Click on the following link:
Just because the WCA protects employers from civil litigation, there is
nothing in the “Act” that protects WCB from civil litigation.
Questionably is why the burden of proof is placed on workers when the
burden of proof is and always has been on the “Board”. Not only is the
burden of proof on the “Board” to prove causation, they also have the
burden of proof to provide evidence of an alternate cause. If not, the
claim remains in a neutral state and the benefit of doubt goes to the
Determining causation according to the SCC does not depend on medical
certainty as this is too high a standard and all that is needed is to
determine that the work environment was a contributing factor, even a
trivial contributing factor. Workers compensation systems are
prehistoric remedies that a hundred years ago may have had some
significance but in today’s world, there are better systems that
guarantee acceptance of claims without spending decades fighting for
compensation when a mandatory system that does not depend on causation could be brought in which would more than likely result in getting rid of a lot of deadwood at WCB and forcing doctors to get real jobs rather than providing medical opinions that are based on nothing but their
I have in the last several years assisted two workers, one whose claim
goes back to 1973 and another to 2009, both long standing claims which
are now under investigation by WCB due to obvious errors by the WCB,
DRDRB and the Appeals Commission. I suspect that the decisions were
deliberate but I cannot prove malice or deliberate denial of the claims,
therefore I have no choice but to call them errors. As well a Judicial
Review is coming up on Feb. 20, 2019 specifically on how impairment
ratings have been illegally used as a direct method of rating a
disability. On top of this I have the Fair Practice Office attempting to
determine who has the burden of proof and who has the burden of proof of
an alternate cause which is how the inquiry system is supposed to operate.
The writer also hit the nail on the head when it is a proven fact that
workers whose claims and benefits have been illegally denied are being
supported by taxpayers through our health care plan and social
services. Of course no government wants to admit that this is the way to
keep premiums low to benefit the economy.
I have reviewed the submissions presented to the WCB Review Panel by the numerous parties such as Adorn Consulting, Alberta Construction Association, Alberta Federation of Labor, various unions, Friends of Medicare, Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses to name a few who offer their concerns and recommendations but the concerns and recommendations fall far short of what the primary problems are. Organizations that provided any meaningful and useful input into the problems that workers have when filing a claim with WCB are the Canadian Injured Workers Association of Alberta, who had the benefit of having thousands of worker’s input into how the system failed them. Other organizations especially AUPE, Worker Advocates, Friends of Medicare and Unions representing Alberta unions also provided useful input and recommendations. The firefighters concern and recommendations are based on selfishness as all they are concerned with is how their claims are adjudicated and have no concern as to how other more vulnerable workers claims are adjudicated. Other workers do not have the luxury of having dual disability insurance, both private and WCB disability insurance and if WCB denies their claim, private disability insurance accepts their claim and provides short term or long term disability benefits without having to fight for decades to have a claim accepted and benefits provided.
The least useful and predictably so is the input from employers who gullibly believe that the system provides a fair method of adjudicating claims with no concerns as to how WCB, DRDRB and the the Appeals Commission are performing their jobs. Of course if employers premiums are the lowest in Canada and they receive billions of dollars in rebates, why then would a person complain. Employers have no idea what goes on during the appeals process as for the most part it is rare for an employer to get involved in the appeals process as they are adequately represented by WCB and the Appeals Commission with the WCB being an employer( member of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce) who pays premiums to themselves and the Appeals Commission who are selected by the Alberta Government who also are employers paying premiums to an arms length Government monopoly. In effect workers are left on their own to fight WCB and the Appeals Commission rather than an employer and have the impossible task of fighting two employer represented bodies with unlimited powers, unlimited financial power to buy medical opinions and control the court process if workers are able to take their claims to the courts. Unfortunately, the courts also do not have the power to overturn a decision based on fact and forced by legislation to defer to the decision of the Appeals Commission who are far from being experts in determining the facts as in nearly all cases, the facts have never been investigated and if gathered are biased by the body who are by statute and policy are required to perform a thorough investigation but rarely ever do. Employers have no idea of the billions of dollars that they and workers have to pay in excess taxes to fund Alberta Social Services, Alberta Health Care and also pay premiums to CPP.
