DECISION Keith G. Barry Review Commissioner
|
|
- Moris Owen
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION 6 Mt. Carson Ave., Dorset Building Mt. Pearl, NL A1N 3K4 DECISION Keith G. Barry Review Commissioner October 2013
2 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION DECISION Review Proceedings WHSCRD Case No.: WHSCC Claim No.: Review Commissioner: Decision Under Review: Keith G. Barry Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission decision dated November 1, 2012 Date & Place of Hearing: July 2, 2013 Hearings Room Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division Mount Pearl, NL Attendances at Hearing: Worker Present Worker s Representative Mel Strong, Appeals Officer Governments Members Office WHSCC s Representative Kathy Fry, Hearings Officer Observer Worker s Spouse Issues Under Review 1. The worker is requesting the Review Commissioner find that the Commission erred in denying her request for an extension of physiotherapy treatments. The parties agreed to the use of the file materials for the purpose of this review. Case Summary The worker sustained a compensable injury to her right hip and leg on October 27, 2008 that was initially diagnosed as a disc injury. She underwent chiropractic treatments and in September 2009, she began physiotherapy treatments. The Commission continued to approve the physiotherapy extension requests to July 2012 which totaled 168 treatments. 1
3 On July 6, 2012, the Commission received another request from the worker s treating Physiotherapist for an additional six treatments, at a frequency of one per week, which was reviewed by the Commission s Physiotherapy Consultant. Following this review, as well as the other medical evidence on file, the worker was advised, in a decision dated August 10, 2012, that her request for further physiotherapy was denied. The worker appealed and in a decision dated November 1, 2012, was advised by the Internal Review Specialist that her appeal was denied. The worker disagreed. Relevant Legislation and Policy The jurisdiction of the Review Commissioner is outlined in the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (the Act), sections 26(1) and (2) and Also relevant and considered in this case are Sections 19(1), 84(1) and 85(1) of the Act, along with Policy HC-01: Physiotherapy Services Private Clinics. Positions Considered Worker s Position: Mr. Strong began his presentation with a brief description of the mechanism of injury and subsequent medical investigation and treatment, (i.e. participated in Early and Safe Return to Work (ESRTW), Empower Multidisciplinary Team Assessment, etc.). He referenced a Case Worksheet note dated February 25, 2010, wherein the worker s Case Manager stated, in part, that Physio is helping her stay at wrk and slowly increase her hours He also referenced another Case Worksheet note dated March 23, 2010, wherein the Case Manager stated that EMPOWER CC today indicated more physio and CBOR to strengthen the core muscles. The worker described the stretch exercises that she does at physiotherapy which she noted she was unable to do at home. She noted that they were very beneficial, since they took the pressure off the nerve. She noted that since she stopped doing physiotherapy in August 2012, her condition has deteriorated, requiring her to have to take more medication. She also noted that she has lately had problems with her right hand and arm. Mr. Strong referenced the Internal Review Specialist s decision, specifically her recounting of the number of treating professionals that have assessed the worker, particularly two Neurologists and an Orthopedic Surgeon. Mr. Strong also referenced Form 8/10 s from the worker s Physiotherapist and treating physicians dated September 10, 2009 and October 20, 2009 respectfully, wherein they list under Objective Findings, abnormal sensation/gait, atrophy, decreased range of motion, etc. Mr. Strong referenced an EMPOWER Multidisciplinary Team Assessment report dated March 30, 2010, specifically, in the Recommendations section, the Return to Work comments stated, The prognosis to return to the preinjury job is good. It is anticipated with physiotherapy and strengthening that the right leg symptoms will improve over time He noted that the worker went through a weaning process which she found beneficial and steadily increased her hours of work attendance. 2
4 Mr. Strong referenced a Form 8/10 dated June 21, 2010, wherein the Physiotherapist listed the same Objective Findings as almost one year earlier, but indicated moderate improvement. He referenced a number of other Form 8/10 reports from the worker s Physiotherapist in 2011 and 2012 which continued to report mild/moderate improvement leading up to the July 6, 2012 request for six additional treatment sessions. Mr. Strong referenced the worker s letter of appeal dated August 14, 2012, wherein the worker noted the problems she was having with her home exercises and her desire to be at work. Mr. Strong referenced the Commission s obligation under Sections 84(1) and 85(1) of the Act, along with Policy HC-01. Commission s Position: The Commission s position was presented by Ms. Fry and contained in the Internal Review Specialist s decision dated November 1, The Internal Review Specialist began her decision with a reference to the worker s letter of appeal. Specifically, the worker s assertion that the stretching exercises she received at physiotherapy were the only thing that relieved the pressure off her sciatic nerve. The Internal Review Specialist referenced various reports submitted by the worker s treating physician which included: March 6, 2009 The Orthopedic Surgeon reported the worker s complaint of pain was around the right