Nov 112018

Additional note from Donna: Check out the background of the Appeals Commission panel. The deck could be stacked – for example, ex case managers, lawyers that just work for Appeals Commission. How could a worker get justice? Many of them were appointed politically years and years ago. Could they be biased?

By Gerald

Click on the following link;

In New Brunswick, they give absolute power to the Appeals Commission and
when the Appeals Commission are doing their due diligence, the
Government and employers want to legislate changes to take away their
power. New Brunswick  has the highest rate of overturning WCB decisions
as opposed to the Alberta Appeals Commission who have the lowest rate of
overturning WCB decisions and is why New Brunswick employers pay more
than double than employers in Alberta, thus supporting Justice Friedman
that the Alberta appeals process is seriously flawed resulting in a
culture of denial.

If employers want their premiums reduced, the answer is very simple.
Introduce safe work practices so that when workers go to work in perfect
health, they should return home in perfect health. If not, then instead
of fining employers put them in jail, not give some Mickey Mouse fine. I
can assure any one if employers were incarcerated for any work injuries,
there would be very few accidents and premiums would be reduced.
Encouraging employers to create unsafe work environments by not coming
down on them severely create jobs for WCB personnel which is much like
our justice system, the more crime that occurs, the more jobs that are
created and maintained. Eliminate crime and there would be thousands of
unemployed lawyers, judges,police, etc.

Nov 032018

By Gerald

My last post specific to burden of proof has gained a lot of interest
and requires further explanation. Even in civil cases, a plaintiff does
not always bear the burden of proof. It depends on who you are suing. If
you sue a member of the general public who is not considered to be
knowledgeable, you have the burden of proof. If you sue a person who has
more knowledge than you, the burden of proof shifts from you to the
knowledgeable person. This was determined by the SCC in a case cited as
Snell v Farrel.  When filing a claim with WCB, they are the
knowledgeable party and by law, they have the burden of proof even if
civil standards are used in adjudication. At no time does a worker of
employer have any burden of proof, it is always on the supposedly
neutral party and that means that the burden of proof is on WCB, DRDRB
and the Appeals Commission. Before becoming an Appeals Commissioner, I
would think that all AC should have to pass the basic criteria of
administrative law that is specific to the workers compensation system
and the Meredith Principles. I suspect that all Appeals Commissioners
are not selected for their expertise in law, medicine and common sense
but for their political associations as most or all of them are dumber
than a door nail.

Most workers do not know that they can request an in person hearing at
the Case Managers level. Case Managers have the same powers as the Court
of Queens Bench and a worker has the right to request a notice to attend
and have the Case Manager subpoena a doctor or doctors who are involved
in a piss fight on conflicting medical opinions. You do not by law need
to wait to subpoena witnesses at the Appeals Commission level. In many
cases workers spend a piss pot full of money to pay lawyers and
advocates to represent who pass themselves off as experts when they know
diddly squat about the system. I am seriously considering even at my age
representing workers on a strictly contingency basis with no retainer
and no costs to the worker which I have been requested to do by workers
and for that matter also employers who are paying into a system that is
totally corrupt as evidenced by employers paying life time pensions to
workers who did not have any loss of earnings which can be easily proven.

May 012017

By Gerald

The article that I am sending is and should be very interesting to anyone with any intellectual capacity to understand the difference between the system in the U.S. as opposed to the system that is supposed to be in Canada.Of course like everything else workers are told, everything that the Government and WCB tells workers is a lie. In the U.S. the system is based on an Adversarial system (the worker or legal counsel has the burden of proof) which obviously requires Legal Counsel to represent workers. Lawyers representing workers in the U.S. only get paid if they win the case and if they win, they are paid disbursements and costs by the defendant which is the insurance company (WCB) who is acting on behalf of the employer.

In Canada, the historic agreement resulted in what is referred to as an Inquiry system where the burden of proof is supposed to be on WCB both for and against who are supposed to be a neutral party who has by statute the exclusive jurisdiction to gather the evidence thus placing the entire burden of proof, both for and against on WCB resulting in no burden of proof on either the worker or the employer. Being that WCB is supposed to be a neutral body who has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and gather the evidence, there would be no need to have Legal Counsel, however what is supposed to be is not what is happening. Workers in Canada for some odd illegal reasoning being forced into an Adversarial system where workers have the entire burden of proof and having WCB and the Appeals Commission representing employers.

This becomes very evident especially in Judicial Reviews where a worker either represents themselves or has to incur significant debt to hire a lawyer. Both WCB Legal counsel and the Appeals Legal Counsel work together against the worker with both being paid out of the accident fund and if they lose, costs and disbursements are paid to the worker or Legal Counsel out of the accident fund as opposed to the worker who if they lose must pay their Legal Counsel and also must pay the costs and disbursements of both the WCB and the Appeals Commission. If witnesses are required, the cost of witnesses are borne entirely by a worker and if WCB and the Appeals Commission require witnesses, the cost is taken out of the accident fund. Seems that the Government believes this is a fair system but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is not a fair system when a worker does not have a hope in hell of beating WCB and the Appeals Commission when their legal costs come out of their own pockets and WCB and the Appeals Commission’s costs come out of the accident fund that is funded by tax payers who subsidize the the accident fund by having to pay to support workers whose claims and benefits have been illegally denied. The Government must rethink the whole purpose of having workers compensation when workers have to fight for benefits that they are entitled to.

Click on the following link: