Skip to Main Content

HOME /



WCAT Decision Search

FROM THIS PAGE you can view all WCAT decisions, or search the decisions.
Enter a decision number, or a word or phrase to search:
Between / / And / /



DISCLAIMER: Decisions of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal have been edited for the purpose of release to the public and to protect the privacy of the parties concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. F-15.01. Information edited from the decisions is identified by square brackets.

PREV
Displaying results 1 to 10 (of 314 total).
sort: ascending | descending

Date: 2018-05-24
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the Board’s decision to discontinue the Appellant’s temporary wage loss benefits correct?
WCAT Decision
The Board supported careful and conscientious attempts to properly establish the diagnosis and to rule out other potential underlying conditions. It also diligently carried out its duties to try to help the Appellant return to her job. The Board’s decision is not unreasonable given the lack of conclusive diagnostic evidence and the subjective nature of the Appellant’s complaints. However, the Tribunal is required to decide whether or not the Board made the correct decision and on balance the panel believes the correct decision would have been to accept the opinion of Dr. Campbell, the treating surgeon, who indicated that the Appellant was no longer capable of performing all of her required job duties. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2018-05-25
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the decision by the Board to deny benefits for the Appellant’s retinal tear correct?
WCAT Decision
In conclusion, given the above findings and consideration of all the circumstances, facts and evidence, the review of the Appeal Record, the Act, Board Policies, the medical opinions, the written and oral submissions and the WCAT decisions provided by the parties, the Tribunal disagrees with the Board in its decision to deny coverage for the Appellant’s retinal tear. The appeal is therefore allowed.

Date: 2018-04-12
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether or not the decision to deny the entitlement of benefits for the Appellant’s low back symptoms and desire for surgery was correct.
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal agrees with the position put forward by the Respondent that the best medical evidence on file is the evidence closest in time to the accident. This medical evidence did not note any issue with the back. The Tribunal is sympathetic to the Appellant’s position Vis a Vis her back but finds that the Board was correct in their decision. Therefore, for the reasons noted the Appeal is denied.

Date: 2018-04-12
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether or not the decision to close the Appellant’s claim for temporary wage loss benefits effective August 11, 2016 was correct.
WCAT Decision
32. The Tribunal finds that the best medical evidence on file, with due regard to the Weighing of Evidence Policy, is the Functional Capacity Evaluation. This evidence is the most objective, based in fact, most recent, and comes from an occupational therapist that has the requisite expertise to opine on the Appellant’s abilities and functions. The Board was correct in giving the Functional Capacity Evaluation the most weight. The Appellant’s complaints of pain could very well be a reality; however there is insufficient objective medical evidence on file to indicated that the Appellant could not return to his pre-injury work. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is denied.

Date: 2018-05-30
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the decision to close the Appellant’s claim effective June 10, 2016 correct?
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal is of the view that the evidence here supports the Appellant’s position. At the very least, we find it to be of equal weight to that advanced by the Board, thereby entitling the Appellant to the statutory benefit of the doubt pursuant to s. 17 of the Act. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2018-04-06
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
1. Was the Board’s decision that the medical note dated July 5, 2017, was not new evidence correct? 2. Were the Board’s decisions to uphold the closure of the Worker’s claim, effective July 9, 2017, and to deny the Worker’s request for internal reconsideration correct?
WCAT Decision
While noting that the file contains conflicting objective evidence, the Tribunal accepts Dr. Campbell’s specialist opinion and prefers it over any evidence which conflicts with his March 29, 2017 medical opinion. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2018-05-16
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the calculation of the Worker’s extended wage loss earnings based on annual estimated earnings of $24,482.00 appropriate?
WCAT Decision
Having properly identified three suitable positions for the Worker, the matter was referred back to the Worker’s Case Coordinator after determining the average wages of the three positions based on the average hourly rate of each position and the average number of hours. This is exactly what is required under section 2 of POL-116. The Worker’s argument that the Board ought to have calculated the Worker’s median wages is contrary to the explicit wording of the Board policy. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is denied.

Date: 2018-05-16
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the decision to close the Worker’s claim for temporary wage loss benefits, effective July 4, 2016, correct?
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal finds that the medical evidence supporting the Worker’s position is, at the very least, approximately equal in weight to the evidence relied upon by the Board and the Tribunal finds that the Worker is entitled to the statutory benefit of the doubt in section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2018-04-25
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The two issues for consideration by this Tribunal are as follows: (1) Do the medical reports of Dr. Angus Beck and/or Chris Hartley, dated January 31, 2017 and January 30, 2017 respectively, constitute new evidence? (2) Was the Board’s decision to close the Appellant’s claim for benefits effective April 21, 2016 correct?
WCAT Decision
71. The Tribunal agrees with the Board in that even if the Appellant continues to experience issues, that does not automatically entitle her to continuing benefits and that the Board must continually review and assess the situation to ensure it is providing benefits in appropriate cases. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is denied.

Date: 2018-04-23
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Whether the decision to base the Worker’s EWL Benefits on estimated capable earnings of $17,472.00 was correct?
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal finds that the Board properly applied POL-116 in that it determined that the Worker’s pre-injury employment was not a job match for the Worker, considered her functional ability, including the FCE, and identified three suitable positions for the Worker. It also properly calculated the average wages of the positions, two of which were less than full-time hours. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is denied.

PREV
Displaying results 1 to 10 (of 314 total).
sort: ascending | descending