buttock and into the groin region, with radiation down into the right leg to foot level and ordered an MRI. In a further report, dated April 24, 2009, after reviewing the MRI results, the Orthopedic Surgeon noted that there was no evidence of any significant L5 nerve root compression. He did note that there was some lateral stenosis in that area. August 27, 2009 The Neurologist indicated that there was no evidence to suspect spinal cord or lumbosacral nerve root disorder, suggesting physiotherapy. An EMPOWER Action Plan- Multidisciplinary Program report dated March 23, 2010 recommended sessions of a Clinic Based Occupational Rehabilitation (CBOR) program, as well as 8-10 sessions of active physiotherapy. February 24, 2010 A second Neurologist indicated that the worker s primary problem was an L5 radiculopathy which he expected would continue to improve. The Internal Review Specialist referenced the July 6, 2012 report from the Physiotherapist, requesting six additional treatment sessions over and above the 168 treatments the worker had received to date. She noted that the request had been reviewed by the Commission s Physiotherapy Consultant, who reported, in a Case Worksheet note, dated August 8, 2012: I have reviewed the report and the history of payments on file. The worker has attended routine care weekly for an extensive period of time. It is reasonable to discontinue professional level care and proceed with self management techniques. If not provided already, you may consider getting her a heating pad or TENS. Patients are typically well educated on self management techniques and there is no need for weaning here. 3
5 As a result of this opinion, and other evidence in the file, the Internal Review Specialist noted that the worker s request for the six additional treatments was denied. Ms. Fry began her presentation with two questions for the worker, namely: 1. What transpired after the physiotherapy was discontinued? The worker replied that she remained working, but had to rely on increased medication (i.e. Robaxacet). 2. Was the worker aware that the Commission s decision to discontinue her physiotherapy treatments was to see how she would do without the treatments? The worker noted that she was not aware why her request was denied. She noted that she did take advantage of the Commission s offer of a heating pad and TENS unit. Ms. Fry noted that the worker is approximately five years removed from her injury and, after approving 168 treatments during that time, the Commission was correct in their determination that the worker had reached the maximum benefit. She noted that the EMPOWER Multidisciplinary Team Assessment report dated March 30, 2010 had only recommended that she: Continue with current ESRTW with occupational rehabilitation involvement CBOR at two days per week x sessions 8-10 sessions of active physiotherapy once weekly Ms. Fry pointed out that treatment modalities such as physiotherapy are intended to be an early intervention approach to treating the injury and are not meant to be long term. She noted that the worker was advised to go back to her treating physician/empower if her home exercise program was not giving her the benefit she needed. Ms. Fry pointed out that the Commission had a responsibility to look at how many treatments were availed of by the worker, what was originally recommended, etc., and if significant progress was not evidenced, then alternate approaches should be investigated. She noted that it was not the Commission s intent to save expenses, but to investigate what was in the worker s best interest. She noted that the physiotherapy provided no long term benefit or any significant reduction in the worker s symptoms. Ms. Fry acknowledged that the physiotherapy was helping the worker to remain on the job, but pointed out that after approximately five years and 168 treatments, the Commission was bound by Section 85(1) of the Act to explore a different approach. Worker s Rebuttal: Mr. Strong acknowledged that perhaps going back to her treating physician/empower was a good idea, but noted that this was not communicated properly to the worker. The worker also acknowledged the Commission s recommendation to going back to her treating physician/empower, but she was of the understanding that this would be initiated by the Commission, since they made the recommendation. The worker concluded by describing the difficulty she has in performing the activities of daily living. 4
6 Reasoning and Conclusions After listening to the presentations of Mr. Strong and the worker, I find that their primary argument for continuing the worker s physiotherapy treatments was that it helped her to remain at work. Specifically, it was the worker s contention that the only exercises she found beneficial were the stretching exercises she could only get at physiotherapy which alleviated the pressure on her sciatic nerve. The Commission s primary reason for denying the worker s request for additional physiotherapy was that given the extensive period of time and the number of treatments received, it was reasonable for the worker to proceed with self-management techniques or explore alternate approaches. My role as a Review Commissioner is to review the decision of the Commission and determine if the Commission, in making that decision, acted in accordance with the Act, regulations and policy. After reviewing all of the evidence on file and listening to the presentations by both parties, I find that the weight of evidence favors the Commission s position over that of the worker. I note that Section 85(1) of the Act states: 85(1) The supervision and control of medical aid and questions as to the necessity, character and sufficiency of medical aid which is