wide week of action from December 10th to the 14th, and take a stand for fairness for injured workers! We’re kicking the week off in Toronto with a rally on Monday December 10 at 11:30am outside the Ministry of Labour.

This year, the conservative government and WSIB have been the Grinch trying to steal workers’ compensation. They’ve teamed up to give employers a $1.5 billion gift, in the form of a massive reduction to their premium rates – that’s the money that’s needed to provide compensation for people who need it. Meanwhile, injured workers are struggling with poverty and homelessness.

Doug Ford’s promise of being “for the little guy” rings hollow in the face of this reality. And as we’ve seen from the government attacks on workers across the board, the “Ontario open for business” slogan really means they want to open workers to exploitation.

Well, we won’t stand for that. We’ve got a province-wide week of action to say “Workers’ Comp Is A Right”, and “injured workers need Real Healthcare!”

See details below for events in Barrie, Hamilton, Niagara, Thunder Bay, Toronto, and Windsor, and stay tuned to our Facebook Event Page for info on actions elsewhere in Ontario as they crop up, and join the one nearest you!

For more information, or to organize your own activity, please contact workerscompisaright@gmail.com.

Barrie
Action December 10 at 10am at the Service Ontario office – 34 Simcoe St
Contact barriedistrictiwg@yahoo.ca for more info

Hamilton
Action Wednesday December 12 at 11am at the WSIB office – Bay & King (outside Jackson Square)
Contact hamiltoninjuredworkers@hdiwg.net for more info

Niagara
Action December 11 at noon at the WSIB office – 301 St. Paul St
Contact niagara.injured.worker.group@gmail.com for more info

Thunder Bay
Rally December 10 at 12:00pm at the WSIB office – 113 Jade Ct
For more info, contact tbiwsg@gmail.com

Toronto
Rally December 10 at 11:30am at the Ministry of Labour – 400 University Ave
For more info, contact workerscompisaright@gmail.com

Windsor
Action December 11 at 4pm at the WSIB office – 2485 Ouellette Ave
Event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/580982822337018/

Together we will win this,

#WorkersCompIsARight

Nov 252018
 

From Injured Workers Online:

Workers’ compensation: morality versus the business case

The experience of being injured at work and claiming workers’ compensation can greatly influence injured workers’ possibilities for rehabilitation and successful return to work. A new study examines why some claims are prolonged, conflicted and frequently associated with confrontational interactions between Ontario workers and others in the compensation system including employers and workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WCB/WSIB) staff. A doctoral thesis  by Dana Howse – Injured Workers’ Moral Engagement in the Compensation System: The Social Production of Problematic Claiming Experience (University of Toronto, Nov. 2017) – examines claiming from the perspective of injured workers in Ontario who have experienced difficult claims.

Her study points to radically different views of our workers’ compensation system. Based on interviews with injured workers, advocates and health care providers, she found that these injured workers experienced and understood the workers’ compensation system in moral terms: they see workers’ compensation as part of our justice system and evaluate experiences in terms of what is just and unjust, fair and unfair. However, the WSIB’s texts and practices reflected a neo-liberal view of the system where the goals are administrative and financial cost efficiency and policies and procedures are created or changed to achieve them. To move forward and  improve circumstances for injured workers with difficult claims, Dr. Howse suggests the WSIB reconsider its practices and the way its understanding of workers’ compensation is seen by injured workers…  [read ONIWG commentary and Plain language summary and full thesis]

  • Presentation Dec. 7, 10 a.m. EST:  Dr Howse will be discussing her study Friday December 7th  – sign in to the live stream at ONIWG’s Facebook 
    (If you don’t see the streaming video when you arrive at the page, wait a few minutes and try refreshing the page)
Nov 142018
 

By Gerald

Click on the following link:
https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news-story/9029941-after-nearly-24-year-wait-wsib-approves-claim-in-1995-cancer-death-of-general-electric-peterborough-worker/

This is a long standing claim that was reviewed and accepted after 24
years. Questionably is why it took 24 years to be accepted when the
courts have determined that claims do not have to be based on scientific
evidence. Claims are to be determined based on a contributing factor
which according to the courts range from a trivial contributing factor
to a probable factor. If there is no evidence to the contrary, the claim
remains in a neutral state and the benefit of doubt by law has to go to
the worker.

If in fact the NDP would honor the commitment made by the former
Conservative Government and open up all long standing claims, most if
not all of the claims would be accepted based on adjudicating the claims
on a lesser standard than the civil law standard that has been used
illegally by the Alberta WCB and the Appeals Commission.

Nov 122018
 

By Gerald

Questionably is what kind of morons would enact a law as stupid as Section 17(4) of the WCA which states; Each matter shall be decided on the merits and justice of the case and the Board is not bound to follow any previous decisions or ruling of the Board as a precedent in reaching its decisions or making its rulings.This in effect would interact and bring into effect human rights legislation or section 15.1 of the charter as it is illegal to treat individuals differently.While it is apparent that the drafters of the legislation gave discretion to the Board, discretion to rely on previous decisions or precedence, this results in discrimination when one or more workers receive compensation and others don’t. On review of a multitude of Appeals Commission decisions, it is evident that there is a cesspool of incidents of differential treatment. When the Board provide benefits or compensation to one or some disabled workers and with hold the same benefits from one or other disabled workers based on identical claims, this obviously brings human rights into the claim. The WCA is subservient to human rights legislation as legislated in Section 1(1) of the Human Rights Act which states; “Unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the legislature, that it operates withstanding this Act, every law in Alberta is inoperative to the extent that it authorizes or requires the doing of anything prohibited by this Act” Can WCB provide benefits or compensation to white workers and withhold benefits or compensation from visible minorities. I think not. Using this as an analogy, it is evident that WCB must treat all workers equally by providing equal benefits. In order to comply with human right legislation, if one worker receives benefits for a specific injury, then all workers must be treated equally and all receive the same benefits that were provided to another worker.