Of note and it is a good recommendation by employer groups is to have an office of the appeals advisor for employers as there are numerous small employers who like workers have no idea of how the system operates and cannot afford to pay for representation. Both of the Office of the Appeals Advisor for workers and employers must be independent of WCB and staffed by lawyers who are experts in workers compensation issues and paid out of the accident fund. I also like the idea of a WCB Ombudsman or Fair Practices Officer which I recommended nearly twenty years ago to Justice Friedman.
Workers Compensation Regulations have to be revised with no exemptions for any employer from having WCB coverage if changes to the workers compensation system results in better decisions that favor workers to eliminate any possibility of workers becoming a charge on family, friends and society which is the whole idea of the Meredith Principles. The regulations also have to be specific as to the amount of exposure required by specifying in column 2 of Schedule B of the Regulations, rather than significant exposure with reference as to where this information was obtained. Most if not all allowable exposure levels were determined over 40 years ago and have never been updated. A particular disturbing presumptive description of a work related occupational hazard occurs in point 8 column 1 of Schedule B specific to “Vascular disturbances of the extremities” which is explained in Column 2 of Schedule B which species only one cause , vibration without specifying other causes such as repetitive actions of the hand and wrist which causes reduced flow of blood to the upper extremities resulting in through the bone modeling process, the formation of abnormal bone which is susceptible to micro-fractures when workers are involved tasks that require high grip and pinch strengths leading to what is referred to in the literature as insufficiency fractures that if not treated results in avascular necrosis of the carpal bones, especially the scaphoid bone (Preisers disease) and lunate (Kienbochs disease) which are work related occupational injuries. Most doctors have no idea how the mechanism of reduced blood flow due to repetitive actions of the hand and wrist can result in micro-fractures to the carpal bones due to overloading of abnormal bone.
Whether the WCB Review Panel likes it or not, I believe that there are some claims that have to be referred to to get a good understanding of why all long standing claims must be heard. I filed a claim for bilateral avascular necrosis of the scaphoids on behalf of a worker and the claim was denied through all levels of appeal based on the false work description provided by the employer and reviewed by a WCB Medical Advisor who provided an opinion based on the false description of the work activities. WCB refused to provide an ergonomic assessment of the work place and I then requested that this be done by Alberta OH&S by an expert in ergonomics. Despite the objections of the employer and WCB, OH&S performed an ergonomic assessment which supported the claimant’s description of the work activity and proved that the employer was lying. I requested a reconsideration by the Reconsideration Threshold Panel and based on the new evidence presented numerous medical opinions from all WCB Medical Advisors and as well as an outside Occupational Specialist and Hand Surgeon along with medical literature supporting causation, the Reconsideration Threshold Panel determined that there was a causal relation, overturned the decision of the original Appeals commission denial and sent the claim back to Customer Services. Customer Services despite absolute evidence to support the claim, denied the claim, the denial was upheld by the CSRC and went back to the Appeals Commission who then denied the claim despite absolute evidence supporting the claim by all private and WCB Medical Advisors who supported the claim. The reason why the claim was denied by the Appeals Commission was that George Pheasy decided that with due diligence, the ergonomic assessment should have been performed prior to determining causation and all the doctors opinions supporting causation could have with due diligence been provided by the worker supporting causation and should have been provided at the first appeals commission in person hearing. In affect all medical opinions were disregarded, medical literature was disregarded by the Appeals Commission and despite the fact that causation had been established based on medical fact, the Appeals Commission blamed the worker for not investigating and providing the information prior to their decision. In effect, the Reconsideration Threshold Panel disagreed with the original Appeals Commission and George Pheasy resulting in the same bodies within the Appeals Commission, Appeals Commission and Reconsideration Threshold Panel disagreeing with each other. The question then is who must investigate and gather the facts, is it the worker or the “Board” Who has the burden of proof and why would the burden of proof be on a worker when they do not have the powers of investigation. Why should a worker be held accountable for an employer lying about how work is performed and then having doctors providing medical opinions based on their belief that the employers false work activity has been been investigated by WCB and is found to be accurate. Denying a claim supported by all doctors and medical science is an abuse of power, an act of bad faith and most likely criminal fraud, yet no one wants to prosecute any one within the WCB system and most likely couldn’t any way because according to the WCA, WCB and the Appeals Commission can make an honest mistake. (LOL)
I take exception when any one accuses all WCB Medical Advisors as being biased or corrupt when in fact there are many WCB Medical Advisors who are good honest doctors who provide opinions on what they believe is true. Case Managers will with hold evidence from doctors who become victims of WCB by being lied to when performing IME’s or providing medical opinions. The ergonomic assessment that I have referred to performed by OH&S was deliberately with held by a Case Manager and being that I was in attendance at the IME, I provided the ergonomic assessment that resulted in the Hand Specialist determining a work related cause which the Appeals Commission refused to accept because it was after the fact and they did not want to admit they had made an incorrect decision in denying the claim. I also take exception to people who believe that Medical Specialists know more than a GP as there are many GP’s who take a special interest in a certain medical condition and are far more knowledgeable than a Specialist.
