Appeals Commission Decision 2012-761

Click on the following link;

After reading this decision, there should be little doubt in any ones mind why the claimant has homicidal thoughts of killing the people who have been involved in this particular claim and as well other individuals involved in his three other earlier claims. Besides this claim, he has three other claims that have never been resolved and date back to 1973. Besides being homicidal he has attempted to commit suicide on numerous occasions over the last 40 years but managed to hold off making the final decision.

This claim was a very simple claim that involved only one thing and that was whether the employer had offered modified work. According to the Case Manager the employer had offered modified work. According to the employer, he did not offer modified work in a written format or a verbal witnessed offer of modified work. There is and never has been any written documentation provided by WCB or the Appeals Commission of an offer of modified work or of any other necessary documentation required by WCB for any offer of modified work to proceed. Despite the fact that the employer has stated that he did not offer modified work and there was no documentation supporting any offer of modified work, WCB, DRDRB and the AC believed the Case Manager rather than the employer as to an offer of modified work and illegally denied the claim. The Case Manager (Carole Couture) mysteriously has disappeared and was either fired or given an incentive to resign so she could not be subpoenaed. According to the AC, they are of the belief that a Case Manager, DRDRB Resolution Specialist cannot be subpoenaed, only doctors which only shows their ignorance as it is common knowledge in law that any one can be subpoenaed. The AC misunderstanding of common law within the confines of administrative law is and has been an impediment to a workers right to justice. The denial of my right to subpoena the Case Manager is to protect the system as under cross examination, the Case Manager would have had to admit that she lied as to the employer offering modified work which would have damaged the credibility of the whole system. If this is the case then the only way that a worker could subpoena the Case Manager,DRDRB and the AC is through civil litigation and that is why I maintain that a class action lawsuit against the Alberta Government who are responsible for the culture of denial and subsequent mess, WCB and the Appeals Commission who continue to abuse due process and blame the worker or their representative for their mistakes, incompetence, deliberate manipulation of the facts should be sued for the culture of denial that permeates all claims.

It must also be noted that in the U.S., all ALJs’ (Adjudicative Law Judges) are lawyers or judges and not simple, ignorant lay persons under an administrative system that does not work due to the complexities of the system which they are not rained in. Basically, when making decisions, it is imperative that a decision maker not take the simple approach of considering only the WCA, WC Regulations and WCB Policy as these are simply part of a very complex system which involves having to consider how other statutes interconnect with the WCA, WC Regulations and WCB Policy such as criminal law, human rights law, constitutional law, the charter, other provincial law such as OHS laws and intertwined with all of this is being able to understand medical issues. Far too often lay persons in an administrative capacity do not fit the pieces of the puzzle together by considering pieces A,B,C,D, E, F etc and only consider piece A and B and fail to fit the rest of the puzzle together. This is a process that is understood by legal experts rather than pompous, arrogant, incompetent, narcissistic Appeals Commissioners who are selected to make decisions that are far too important for incompetent individuals and that is why in the U.S. all WCB cases go before ALJs’ on appeal. It is extremely rare for an ALJ to make a mistake in law or mixed fact and law as opposed to the extremely high rate of mistakes by Appeals Commissioners who are lay persons with no extensive backgrounds in medicine or law resulting in a system where there is a culture of denial. One of the most devastating occurrence that can happen to a person is to go from being in excellent health and able to perform any type of work to being permanently disabled and able to perform sedentary work or no work at all. Worse yet is when a worker files a claim and is put through the most horrific experience that a person could ever imagine by WCB contract doctors who admit to fabricating medical evidence and have admitted this in the Alberta Courts, hostile Case Managers, hostile DRDRB and Appeals Commissioners such as the Appeals Commissioners who have been involved in this claim.