Decisions must be consistent based on precedence. With thousands of claims, on review every claim when compared to other claims become identical but result in different decisions which is reason for a human rights complaint. Differential treatment is illegal and contrary to the human rights act and section 15.1 of the charter. Once a decision has been made, all decisions must have the same result.

I have chosen two claims that were brought to my attention, both claims are specific to  diagnosis of dry mouth and medical marijuana so I will keep my analysis to these specific issues.

The reason why I am pointing this out is now that marijuana is legal and proven to be beneficial for chronic pain, rather than prescribing opioids which have very serious side effects and has resulted in thousands of accidental over doses or deliberate suicides. Based on common sense and in compliance with human rights legislation, if one worker is prescribed marijuana and WCB pays for it, all workers must receive the same benefits if prescribed by a physician. If not, a worker can file a human rights complaint based on prima facie evidence to support the complaint by simply going to Canlii and read the Appeals Commission decisions.

It is relatively easy to determine if a worker is being treated differently by simply using Canlii as the source to gather evidence of differential treatment. Go to Canlii and click on Alberta. Scroll down to Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers Compensation Board and click on that. In the document part, input marijuana or dry mouth. Every claim from 2003 to 2018 will come up. Using the document part as a reference, you can input anything that is of interest. Using Canlii as a reference you can also determine how decisions were made in every province in Canada.  This is also useful in determining how the courts determine certain issues. For example: in the document text for “dry mouth” Decision 2010-253 by the Alberta Appeals Commission determined that dry mouth was caused by opioids. Therefore, every worker who are taking opioids and diagnosed with “dry mouth” must be treated equally. By inputting “marijuana” Decision 2018-0463 by the Appeals Commission determined that WCB must pay for medical marijuana. Once one worker is receiving medical aid for medical marijuana, then all workers must be treated equally. Being treated differently is a valid human rights complaint and a person would be able to provide a comparative individual or group of individuals who received benefits that a worker complainant did not receive.

Questionably is who are the morons who enacts laws that are illegal under the workers compensation act. For example Section 24(1)(a) is illegal as was determined by the courts simply because workers compensation is based on a no fault system. Crap like this must be rescinded rather than to have morons denying claims without questioning the validity of the statute or WCB policy. Section 24 (3) is even worse. If a worker is found dead where the worker had the right to be, it is presumed that his/her death arose out of and during the course of the worker’s employment. That being said if a worker fell off a 15 story building and was not using fall protection, the most logical thing to do would be to get some one to hit you over the head with a hammer repeatedly until you died as if a worker was to survive and the worker broke safety rules, the claim would be denied. Better dead than having a claim denied and workers not being able to support themselves or their family. What a crock of shit. Section 24 (2) also is questionable as WCB did not provide benefits for serious injuries until 2013 as in order to receive benefits they injuries had to be severe according to WCB policy. No one knew the difference between a serious injury or a severe injury until 2000 when the definition of “severe” was finally defined. Any injury that is prolonged is now considered to be severe and if it is not prolonged, then it is serious. WCB did change the definition in their policy 04-07 Part I but never told any one as the change would have resulted in workers whose injuries were prolonged would be entitled to back pay and life time pensions. This is the shit show that goes on but what can be expected when no one is in charge of this wretched and corrupt organization.

Nov 112018
 

By Gerald

I have been requested to inquire why recipients of Social Services
payments are forced to apply for CPP pensions when they reach the age of
60 and threatened that if they do not, their benefits will be cut off.
This is something the Alberta WCB did a number of years ago to reduce
the amount WCB paid workers by clawing back CPP pensions even though
workers had paid 50% of the premiums for CPP. Of course this is illegal
but being that there is no one in charge of WCB, they are allowed to do
whatever they choose to do.

As you know or should know most of the people on Social Services are
disabled workers who have had their claims and benefits illegally
denied, thereby forcing tax payers to subsidize WCB premiums that are
supposed to be paid by employers. As you know or should know, applying
for CPP pensions at age 60 reduces the amount of a CPP pension by 30%
when a person reaches 65.  The 30% reduction is calculated by a
reduction of 6% per year for every year prior to the age of 65. Forcing
recipients to apply for CPP benefits 5 years early reduces their CPP
pensions by a significant amount resulting in seniors having to live in
poverty rather than having the extra 30% for necessities of life. Of
course no one gives a rats ass bout disadvantaged people so they are
kicked to the curb.

Are you aware of this or is Ms. Notley aware of this and if both of you
are and you allow this it is little wonder why people don’t bother to
vote as if you reach into a barrel of assholes, you pull out an asshole.
Will you or Ms. Notley reply to me which you probably will not even
though your salary and benefits are paid by myself as well as other tax
payers who ask legitimate questions.

I believe that the money that has been clawed back by forcing recipients
to apply for early CPP retirement benefits be returned and at the age of
65, the Alberta Government make up the 30% reduction in CPP pensions to
each and every one of the people who were forced to apply for CPP
benefits at age 60. What do you think?