Of interest is that presumptive status for firefighters which originated in the U.S. under total adversarial civil law where the burden of proof both for and against in all situations is placed entirely on the worker and the employer and then went further to include first responders which has resulted in major complications and financial burdens on tax payer with respect to PTSD claims. Recent studies have found that 87% of claims for PTSD by first responders are based on fraud as it is relatively easy to go on the Internet and get all the information a person wants on the symptoms of PTSD and then utilize these symptoms to convince a psychologist or psychiatrist to diagnose PTSD. Numerous fire fighters and first responders will submit a claim for PTSD prior to announcing their retirement and then receive compensation on top of their public pensions. The support for fire fighters and first responders as to why they were provided presumptive status in the first place is being questioned in the U.S. as all fire fighters and first responders knew prior to employment the risks they would face in their professions of being exposed to toxins, horrific accidents, violence etc. and thus could have chosen another profession. Unlike the military, civilian firefighters and first responders can hand in their resignation any time they decide to. Clearly,it must be realized and acknowledged that the only reason why fire fighters and first responders were provided presumptive status in the U.S. is that in an Adversarial system, the impossible burden of proof was placed on firefighters to prove causation specific to certain types of cancers as opposed to Canada which is supposed to adjudicate claims under an Inquiry system and thus there was no need to provide discriminatory legislation that favors fire fighters and first responders as common sense and logic based on a balance of probabilities is all that is required by law as evidence that any cancers diagnosed for fire fighters or first responders would most likely be caused by work exposure. Furthermore, causation is supposed to be based on common sense and logic (balance of probabilities) and not on medical evidence as that requires a much higher standard. This higher standard has been determined by numerous Canadian courts to not fit into workers compensation systems but seems to be a problem for WCB and the Appeals Commission to understand.
Having said that in Alberta and the rest of Canada, some one has to determine “who has the burden of proof” in all situations under what is supposed to be an Inquiry system whether for causation, offers of modified work, determination of disability, determination of earning losses etc. It is grossly illogical to provide WCB all the powers of investigation and then place the burden of proof on a worker who does not have the legislative powers to investigate, has relatively little or no knowledge of the system, has relatively little or no knowledge of medicine, has no financial ability to contact medical experts. It is obvious that the WCB BoD do not believe that the burden of proof is on the “Board” as evidenced by the fact that WCB Policy 01-03 specifically places the burden of proof on the worker, Policy 01-08 places the burden of proof on the worker and the Appeals Commission Rules of Procedure also places the burden of proof on a worker by stating that “with due diligence” the evidence that the worker was illegally forced to submit in an Inquiry system could have been provided at the original in person appeal panel hearing. In my humble opinion, in an Inquiry system, any evidence that was not provided by WCB during their investigation is not the responsibility of a worker to provide.