The formation of the Appeals Commission which was formed in 1988 is a dismal failure as witnessed in this simple claim. In fact the whole system is a dismal failure and should be abolished for the simple reason that the system has outlived it’s usefulness. One hundred years ago, it served a purpose, today it serves no useful purpose. Rather than electing people with vision, we elect the same old recycled people who refuse to change with the times. Why would anyone buy disability insurance that is conditional is beyond me especially when there are numerous private disability insurance companies that sell unconditional disability insurance that is guaranteed without the hassles of determining causation. An analogy would be if the Alberta Government would force people to buy conditional residential fire insurance where the home owner would be covered for fire insurance only on the condition that the fire started in the kitchen stove and all other sources of a fire would not be covered. That is precisely how the WCB system works. Employers and workers should have the freedom of choice as to have their mandatory disability insurance coverage by a private insurance company who offer unconditional disability coverage or by WCB disability insurance coverage that is conditional and is not guaranteed unless certain conditions prevail. In reality, the primary reason behind WCB disability insurance is to protect the employer from litigation which is guaranteed. There is no guarantee that workers will get any compensation unless the injury is an acute injury where the worker makes a complete recovery. There is no guarantee that acute injuries where the worker does not make a complete recovery is compensable, no guarantee that progressive injuries, diseases, sickness are covered and yet private insurance companies offer guaranteed coverage without any conditions. If employers and workers were given the choice, of conditional or unconditional coverage, there would be no hesitation as to which choice they would prefer. Under the workers compensation system, an employer has an absolute guarantee against any civil litigation even if the employer deliberately or with gross negligence caused the accident as opposed to a worker who has no guarantee that they will receive any compensation unless the employer has purchased private disability insurance or the worker purchases private disability insurance on their own which defeats the whole purpose of workers compensation. It is my recommendation to workers that if their employer does not provide private disability insurance that they purchase private disability insurance themselves as a guarantee that they will not be left penniless in the event of an accident, death or illness as the chances of WCB providing compensation is no more than a pipe dream. They will do anything they can to deny a claim as will the DRDRB and the AC. In a democracy, Governments protect people from purchasing substandard goods and services, yet the same Government forces employers and workers to purchase substandard disability insurance.

Proving causation is impossible or nearly impossible. Medical doctors have no training or expertise in causation and simply guessing or providing an opinion that is not based on what is referred to as evidence based medical does not happen. Evidence based medicine is based on medical fact, peer reviewed medical literature or medical consensus. Personal opinions from medical doctors whether they are GP’s or Specialists are nothing more than hearsay evidence and are not considered in a court although lay persons who comprise the AC use these personal medical opinions to deny claims when other doctors based on peer reviewed medical literature or medical consensus do not agree with them. Appeals Commissioners who do not have any medical backgrounds and the inability to do their own research illegally deny claims based on junk medical opinions.

According to WCB Policy they are the ones who must investigate and gather all the facts. Policy 02-01 Part I states in part; “When the 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”. Clearly this indicates that WCB through their investigation of all the facts must also determine if the employer offered modified work. If not WCB, then this must be done by the DRDRB before an appeal is made to the AC. A worker has no responsibility or the power to investigate and gather any facts as without the same powers as WCB, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission it is grossly illogical or patently unreasonable for anyone to believe that a worker has to investigate anything if they do not have the powers of investigation. Did any of these pathetically stupid people ever read Dr. Ison’s book “Workers Compensation in Canada 2nd Edition” or did they receive their training in administrative law from George Pheasy or a lawyer who failed law 101.