provided shall be determined by the commission. I further note that this provision is mandatory, thereby placing a legal obligation on the Commission to ensure that the provision of medical aid is administered both efficiently and effectively. There is no question that the Commission has ultimate oversight on questions of medical aid. The Commission has a responsibility to manage claims on a case by case basis and decide accordingly. The Commission has wide discretion in its management powers, and while it exercises discretion, it must be exercised reasonably. As previously stated, the role of the Review Division is to review the decisions of the Commission to determine whether the Commission was correct. However, it is not the role of the Review Division to displace the role of the Commission in making medical determinations or to make decisions in the first instance. The Review Division s function is to ensure that the legislation and policies surrounding medical aid are identified and applied properly, and in accordance with the true spirit and intent of the Act and related policy, specifically in this case, Policy HC-01, which states, in part: 2.4 Physiotherapy continuation requests beyond 12 treatments will only be considered where evidence from outcome measures data indicates that functional improvement has occurred and further functional improvement is likely, and the continued treatment will result in the worker remaining in or returning to the workforce. All requests for extensions require approval from Compensation Services. I find that the issue in this case is the worker s claim that the physiotherapy treatments allow her to continue working, while the Commission has determined that their decision was made in accordance with both Section 85(1) of the Act and Policy HC-01. I note as Ms. Fry pointed out, the worker is approximately five years removed from the date of her injury and that she received her first physiotherapy treatment on February 10, During that period, I note that the worker has received 168 treatments without any significant functional improvement, as reported by her Physiotherapist. 5
7 I note that in initial Physiotherapist s Report dated February 10, 2009, the Physiotherapist indicated that the objective findings were abnormal sensation (dermatomal), Range of motion ( =25%), spasm. I further note that in his next report dated March 9, 2009, the Physiotherapist indicates that the worker has shown mild to moderate improvement from previous reports. I note in the next report dated April 7, 2009, the Physiotherapist indicates moderate to significant improvement under Objective Findings and has continued to provide the same update status, (i.e. mild/moderate improvement) in reports leading up to his request for six additional treatments in his July 6, 2012 report. As a result, I find that the Commission was correct to consider an alternate approach that would be in the worker s best interest. I find that not only is this determination in accordance with Policy HC-01, with respect to functional improvement, but it satisfies the Commission s responsibility to supervise and control issues related to medical aid, as required under Section 85(1) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the Commission s decision to deny the worker s request for an extension of her physiotherapy sessions to have correctly been made in accordance with legislation and policy. Decision With respect, the review is denied. Review Denied Keith G. Barry Review Commissioner October 16, 2013 Date /cv 6
DECISION Lloyd Piercey. Review Commissioner
WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION 6 Mt. Carson Ave., Dorset Building Mt. Pearl, NL A1N 3K4 DECISION 13148 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner July 2013 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION
More informationDECISION Lloyd Piercey. Review Commissioner
WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION 6 Mt. Carson Ave., Dorset Building Mt. Pearl, NL A1N 3K4 DECISION 13028 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner February 2013 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WorkplaceNL No: Decision Number: 16112 Keith Barry Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. This review application hearing
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 15240 Bruce Peckford Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The worker applied for a review
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13102-04 WHSCC Claim No: 711702 Decision Number: 13172 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing into
More informationDECISION OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Decision Number: A1701323 (January 5, 2018) DECISION OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Decision Number: A1701323 Decision Date: January 5, 2018 Introduction [1] By letter dated September 26,
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13220-10 WHSCC Claim No: 649960 Decision Number: 14074 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 16054 Marlene Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. This review application
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13044-02 WHSCC Claim No(s): 576717, 857507 Decision Number: 13260 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 15238 Christopher Pike Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing into the review
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 16006 Marlene Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The review of the worker
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Employer) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 1264/99. Recurrences (compensable injury).