Basically, workers compensation has very little in common with civil litigation and is analogous to the criminal justice system where there is a victim and the police who are usually considered to be neutral have all the powers of investigation and after a through investigation hands the evidence over to a usually independent Crown Prosecutor who decides if the evidence supports going to trial. In the workers compensation system, WCB is supposed to be a neutral party who investigates and determines whether there is evidence both for and against. In all cases, there has to be two scenarios, either the accident arose out of and occurred in the workplace or the accident did not arise out of and occur in the work place. Both scenarios have to be included in the adjudication process. In other words if an Adjudicator determines that the accident did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, the Adjudicator then must determine the risk factors and the time and place outside of the work environment that caused the accident. It does not matter in any disagreement, if one person provides an opinion based on some evidence they have read, seen or been told, there has to be some conflicting evidence to contradict the evidence, not simply a negative opinion rebutting the other persons evidence without providing evidence to support the rebuttal. Climate change is a good example; some experts suggest that climate change is a natural phenomena that is simply changes of natural or normal weather patterns that have occurred previously over the last million or more years due to volcanoes etc, other experts suggest it is due to man made causes. Who does a person believe? It is obvious from the decisions made by the Alberta Appeals Commission that adjudication is based on the strict rules of civil procedure where a worker is considered to be a plaintiff bringing an action against a defendant which is not the employer but the “Board” as in nearly all cases, the employer does not attend in person hearings. Obviously that was never the intentions of Meridith to force workers from for the most part a fair and just court system where a worker had all the rights of a natural person into an administrative system adjudicated by incompetent, deceitful, disrespectful people where workers have lost all their rights to a fair and unbiased adjudication of their claims. If I am wrong, then why is it that in every situation upon investigation of WCB, there are glaring deficiencies in the system. After over one hundred years, the system should have been perfected not constantly having to be reviewed for corruption. Obviously no system can operate when the system consists of lay people determining medical evidence that is based on medical opinions from doctors who themselves have no idea whether the opinion they are providing is based on undisputed medical fact, undisputed medical literature or undisputed medical consensus. As with anything, any opinion must be based on a reference to specific literature, the chapter and pages where the medical opinion is derived from. For anyone who is interested and spends a lot of time reading medical literature on a daily basis as I do, the word “may” is used consistently in medicine rather than the word “will” as it is impossible to determine how each individual based on their genetic makeup will react to prescription medications, toxins, stress, pain etc. and is the reason why there are some people who take prescription medications that result in death for some but total relief for the majority of people. In fact prescription medications are marketed based on the fact that some prescription medicines will cause major side affects and may result in death for some people but if the majority of people receive relief, these prescription medications are allowed to be marketed.
Some of the responses to questions specific to psychological diagnosis is not complex at all especially when it involves a disabling injury. I have been in attendance at several psychological evaluations and for the most part, the assessment of determining a work related cause is simple. A psychiatrist determines the correct diagnosis from the DSM Manual and the severity of the psychological evaluation. They then consider the past history of a worker before and after an accident by review of a workers medical history. They go into a workers past family history prior to an accident which is very personal and leave nothing to chance. If a worker did not have any mental or emotional problems involving suicidal ideations and homicidal thoughts prior to a disabling accident and they have mental and emotional problems after a disabling accident, then it is easy to conclude that the emotional and mental condition is work related but if a worker has a history of emotional and mental problems such as marital disputes, financial problems etc. prior to a disabling accident it would be concluded that the psychological condition is not work related. In all actuality it is easier to diagnose a psychological disorder especially when the psychological diagnosis is based on a disabling injury than it is to diagnose an acute injury that may not show up on imaging. More often than not it is Case Managers, DRDRB and the Appeals Commission who cause secondary work related psychological disorders by the inhumane and contemptuous treatment of workers. Although worker suicides or homicides are rarely or if ever reported in the media, most if not all workers have homicidal thoughts of harming the people who have destroyed their lives. All the workers I have talked to have stated that if they knew they could get away with it, they would cause harm to the people who destroyed their life. In a CBC Radio live broadcast after the incident involving Patrick Clayton, I was asked if I thought what he did was justified. My reply was that if local authorities do nothing to fix a broken system then any kind of violence against WCB Personnel was justified.
The Alberta WCA does not specify as to who has the “burden of proof” . No one in Government, WCB or the Appeals Commission will answer that question. On November 8 and 9th I represented a worker in an in person hearing and was the first question I asked. The Appeals Commission refused to answer the question. I then requested that they file an originating notice for the Court of Queens Bench to answer that question which obviously forms the basis of every claim as without knowing who has the burden of proof, you cannot adjudicate any claim. It is obvious also that the Alberta Court of Queens Bench also do not know who has the burden of proof in the workers compensation system as this was an issue that was dealt with by two different Judges on subsequent Judicial Review and Appeal. Justice Millar agreed with me that the workers compensation system is based on an Inquiry system and the burden of proof is on the “Board” to prove that modified work was offered and sent the claim back to the Appeals Commission to reconsider their decision to deny the claim and to contact the employer to determine if modified work had been offered. The Appeals Commission refused to contact the employer as directed and again denied the claim despite finally acknowledging that there was no offer of modified work and I was forced to go back to the Court of Queens Bench to rehear the same claim before a different Judge. Justice Yamauchi disagreed with Justice Millar as to who has the burden of proof in an Inquiry system and instead determined that adjudication is based on an adversarial system not an inquiry system and the burden of proof is on the victim (worker) resulting in total confusion as to who has the burden of proof. After over one hundred years, no one knows who has the burden of proof. How can a claim be adjudicated when no one knows who has the burden of proof?