Unbelievable is the AC suggesting that at the first in person AC hearing where the employer participated by telephone conferencing was that it was up to me to ask the employer if he had offered modified work. It is grossly illogical to suggest that when the AC has total control over the proceedings that they would not ask the employer whether modified work was offered. Why would three Commissioners hold an in person appeals hearing and then sit on their fat asses controlling the hearing and not ask the the employer whether modified work was offered and more so because there was no written documentation supporting an offer of modified work. Basically, the employer is not required to answer any questions from a worker or representative when they are participating on a voluntary basis and as well I cannot cross examine an employer unless I have permission from the Chair. Should I have requested that I be allowed to cross examine the employer when I assumed that it was the AC who has with due diligence the responsibility of cross examining the worker and the employer which according to AC protocol begins with the worker being asked to address any issues to the AC, followed by the employer. After this, the AC are supposed to ask questions to the worker and employer if present. After the questions by the AC to the workers and employer, the worker is then requested to sum up his/her information followed by the employer. A question that was asked by Ms. Whiting (Appeals Commissioner) to the employer was “Did you offer modified work during orientation” which had to be the dumbest question I have ever heard. No employer hires a worker to perform modified work when the whole purpose of hiring a worker is to perform work required for the operation of the employers business. No employer would hire a worker who could not perform the work that they were hired to do. During the question period that afforded the opportunity for the AC to ask if the employer had offered modified work “after” the accident, not before the accident, they sat there with the blank look that seems to be the prevailing situation that has existed throughout the twenty years I have been involved with the appeals process. These people are pathetic and if they do not have the mental capacity to at least ask if modified work was offered by the employer and then pass the buck saying that I should have asked the question is typical of these people. After Ms. Whiting asked whether modified work was offered during orientation, it was my impression that both the AC and myself understood that the employer did not offer modified work and thus neither the AC or myself bothered to directly ask the obvious question that was already evident that the employer had never offered modified work. If these pathetic people had bothered to review the audio transcripts of the in person hearing they would have clued into the fact that there was an understanding of no offer of modified work when I asked the employer per verbatim “Had you offered modified work, did you know that you could not terminate the worker without being in contravention of Human Rights Legislation specific to the duty to accommodate” The employer replied that he was not aware that he could not terminate the worker. My question of “Had you offered modified work” does and should indicate to a normal person that all parties at the in person hearing were of the understanding by my question in the past tense, that the employer did not offer modified work and that had he offered modified work, by law he could not have terminated the worker. To suggest that no one asked the employer if modified work was offered is pathetically ignorant especially when it was already agreed and understood by all parties at the in person hearing that the employer did not offer modified work, why then would a person ask the same question again when every one had already acknowledged the fact that the employer had not offered modified work and felt very fortunate that they had not offered modified work.

According to WCB policy and the WCA if modified work is not available or offered, WCB has no other choice but to provide a total temporary earning loss (TTD) until such time that a disabled worker makes a complete recovery. Worse yet is the fact that even if modified work had been offered which irrefutable evidence indicates it was not, the employer did say that any modified work would have not been suitable as the worker has had permanent work restrictions since 1973 one of which was to avoid any climbing. According to the employer the worker would have had to climb a ladder 25 feet up and down several times a day to access the office, yet these pathetic incompetent people would force the worker to perform modified work duties when he was to avoid climbing. Performing unsafe work also is a contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Sections 35 which prohibits a worker from performing any work that places him in imminent danger. Do these pathetically incompetent people not realize that even if modified work was offered which it was not, the worker by statute would be prohibited from performing work that would place him in imminent danger.

In reference to the AC interpretation of Sect. 13.1 (1) and 17(1) of the WCA giving WCB and the AC exclusive jurisdiction and states in part; “exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under this Act” The AC state that I have misinterpreted the exclusiveness of having WCB and the AC examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under this act. A reasonable person reading this would conclude that the word “exclusive” that no one other than the AC or WCB has the legal right to examine, inquire into, hear all matters and questions arising under the Act. If the intent of the legislature was to allow a worker to examine, inquire into or hear all the matters, the legislature would have had to give workers the powers to do so. Workers do not have any right of investigation under the Public Inquiries Act, cannot force people to provide evidence, do not have the same powers as the Court of Queens Bench to compel witnesses to provide evidence, seize documents and things etc, so why then would any one believe that a worker can provide any evidence other than what they are capable of providing which essentially is providing their name, telephone number and address. It is entirely up to WCB to investigate and gather all the evidence and if WCB does not comply with their own policies and the WCA, then the DRDRB must shoulder the responsibility and if not them it is the AC who then must ensure that they direct the WCB to do so or the AC must do their own examining, inquiring into, hearing, and determining all matters on the evidence they have gathered.

