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 331 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: 2018-06-11
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the Board correct in deciding to close the Appellant’s claim effective August 9, 2016, because she would not participate in Vocational Rehabilitation, and in declining to reopen it in view of the new evidence presented by the Appellant?
WCAT Decision
In summary, the panel finds that at the relevant time the Board had reasonably determined that the Appellant could begin the VR process without medical risk to her. After the Appellant decided not to participate, she presented additional medical evidence. However that medical evidence did not state that the Appellant should not participate in or was unable for medical reasons to engage in the VR process. The additional evidence did not suggest any medical restrictions with regard to the VR process and also left open the possibility that the Appellant could perform some sedentary work. Therefore the Board was correct in its decision to discontinue benefits. The Appellant's appeal is denied.

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: 2018-07-04
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
1. Was the decision to deny coverage for the Appellant’s right knee symptoms under this claim correct? 2. Was the decision to deny coverage for the Appellant’s lower back symptoms under this claim correct? 3. Was the decision to calculate the Appellant’s Extended Wage Loss Benefits based on estimated earnings of $26,249.29 per annum correct?
WCAT Decision
Here, the Appellant’s loss of earning capacity was assessed, based on her accepted diagnosis of left ankle sprain. However, the Tribunal has determined, under Issues #1 and #2 herein, that the Appellant’s right knee and low back symptoms are also compensable and is of the view that, in light of that determination, the Appellant’s loss of earning capacity must now be reassessed. Accordingly, while the Board must “pre-approve” a Functional Capacity Evaluation, it is the Tribunal’s view that a Functional Capacity Evaluation would be a pivotal resource that the Board could use, in keeping with s. 15 of Board Policy POL-26, to reassess the Appellant’s functional ability to work in this case. The matter of calculating the Appellant’s EWL benefits is, therefore, returned to the Board for reconsideration in light of the Tribunal’s decisions with regard to Issues #1 and #2 herein, with the recommendation that a Functional Capacity Evaluation be used to provide a more accurate assessment of the Appellant’s functional abilities.

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: 2018-06-07
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issues raised by this appeal are: a) Was the decision to close the Workers claim for temporary wage loss and medical aid benefits effective June 27, 2017 correct? b) Was the decision to deny the Worker an MRI correct?
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal has concluded that the WCB has discretion with respect to the nature and character of medical aid to be provided to an injured worker. Having regard to the facts of this case, the Tribunal is not prepared to interfere with the exercise of that discretion with respect to the Board’s decision to deny the Worker an MRI. the Worker’s appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal has concluded the Worker continued to suffer a loss of earning capacity as of June 27, 2017. The Tribunal defers the management of the Worker’s claim after that date, including issues of the appropriateness of any particular medical aid or investigation, to the Workers Compensation Board.

Date: 2018-06-07
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issues raised by this appeal are: a. Was the finding that the Worker is a job match for the [PERSONAL INFORMATION] position correct? b. Was the decision to approve temporary wage loss benefits from only December 9, 2016 to December 15, 2016 correct?
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal has concluded on the balance of probabilities, with the available evidence before it, that the job match was not safe match for the Worker as of December 2016. The Tribunal has concluded the Worker’s temporary wage loss benefits should be reinstated effective December 15, 2016.

Date: 2018-05-31
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Did the Worker sustain a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment?
WCAT Decision
Based on all of the evidence and for the reasons set out herein, this Tribunal finds that, as a consequence of the previously identified traumatic workplace events and of their cumulative effects, the Appellant has suffered an “acute reaction”, i.e. a significant or severe reaction that resulted in the diagnosis, in her case, of four separate psychological or psychiatric conditions, as set out in Dr. McLure’s report of July 4, 2017. Accordingly, it is determined that the Appellant has suffered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. In the result, the Appellant’s appeal from the decision of the IRO, dated November 16, 2017, is allowed and her claim for Workers Compensation benefits accepted.

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.

PREV
Displaying results 1 to 10 (of 331 total).
sort: ascending | descending