Questionably is why the Alberta Government does not enact legislation that provides the benefit of doubt to a worker rather than having the WCB BoD determine questions of law which they do not have jurisdiction. Providing a worker with the benefit of doubt when there are differences in medical opinions would make all claims that are supposedly complex, relatively easy as if there is a medical difference of opinion, rather to proceed to a MRP who in most or all cases are not world recognized medical experts and are simply providing more medical opinions that are not based on medical science, peer reviewed medical literature or medical consensus. According to the WCB BoD the benefit of doubt has to be based on medical fact which is not the proper or correct standard in workers compensation systems as medicine is not or rarely based on fact but is based mainly on speculation or in legal terms circumstantial evidence which is used in all legal proceedings but according to WCB cannot be used in adjudicating claims. If in fact the WCB Review Panel would zero in on the two primary problems that I have presented as to “who has the burden of proof both for and against” and “providing the benefit of doubt in all cases to workers when there was a medical disagreement”, everything else would be totally irrelevant.
Question 17 posed by the WCB Review Panel is an interesting question “Should an option be made available for workers to obtain additional coverage through the WCB? Why or why not?” Why would workers want additional insurance through WCB when WCB does not provide compensation now and is why there is a review as to why the system is not working. The question that should have been asked is “Should employers be mandated to provide private disability insurance that is not based on work related injuries. In my opinion this should be a no brainer as employers and workers at present pay for both private disability and WCB disability insurance (dual benefits) for all public employees and as well as WCB employees to ensure that if WCB denies their claim, then the private disability insurer will accept the claim and pay benefits without going through years of appeals. This being the case then all workers in Alberta should be covered under the same dual benefits as public workers and WCB employees.
Notably, the process of deeming came under attack during the WCB Review Panel’s meetings with the various groups. While the process of deeming workers to imaginary jobs is grossly illogical, it becomes even more illogical when a person understands how deeming is used to determine an earning loss such as an ELS or an ELP. Having been taught in grade school that apples must be compared to apples and oranges to oranges, WCB does not do this when it involves earning losses.
I shall explain. If a worker was injured and suffered a permanent disability and permanent work restrictions their pre-injury earnings on their DOA would be used as a reference to determine an earning loss by comparing pre-injury to post-injury earnings which is the correct method. However, when comparing pre-injury to post-injury earnings this must be done by comparing earnings in the year of the DOA. For example if a worker’s pre-injury earnings are $40,000.00 in 19991, an earning loss must be calculated using 1991 dollars either by using actual 1991 earnings or 1991 deemed earnings. You do not determine an earning loss by using 1991 dollars and compare post-injury actual or deemed earnings twenty or thirty years later which is how WCB determines an earning loss. No worker would ever be entitled to an earning loss as evident by the fact that over time with higher earnings over the course of 20 or 30 years later and then comparing the higher earnings to considerably less earnings 20 or 30 years ago. This is grossly illogical and mathematically incorrect as you have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
(originally published on July 10, 2010)
WCB employees paid to commit fraud.
For most Canadians it would come as a big shock to find that the government(s) runs organizations like the Workers Compensation Board for the sole objective of cost reduction for big business, with itself as one of the largest employers taking full advantage of the conflict of interest.
The Federal Government instituted the Meredith Principle as law into Canada approximately 80 years ago. Today, even though the Federal Government passed on authority to manage Workers Compensation to the provinces, it remains itself one of the greatest benefactors of the new perverted version of Workers Compensation.
Today there is hardly a trace left of the principals set out by Chief Justice of Ontario, Sir William Meredith. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they have taken this legislation, turned it inside out to become a one way street to ensure injured workers have no rights at all. Workers Compensations today uses its own kangaroo courts to insure every right injured worker had are decimated.
The four parts of the principles set out by Chief Justice of Ontario, Sir William Meredith are that employers bear the direct cost of compensation, receiving protection from lawsuits arising from injuries; workers give up the right to sue their employers and receive compensation benefits at no cost for work-related injuries; negligence and fault for the cause of injury are not considerations; and a system administered by a neutral agency would have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of the enabling legislation. This neutral agency became the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).