Of note is the fact that I did file a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman but the complaint was dismissed because it was still under appeal and investigation by the RCMP, the Edmonton City Police, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General based on a violation of the criminal code “false pretences”, breach of trust, criminal fraud due to the Case Manager lying about an offer of modified work and no documentation to back her up. I do have e-mails from the RCMP and a letter of reply from the Solicitor General advising me to contact the Edmonton City Police to investigate. This complaint was referred by the RCMP (Sergeant Jody Miller) to the Edmonton City Police to investigate and despite calls to the Edmonton City Police to inquire about the status of the criminal investigation, I have never had any of my calls returned which is par for the course as the police do not want to get involved or has been ordered by the Office of the Solicitor General not to investigate even if the evidence supports a conviction.

I take exception to the suggestion form Oliver and Kilburn in Para. 25.2 where they suggest that the worker was not represented by a trained and experienced advocate especially when there is no one that I know who has the extensive background and knowledge that I possess in the area of medicine, family law, criminal law, civil law, federal law specific to CPP disability, WCA, WC Regulations, private disability insurance and WCB Policy. A remark such as this coming form Ogilvie and Kilburn is rather stupid especially when neither one have any background in medicine or administrative law as it applies to workers compensation law. Matthew Oliver is some kind of aeronautical engineer (Cleaned airplanes while in the military) and an ordained minister who must be proud of his contributions towards the mistreatment of innocent people. May he burn in hell for the damage he has done to innocent workers along with the other misfits in the AC. Charlene Kilburn is a has been involved with AISH, Social Services and a Nurse Instructor of little or no merit and these people have the gall to question my knowledge and experience. Neither Oliver or Kilburn have ever been involved with the American Medical Association resulting in the subsequent revision of the AMA Guides 6th Edition based on my recommendations to Dr. Brigham, Editing Chair of the AMA Guides 6th Edition. Neither of them have been involved with people like Dr. Emily Spieler, a well recognized and leading law professor in the U.S. involving workers compensation systems who came to my support over issues that involved the AMA Guides 4th and 5th Edition. These two pathetic incompetent people then have the gall to question my understanding of the WCA and other medical issues when I have forced WCB to admit under oath at an in person Human Rights Tribunal that there had been a supposedly misunderstanding by the Case Manager, DRDRB and the AC on another claim I was involved with and WCB commenced to blame the Appeals Commission for the misunderstanding for the 7 years I spent fighting those pathetic incompetent people. I did not request to have the statute of limitations waived on the first appeal that was out of time and the reason was because I have better things to do with my life than to fight incompetent people on issues that are so simple that a retard should be able to render a correct decision. How hard is it to contact the employer to determine whether the employer offered modified work? How hard is it to review the Case Managers files to determine if modified work was offered? Why should a worker or a representative have to tell these pathetic incompetent and ignorant people how to do their job. Why should any worker or representative even bother appealing simple claims that could have been resolved by a simple phone call instead of spending thousands of dollars to pay for the intervention of the DRDRB who failed to contact the employer on two different occasions, the Appeals Commission on five different occasions and then suggest that it is up to me to contact the employer or to question the employer at the in person appeals hearing. If justice was done or seen to be done, this claim should have never got by the DRDRB on appeal from the lying deceitful Case Manager and the DRDRB should have contacted the employer to investigate whether the employer offered modified work. There would have been no need to go through 6 years of hell and then blame me for not representing the worker because of Oliver and Kilburn believing I was incompetent. Click on the following link involving a decision by Oliver et al specific to a claim involving modified work which was overturned by Oliver et al due to a minor technicality where the AC overturned the decision of the DRDRB involving modified work based on a very minor technicality. Yet Oliver and Kilburn are denying a request for reconsideration based on errors in law, alleged violations of the criminal code and no documents to support an offer of modified work. The required documents involving any legitimate offer of modified work are; EMPLOYER-PHYSICAL DEMANDS ANALYSIS, OCCUPATIONAL INJURY WORK READINESS REPORT, FITNESS FOR WORK, EMPLOYERS REPORT OF INJURY OR OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE,OFFER OF MODIFIED WORK, NOTICE TO INJURED EMPLOYEE. Without these documents as evidence of modified work, signed by the treating doctor, the employer and the worker, there was and is no evidence supporting an offer of modified work. Without these documents, there is no question as to whether modified work was offered as the evidence does not support the Case Manager, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission in denying the claim. With the absence of these documents, any fool could understand that modified work was never offered. This obviously is and should have been recognized by Oliver and Kilburn who clearly are two pathetically incompetent and ignorant. I have a right to see these documents and according to the Rules of Natural Justice failing to produce these documents is an abuse of power or a breach of trust by a public person.