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1264/99 Recurrences (compensable injury). The worker suffered right shoulder injuries in February 1991 and November 1991. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Officer denying
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 111/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 111/15 BEFORE: V. Marafioti: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 14, 2015 at Toronto Written Post-hearing activity completed on April 30, 2015 DATE
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WorkplaceNL No: Decision Number: 16133 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the review application
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
2005 ONWSIAT 341 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1273/04R [1] This request for reconsideration was considered on December 31, 2004, by Vice-Chair R. Nairn. THE RECONSIDERATION
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2649/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2649/16 BEFORE: K. Iima: Vice-Chair HEARING: October 6, 2016 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: December 28, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 529/97. Recurrences (compensable injury).
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 529/97 Recurrences (compensable injury). The worker suffered a low back injury in 1984. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Officer denying entitlement for recurrences in
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2194/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2194/15 BEFORE: G. McCaffrey: Vice-Chair HEARING: October 9, 2014 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: October 27, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Employer) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1414/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1414/15 BEFORE: L. Bradbury: Vice-Chair HEARING: July 7, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: August 5, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 111/07
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 111/07 BEFORE: S. Ryan: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 15, 2007 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: January 17, 2007 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2007 ONWSIAT
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 2182/99. Chronic pain. DECIDED BY: Marafioti DATE: 27/02/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 pages ACT: WCA
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 2182/99 Chronic pain. DECIDED BY: Marafioti DATE: 27/02/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 pages ACT: WCA 2001 ONWSIAT 549 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2182/99
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr S Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) Veterans UK Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr S complaint and no further action is required by Veterans UK. 2.
More informationCOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA SUMMARY OF DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE C. Dr. John Kirkpatrick
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA SUMMARY OF DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE C Dr. John Kirkpatrick Investigation Committee C of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia
More informationSUMMARY. Decision No May-2001 M. Faubert View Full Decision 6 Page(s) Keywords: Permanent impairment {NEL} References: Act Citation WCA
SUMMARY Decision No. 1442 01 30-May-2001 M. Faubert View Full Decision 6 Page(s) Keywords: Permanent impairment {NEL} References: Act Citation WCA Other Case Reference [w3201] Style of Cause: 2001 ONWSIAT
More informationSUMMARY. Style of Cause:
SUMMARY Decision No. 1882/01 10-Sep-2001 J. Sajtos View Full Decision 9 Page(s) Keywords: Accident (occurrence) Continuing entitlement References: Act Citation WCA Other Case Reference [w4301]z Style of
More informationMedical Affairs Policy
Medical Affairs Policy Service: Back Pain Procedures-Epidural Injection (Caudal Epidural, Selective Nerve Root Block, Interlaminar, Transforaminal, Translaminar Epidural Injection) PUM 250-0015-1706 Medical
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 776/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 776/15 BEFORE: S. Netten: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 21, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: May 1, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM F ROBERT LEON PAVEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM F308513 ROBERT LEON PAVEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Employer) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1583/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1583/16 BEFORE: B. Alexander : Vice-Chair A.D.G. Purdy : Member Representative of Employers M. Ferrari : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2015/14
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2015/14 BEFORE: V. Marafioti : Vice-Chair M. Christie : Member Representative of Employers A. Signoroni : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2192/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2192/16 BEFORE: E. Kosmidis: Vice-Chair HEARING: August 30, 2016 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: October 25, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14046-02 WHSCC Claim No: 814826 Decision Number: 14174 Marlene Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 553/01. Continuity (of symptoms). DECIDED BY: Moore DATE: 20/03/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 8 pages ACT: WCA
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 553/01 Continuity (of symptoms). DECIDED BY: Moore DATE: 20/03/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 8 pages ACT: WCA 2001 ONWSIAT 836 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO.
More informationNoteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: September 8, 2004
Decision Number: -2004-04737 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: -2004-04737 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: September 8, 2004 Adjustment Disorder Mental Stress Distinction between Compensation for
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 615/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 615/15 BEFORE: V. Marafioti : Vice-Chair B. Wheeler : Member Representative of Employers K. Hoskin : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:
More informationBEFORE THE BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 IN RE: KIM S. HUTCHESON ) DOCKET NOS. 11 17789 & 11 18590 ) 2 CLAIM NO. AG-47107 ) PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER 3 4 5 INDUSTRIAL APPEALS
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1199/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1199/15 BEFORE: J.B. Lang: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 29, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: August 4, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 346/14
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 346/14 BEFORE: J.E. Smith: Vice-Chair HEARING: February 25, 2014 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: March 13, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 497/10
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 497/10 BEFORE: V. Marafioti: Vice-Chair HEARING: March 12, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: May 7, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1672/10
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1672/10 BEFORE: M. M. Cohen : Vice-Chair A. D. G. Purdy: Member Representative of Employers K. Hoskin : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JANNIE A. HYMES, EMPLOYEE PINEWOOD HEALTH & REHABILITATION, EMPLOYER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G202747 JANNIE A. HYMES, EMPLOYEE PINEWOOD HEALTH & REHABILITATION, EMPLOYER HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2107/13
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2107/13 BEFORE: A. T. Patterson: Vice-Chair HEARING: November 7, 2013 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 28, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1041/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1041/16 BEFORE: K. Iima: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 20, 2016 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: July 8, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2470/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2470/09 BEFORE: V. Marafioti: Vice-Chair HEARING: December 18, 2009 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: January 19, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010
More informationWORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID # [PERSONAL INFORMATION] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID # [PERSONAL INFORMATION] AND: APPELLANT WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #248 Appellant
More informationWorkplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: Workplace Claim No: Decision Number: 16117 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. This review application
More informationDECISION OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Decision Number: A1801732 (September 11, 2018) DECISION OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Decision Number: A1801732 Decision Date: September 11, 2018 Introduction [1] The worker has appealed
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E OPINION FILED AUGUST 17, 2004
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E409341 LINDA WILCUT, EMPLOYEE BASLER ELECTRIC CO., INS., EMPLOYER TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More informationSUMMARY. Style of Cause:
SUMMARY Decision No. 1965/01 24-Aug-2001 L. Henderson View Full Decision 6 Page(s) Keywords: Second Injury and Enhancement Fund {SIEF} (preexisting condition) References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs N Local Government Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Oxfordshire County Council (the Council) Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mrs N s complaint and no further
More informationComplainant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia DECISION NO. 2018-HPA-034(a); 2018-HPA-035(a) (GROUP
More informationSTATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia (404)
2008013623 Trial 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 (404) 656-6107 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF THE CASE The above-styled claim was heard before the undersigned on April 28, 2010,
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 73/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 73/09 BEFORE: N. Jugnundan: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 12, 2009 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
2004 ONWSIAT 502 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 58/04 [1] The appeal was held in Toronto on January 14, 2004 before Vice-Chair, T. Carroll. THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS [2] The
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 20, 2004
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F114315 MARTHA BELLE GOSA, EMPLOYEE NU-WAY PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT
More informationNoise Induced Hearing Loss: Final Program Policy Decision and Supporting Rationale
Noise Induced Hearing Loss: Final Program Policy Decision and Supporting Rationale March 2018 1 I Introduction: In January 2018 the WCB Board of Directors invited stakeholders to participate in a one stage
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1077/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1077/15 BEFORE: R. Nairn: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: August 21, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2902/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2902/16 BEFORE: V. Marafioti : Vice-Chair S.T. Sahay : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ROSA CORTEZ CLAIMANT BRIGHTON HOUSE CARE CENTER OPINION FILED MAY 28, 2004
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F309834 ROSA CORTEZ CLAIMANT BRIGHTON HOUSE CARE CENTER ARKANSAS SELF INSURED INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 28,
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,254 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID WARRENDER, Appellee, MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,254 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DAVID WARRENDER, Appellee, v. VIA CHRISTI HOSPITALS WICHITA, SECURITY INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, and FIRE & CASUALTY
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F BILLY R. COOPER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FRITO LAY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F311899 BILLY R. COOPER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FRITO LAY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIDELITY & GUARANTY INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F HOME DEPOT, INC. RESPONDENT NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F804573 JERRY YARBERRO CLAIMANT HOME DEPOT, INC. RESPONDENT NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 585/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 585/15 BEFORE: S. Netten: Vice-Chair HEARING: March 25, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: April 1, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G DAVID YERXA, Employee. NCR CORPORATION, Employer
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G300316 DAVID YERXA, Employee NCR CORPORATION, Employer INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ALISHA MILLER CLAIMANT SOUTH ARK YOUTH SERVICES, INC.
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F807935 ALISHA MILLER CLAIMANT SOUTH ARK YOUTH SERVICES, INC. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2604/06
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2604/06 BEFORE: T. Mitchinson : Vice-Chair HEARING: December 21, 2006 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: January 11, 2007 NEUTRAL CITATION:
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participant entitled to respond to the appeal: Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) S.251 REFERRAL TO HEARING OFFICER
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 482/07
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 482/07 BEFORE: S. Peckover: Vice-Chair HEARING: March 2, 2007 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: April 5, 2007 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2007 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1068/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1068/15 BEFORE: J. Frenschkowski : Vice-Chair B. M. Young : Member Representative of Employers R. J. Lebert : Member Representative of Workers
More informationGOOD, BAD AND UGLY. Dr. Patrica Hurford. Dr. John Krause Michael Banahan. John Larsen. Dr. Lyndon Gross. Cheryl Kane. Dr.