Today before an injured worker even gets to where they are allowed to ask the Supreme Court for justice, every appeal in the WCB kangaroo courts must be exhausted, one thing is certain, that by the time injured workers are entitled to ask for justice, the injured worker will be either dead, or dead broke. The time that passes can easily take up to or exceed a decade of abuse, a psychological, and financial bashing that is unparallel in any other form of law today.
Nearly every lawyer today rejects claims for the following reasons, first that WCB law does not comply or need to comply with the standards of our real courts of law. The second is that it’s a complete waste of a lawyers time, and clients money, there is no chance of winning. There is however the odd exception to the rule, and that’s what is thrown if the face of every critic of the WCB.
One lawyer wrote to the BC Bar asking for someone willing to take on a case where fighting WCB was like having gone into an Alice in Wonderland form of judicial law. The complete absence of any resemblance to law whatsoever, where WCB makes up and changes the rules, ignores its own rules, and imposes a twisted versions of rules on any lawyer foolish enough to stand up for injured workers.
In a nutshell WCB does the following, in about 90% or more of all of its claims it pays in full with no complaints, these consist of everything from a sliver of wood in the hand to minor cuts and bruises. All those minor claims are WCB’s claim to fame that they are doing their job and doing it well.
Now on the other hand, injuries like Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome or other debilitating injuries that last for decades, or even for life, those are the costly claims, and are also the claims WCB has no hesitation to spend a million dollars to insure a claimant will not set a president by getting what is owed to him/her.
The crux of the matter lies in long term and permanently injured workers, everything else WCB talks about is smoke shows to divert the public from the real truth.
Well if what I am about to say might offend you, too bad, we as a society need to wake up, grow up, and take some responsibility for the mess we have allowed to exist in our country. It’s your fault we are in this mess because you and your neighbor never spoke up when someone you knew got shafted by the WCB.
My fellow Canadians, you are a bunch of idiots if you think, we as a society can gain dignity abroad fighting the Muslims in Afghanistan while on the home front we treat our injured workers as bad as the Taliban treat their women.
Let me say this, do you think the same idiots who designed WCB, will actually make an exception for our permanently disabled veterans? If you do you better crawl back under the rock you have been hiding under. Do some research; they are already being tossed to skid row.
Pardon me for not doing the “heel toe dosey doe” for the Liberal in Alberta who was honest enough to tell the story about how the WCB employees get paid to screw injured workers over.
Pardon the blunt language but common courtesy in the past and present, has meant inhuman treatment for fellow injured workers to a society too busy with their own self preservation to do anything about it.
Is there not some bitter irony that this story exposed by the Liberal Party in Alberta comes hot on the heals of the Patrick Clayton story. Will someone wake up before we have to nominate Patrick Clayton as the only man willing to stand up and tell the truth about what is going on inside the Workers Compensation system, not only in Alberta, but all of Canada? Sorry make that two people in Alberta now, let’s not forget Hugh MacDonald.
Well it was good of the Alberta Liberals to expose this crime, only the Liberals should have said that Patrick Clayton indeed had little options left and the path he chose and may have been for him the only option he could find left. This admission by the Alberta Liberals also gives powerful credibility to the claims made by Patrick Clayton and that indeed all he really wanted was to find a way to expose this story, he was a first hand witness, he was a victim of crime.
Ask any injured worker who has tried to tell their story to the press, and found they were just banging their head against a brick wall. Patrick Clayton was right in regards to the fact it was the only way people would listen to what he had to say.
The second issue is, where is the call for a police investigation into this crime, and while they are at it, they can find this crime duplicated in each and every province and territory in Canada? It’s a Pandora’s box that nobody has guts enough to take on because to do so would jeopardize a relationship with big business and industry, not to mention the cost of having government employees.
Now I also have to ask what gives with the names of our political parties. Has anyone besides me noticed that when it comes to shafting injured workers, all three major party names are very big on the list of making promises to treat injured workers fairly, then in return you might well have urinated down their throats if your actions could speak for you.
Take for example in British Columbia the Liberal Party had one member in particular who really road the band wagon of justice for injured workers. Do you know what the Liberals did once elected? After all once you defeat the existing government, what else can you do to put the truth about WCB back into hiding?