An analogy to this claim is; if a contractor came and painted my house without me knowing or contracting the services of the painter and then having him claim that I had signed a contract to have my house painted. Clearly, without a signed document to show a contractual agreement signed by both of us, the contractor has to prove that I had agreed to have my house painted. The contractor cannot simply claim that there was a contractual agreement, he has to provide evidence that there was a contractual agreement. WCB and the AC do not have any of the necessary documents required to prove that there was an offer of modified work. Surely, these pathetically incompetent and ignorant people must realize that by law it is up to them to produce the documents from the Case Manager that are required to show that the employer did offer modified work. I suspect that WCB, DRDRB and the AC are complicit in covering up the fact that the Case Manager was lying and if she was not lying, then I have the right to request that the required documents be produced. The absence of these documents is why I requested that the police investigate the fact that not only was the Case Manager lying about the employer offering modified work, she also did not inform the employer of the medical condition of the worker despite knowing that the worker was on CPP disability, also AISH, had permanent work restrictions that would not allow him to perform or resume normal work duties after recovery and that she knew was according to her own files was extremely heavy work when his work restrictions was specific to performing sedentary work on an occasional basis. He also had not worked for 15 years and this was the first job he had attempted to do despite the fact that his work restrictions would prevent him from performing this type of work. Under the criminal code anyone who knowingly conceals information that the victim should be made aware of (knowing that the worker is permanently disabled and enticing an employer to offer modified work) and even if the employer does not offer modified work which was the case in this claim the Case Manager is still guilty of false pretences according to my understanding of the criminal code. Clearly, the reason why the Case Manager lied was to receive her bonus for closing his files by lying about the offer of modified work and making it appear that he had refused modified work.

The Appeals Commission also know that the Case Manager was in contravention of the WCA, Section 151.1(1)(a) which states in part; No person shall, in connection with a claim for compensation,

(a) knowingly provide false or misleading information to the Board,

The contravention of Section 151.1 (1) (a) leads to the the punishment for providing false or misleading information to the “Board” specified in Section 152 (1)(2) which states in part;

A person who contravenes this Act or a regulation or order made under it is guilty of an offence.

(2) Where a person is guilty of an offence referred to in subsection (1), the person is liable

(a) to a fine of not more than $25 000 and, where the offence is a continuing offence, a further fine of not more than $10 000 for each day during which the offence continues, and

(b) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months in addition to or instead of the fine.

Contravention of the Act also leads to Section 152.01 which states in part;

Where a corporation commits an offence under this Act, any officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is guilty of the offence and is liable to the punishment provided for the offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted for or convicted of the offence.