The Liberals did what they all do in every province when the WCB’s looking like the criminals they really are; they had a review, and guess who represented the big business in this review?
Well it was none other than Allen Hunt, and guess who the Liberals hired to implement the findings of that review?
Well to bad you can’t have Charles Manson as head of your justice committee, using your logic it would have made very good sense.
Isn’t it amazing when you have a government that hires one of two disputing parties to write the new rules, insanity obviously is hitting new heights and to this day no one has had balls enough to do anything about it?
Look again at the words in the Meredith Principle Agreement and try find any form of neutral party in the name Allen Hunt.
Oh, by the way, check up and find out if Allen Hunt is even a Canadian, he was not at the time our governments hired him. And pray what the hell were the Liberals in British Columbia thinking when they hired an American to re-write Canadian Law?
The citizens of Canada got what we paid for, it’s called “Screwed” and corporations all across Canada were laughing all the way to the bank. Its not just Canadian corporations, the vast benefactor of these new WCB policies befit foreign investors even more, as today the vast majority of big business is majority owned outside of Canada.
So then we must ask, what the hell is a Liberal? Not that they are better or worse than the NDP or Conservatives, they are all a bunch of liars who will say anything to get elected, and then my mind asks me if Patrick Clayton, did or did not have alternative options.
There simply is not enough space here to post the crimes each party has committed against the permanently disabled injured workers. Each and every party n power has a long standing legacy of balancing its books on the backs of injured workers.
Ask yourself this, when the government and the WCB does not have to follow the law, should the citizens of Canada be required to? Would you still condemn Patrick Clayton if you understood what he was up against? It is still against the law to endorse crime so we won’t go there.
Please don’t answer that, instead lets hammer those responsible for this mess and have them tossed out of their offices, without their lucrative pensions as penalty for the crimes they committed against fellow Canadians.
Seriously just how corrupt can our WCB Boards get before someone will say enough is enough?
Why does government continue to balance its books on the backs of the disabled?
Why do those working to screw injured workers over have such mind boggling pension plans paid for with injured workers blood?
Time For a Reality Check
Injured workers are being told on a daily basis for decades now that if the adjudicator cannot see pain, there is no claim. Blatantly adjudicators have said directly to the face of injured workers, “we have unlimited resources, we don’t care if you try seek litigation”.
Nearly every injured worker has been sneered at with the following comment, “Workers Compensation is not required to pay for pain, and it pays only for lost wages”. Now we know they don’t pay for either pain or lost wages.
We have see instances where adjudicators have bragged to employers that they have a ZERO track record for anyone staying on WCB benefits, then being promoted by coincidence for their outstanding achievements.
We have thousands of cases in Canada where Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome is being denied after having been classified as fakes by people who subcontract for WCB as physical therapists. The irony is that these people were already certified as suffering from Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome by licensed doctors, or in some cases expert medical doctors whom are specialists in the field.
The way injured workers with CRPS are being treated today makes a joke out of the Supreme Court ruling on that very same topic.
A history of DENIAL by compensation boards regardless of medical evidence proving injured workers were honest in regards to their medical history. Yet the Workers Compensation will spend hundreds of thousands of injured workers dollars to show the rare case of a fraud claimant.
The reality is that for every fraud claimant, there are about 1000 frauds committed against injured workers.
The WCB Boards have hired in nearly every serious injured worker claim, a spy to watch and video or document injured workers movements, regardless of the traumatic impact this type of investigation has on honest, and law abiding citizens of Canada, even if there is evidence that investigators fabricate evidence, they continue to be rehired.
WCB Boards have a history of hiring or refusing to rehire private investigators, rehab consultants, or any persons dealing with reporting on the condition of the victim if they do not end up getting cost reduction.
Nearly in every case where WCB contracts out work, the work entails a form of denial of claim, and its not a secret this business of denial is one of the most lucrative startup business today.
Hiring drop out doctors from med school to find in favor of reduction of cost of claims, period, and to heck with the real truth, they are the backbone of WCB’s medical review panels.
WCB to this day refuses injured workers the right to have a witness present when their own privately hired doctors do the assessment to determine permanent injury. They have the right to refuse not only the witness but the obligation to pay injured workers for their injury as forfeited by the injured worker for refusing to be examined if you refuse to be examined in the presence of a witness.
The very AMA Guide they use states clearly the rules for using that information, yet WCB allows these doctors to violate those very rules in order to reduce WCB costs.
The doctors they use are the same ones used to fight injury claims in auto accidents, so as a doctor, their job is to make a liar out of the injured worker, to negate the claims of injury are the objective of these doctors who defy the oath made by doctors to protect and serve their patients best interests.
The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history. Written in antiquity, its principles are held sacred by doctors to this day, however these doctors are paid to slander what other doctors gave diagnosed, to refute the true extent of an injury.
Ask yourself how the actions of these doctors are not the most flagrant violation of the Meredith Agreement, and it flies in the face of everything that legitimized the Workers Compensation System in the first place. Refer to the Meredith Principal.
In British Columbia the Workers Compensation Board writes letters to injured workers doctors, demanding that in order to get paid; they must conform to rules that are withheld from the public, a form of extortion that makes doctors afraid to write anything supportive of injured workers claims.
Doctor’s behaviors after receiving these letters is 180 degree shift in attitude towards their patients, they absolutely refuse to write anything that can be used in a courtroom to prove an injured workers claim. Some specialists will only agree to see you if you agree not to use their findings in a courtroom.
Regardless of how honest injured workers are, WCB adjudicators are notorious for using the “laughing in your face” tactic to elicit a reaction out of you that could be used to terminate your benefits. Another common tactic injured workers must endure is the comments “your just too lazy to return to work” again to elicit a violent reaction they can use against the injured worker.
Instances of where adjudicators are suggesting patients (injured workers) use opiod drugs to be able to return to work, that despite the danger it poses to both injured workers and fellow workers.
Instances where adjudicators refuse to follow the advice by a patient’s doctor, to be referred to a specialist, and then the patient is also not allowed under WCB regulation to sue for the consequential injuries.
The WCB refuse to be responsible for any injuries that occur as a result of an injury. Example is when you have one leg that is unstable or a head injury that causes a loss of balance, the injury that occurs due to a fall is not recognized by WCB.
The WCB also like to use a chart to determine what they owe injured workers; however the very first statement in that chart says that the contents are not to be used to evaluate the disability of injured workers. I refer to the AMA charts that are being used (abused) systematically with only one objective in mind, ironically they never use the words to deny a claim, and they use the politically correct version of “cost reduction.”
Let me stop here, because if any investigation needs my help I can over them about 20 pages of abuse by WCB without ever having to repeat myself. Look up Workers Compensation on CBC or CTV and read the comments left by hundreds if not thousands of Canadians who have been burned by none other than their own government, because they had an accident at work. A crime they must pay for by living in poverty for the rest of their lives.
In closing I would like to thank Hugh MacDonald for having been honest enough to step forward with some truth in regards to the WCB. Canada is in need of more honest men and women with the courage to stand up for truth, even if it’s more cost effective to shut up and hide as most politicians do.
As for evidence to back up what I have said, I have a box that weighs over 80lbs of paper, video tapes, audio tapes, legal documents to back up everything said in this article and would be happy to hand it over to any lawyer with the integrity and courage to fight this abuse.
As for the common Canadian citizen, please have the courage to stand up and tell these political hacks to their face that their days of abuse need to end…..immediately or face the fury of the electorate.
Fight for people who have been treated worse that the victims of abuse overseas that we claim to be fighting to liberate. Fight to liberate our injured workers from a lifetime of poverty and verbal abuse from both WCB and the governments who allow them to abuse disabled injured workers.
The RCMP should put locks on the WCB offices until a complete investigation is done into the behavior of all WCB employees, likewise no unions should be allowed to negotiate excuses for crimes committed against WCB victims.
Dereliction of duty charges should be laid in the case of every upper level management position found to be supporting the current corrupt WCB system. Criminal charges should be brought against every person who willingly and knowingly reduced or removed injured workers benefits.
Charges of deliberate psychological abuse charges should be laid against all adjudicators who have verbally abused their position to reduce costs for the WCB.
Finally all charges against Patrick Clayton be placed on hold until the investigation into the WCB is completed, in the mean time Patrick Clayton needs to be sent to a rehabilitation center and compensated for the abuse committed against him. If in fact the WCB is found to be guilty, all charges against Patrick Clayton should be dismissed.
JLS ……For What It’s Worth