Perhaps it is now quite obvious why the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Edmonton City Police refuse to investigate for the simple fact that not only would the police have to charge the Case Manager, they would also have to charge the President of WCB, Guy Kerr, all the Directors of the various departments, the BoD and possibly the Minister in charge of WCB, Dave Hancock. According to Section 8 (3) (d) as to the responsibilities of the President of the Board, the WCA states in part; in accordance with policy as established by the board of directors, be responsible for all functions related to personnel. In essence, Guy Kerr as president of the “Board” is responsible for the actions of the Case Manager who clearly lied to the “Board” as to the offer of modified work, thus making him responsible for her actions.

Where the hell is the Minister in charge of WCB, Dave Hancock who is about as useless as tits on a boar. Why has there not been a public inquiry specific to the thousands of claims that have been illegally assessed and denied by these pathetic incompetent and ignorant people who have the blood of workers who have committed suicide on their hands because of the way their claims have been adjudicated. Why did Gregory Jacks blow his head off in the parking lot of WCB? Why wasn’t there a public inquiry held then. Why wasn’t a public hearing held when Justice Friedman determined that there was a culture of denial? The system does not work, has never worked and will continue in the same way it has always been handled unless the recycled people we elect to represent us get off their fat asses and do something to rectify a dangerous environment where workers with nothing to lose resort to violence.

It would be fair to conclude that the DRDRB and the AC believe it is okay for a Case Manager to lie and no one needs to or should investigate whether or why the Case Manager lied. The employer can deny that modified work was ever offered and the DRDRB and the Appeals Commission do not with due diligence bother to investigate to gather the facts as to whether there was an offer of modified work, the worker without any right to gather evidence is forced to gather the evidence, cross examine an employer without the right to do so, have the AC sit on their fat asses and do nothing to ensure that justice is done or seen to be done and then blame me because they believe that I should have taken control of the in person hearing and ask the employer whether he had offered modified work or better yet, why did they not produce or have WCB produce the documentation signed by the worker, employer and treating doctor specific to the modified work program. And then they wonder why workers want to kill the people that have ruined their lives.

A study just released yesterday by NIOSH in the U.S. has concluded that if workers were provided with sick benefits, that there would be a significant reduction in work related injuries. Unfortunately for workers, this is not an option as with the antiquated workers compensation system, WCB only offers conditional disability insurance even though WCB employees have disability and sickness insurance covered by Sun Life. If WCB disability insurance is better than private disability insurance who offer sickness and disability insurance which is guaranteed without any hassle of proving a work relationship, why then does WCB use money out of the accident fund that is paid into by workers through claw backs and employers to pay for private disability and sickness benefits for their own employees but does not offer disability or sickness benefits to workers without having to prove work relatedness. Private disability insurance is supported by the law society of Manitoba rather than having to pay WCB premiums for conditional disability insurance where there is no guarantee that a worker will receive anything. Contrary to the depraved ideas of Oliver and Kilburn as to my qualifications, I also have extensive experience with assisting workers obtain disability benefits from private insurers who will refuse to provide benefits when a company contracted doctor knowingly provides false medical evidence that the worker is malingering and can return to work. In instances like that I have arranged to have a specialist examine the worker and submit their report to me and I have forwarded this medical information to the private insurance company and within three working days have received back pay and long term benefits. I do not receive any money for this as I find it offensive to get paid to help people who are not capable of helping themselves.

Unlike private disability plans which have very little administrative costs, the administrative costs associated with WCB systems are extremely high resulting in no benefits to workers for illegally denied claims and benefits. A recent study has concluded that only one in ten claims that are denied result in an appeal. The only ones that pay into the accident fund are employers and workers who are forced to pay their own disability premiums via illegal claw backs such as EI, CPP deductions and Income tax deductions, all of which is used to increase the amount in the accident fund to pay for administrative costs which include legal fees to fund WCB’s and the ACs’ fights against disabled workers. In this claim alone, it involved two Case Managers, two DRDRB Resolution Specialists and fourteen Appeals Commissioners. If the worker could afford a Judicial Review or Appeal, it would involve two lawyers, one from the AC and one from WCB as well as a lawyer for the worker. If the worker won, WCB would have to pay court costs, lawyers fees and would go back to the AC and would result in two more AC who would most likely have to send the claim back to Customer Services to another Case Manager. If the claim was again denied, this would then result in another DRDRB Resolution Specialist, six more Appeals Commissioners’ and could conceivably go back to the courts for another Judicial Review or Appeal. The costs associated with this worker spread out over his four claims over the course of the last forty years is no doubt well over a million dollars when costs are also added for the number of doctors involved that are well over two dozen or more medical doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists. Why would any one promote a system that is based on spending millions of dollars to deny a claim and benefits when these costs could be used instead to pay a worker the benefits that they are entitled to.

WCB’s argument against private disability insurance that is far less expensive and better than WCB disability insurance as determined by the Manitoba Law Society does not hold up to scrutiny when they claim that they offer vocational rehabilitation. A study done by the Ontario workers compensation board concluded that they had outsourced vocational rehabilitation to private contractors costing tens of millions of dollars resulting in workers being no more employable after than what they were before the rehabilitation. What good does teaching a severely disabled worker with permanent work restrictions and a junior high school education how to write a resume, how to conduct themselves during an interview, how to talk on the phone etc. is grossly illogical and a total waste of money. After vocational rehabilitation in Ontario, the unemployment rate of severely disabled workers was determined via a study of being over 65%. This is WCB’s idea of contributing to the employability of a severely disabled worker. What employer would hire a severely disabled worker with a grade school education who can only perform sedentary work on an occasional basis, could not bend, stoop, lift and carry any weight, cannot climb stairs or ladders, cannot sit or stand for long periods of time, has difficulty walking and requires to lay down on a frequent bases to relieve their pain every several hours. If WCB believes that there are employers out there that would hire these severely disabled workers, then I suggest that they or the Alberta Government hire these disabled workers under their equal opportunity programs.

I could apply for a Judicial Review and Appeal but the claimant is on AISH when he should be collecting compensation from WCB for permanent disability since 1973. Also if he had been receiving compensation from WCB, he would have never have been injured attempting to work at a job he could not do due to his work restrictions. He cannot afford to hire a lawyer so it looks like his access to the justice system may be denied because he does not have the money to proceed through the courts. Great system workers have been forced into. And this is called justice and rather than at the end of the day where a worker could sit back and believe that they have been treated fairly, they sit back and wonder if they should kill the degenerates who have ruined their lives. WCB has recently opened up his claim after 40 years and are questioning why he was never assessed a PCI rating for his extreme depression that was noted 40 years ago along with chronic pain. After 40 years, he and I attended a Psychological evaluation a month ago followed by a Psychiatric assessment on the 20th of Sept. in order to assess him for a DSM mental disorder. This took forty years. They are also now looking into why he was never assessed for chronic pain despite a Rheumatologist report that was provided decades ago affirming that he should be assessed and treated for chronic pain. He was provided a 20% PCI rating which does not equate to a disability rating and was illegally paid a disability pension which was based on the impairment rating. He was also never provided an ELS because they could not determine what type of sedentary work he was capable of performing. Forty years later no one still knows what type of sedentary work he could perform or if he could perform sedentary work on a regular gainful basis or on an occasional basis. WCB also are questioning whether or not they had the legal right to claw back his CPP disability pension which according to a recent New Brunswick court is illegal as CPP is a matrimonial savings account and does not belong to the worker and as well clawing back CPP benefits and putting the CPP disability payments into the accident fund results in workers paying for their own disability premiums which according to the Alberta WCA, Section 139 (1) (2) is illegal. This is the sad state of affairs that workers find themselves in with people who we elect to protect us from corruption and crimes against humanity simply shrugging off their responsibilities and allowing workers to be inhumanely treated.


Leave a Reply