Dr. Patrica Hurford Dr. John Krause Michael Banahan John Larsen Dr. Lyndon Gross Patrick Venditti Moderator Dr. James Coyle Cheryl Kane Dr. Johnsey, Orthopedic surgeon was asked to see Sebastian Wilkes
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E RHONDA MAULDIN, EMPLOYEE
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E511360 RHONDA MAULDIN, EMPLOYEE SILOAM SPRINGS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT
More information15 March 2012 Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP
Report on an investigation into complaint no against the London Oratory School 15 March 2012 Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP Investigation into complaint no against the London Oratory School
More informationDECISION NO. 788/91. Suitable employment; Medical restrictions (repetitive bending and lifting).
DECISION NO. 788/91 Suitable employment; Medical restrictions (repetitive bending and lifting). The worker suffered three compensable back injuries between April 1982 and August 1983. He appealed the denial
More informationA M E R I C A N A R B I T R A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N NO-FAULT/ACCIDENT CLAIMS AWARD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL
CASE NO. 18 Z 600 07327 03 2 A M E R I C A N A R B I T R A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N NO-FAULT/ACCIDENT CLAIMS In the Matter of the Arbitration between (Claimant) AAA CASE NO.: 18 Z 600 07327 03 v.
More informationSTATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA MARY ANN ROBERTS, Claimant Below, Petitioner SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED May 5, 2017 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs.) No. 16-0545 (BOR Appeal
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F JAMES SKINKIS, Employee. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F510516 JAMES SKINKIS, Employee NEXT SOURCE, Employer HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 4,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellant Decided: August 8, 2008 * * * * *
[Cite as Plotner v. Family Dollar Stores, 2008-Ohio-4035.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Pauline S. Plotner (Lenz), et al. Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-07-1287
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 1505/00. Chronic pain. DECIDED BY: Marafioti DATE: 21/03/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 pages ACT: WCA
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1505/00 Chronic pain. DECIDED BY: Marafioti DATE: 21/03/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 pages ACT: WCA 2001 ONWSIAT 869 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1505/00
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 1080/00. Disablement (strenuous work); Sewing machine operator.
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1080/00 Disablement (strenuous work); Sewing machine operator. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Officer denying entitlement for a bilateral foot condition. The worker's
More informationSUMMARY DECISION NO. 984/98. Delay (onset of symptoms). DECIDED BY: Sandomirsky; Rao; Howes DATE: 31/01/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 pages ACT: WCA
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 984/98 Delay (onset of symptoms). DECIDED BY: Sandomirsky; Rao; Howes DATE: 31/01/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 pages ACT: WCA 2001 ONWSIAT 247 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1144/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1144/15 BEFORE: N. Perryman: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 20, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: June 29, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 399/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 399/15 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: February 24, 2015 at Sudbury Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 16, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT
More informationDECISION NO. 2870/16
Counsel: H.K., for Worker No one for Employer 2016 ONWSIAT 3235 Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal Decision No. 2870/16 2016 CarswellOnt 19003, 2016 ONWSIAT 3235 DECISION NO. 2870/16
More information* WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 84/07
* WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 84/07 BEFORE: A. Suissa: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 12, 2007 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: January 12, 2007 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2007
More informationMEMORANDUM 377/87. DATE: April 5, 1988 TO: ALL WCAT STAFF SUBJECT: DECISION NO. 377/87
MEMORANDUM 377/87 DATE: April 5, 1988 TYPE: A TO: ALL WCAT STAFF SUBJECT: DECISION NO. 377/87 Aggravation (preexisting condition) (degenerative disc disease) - Disc, herniated (L4-5). - Bricklayer not
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G TRACYE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., EMPLOYER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G305735 TRACYE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., EMPLOYER ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1051/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1051/15 BEFORE: C. M. MacAdam: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 27, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: June 17, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 257/14
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 257/14 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: February 11, 2014 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 11, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014 ONWSIAT
More informationA third back injury on April 28, 2003, resulted in a two-week time loss from work.
CLAIM HISTORY AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS: The Worker injured his left knee in a workplace accident on July 28, 1989. Surgeries were performed in 1989 and 1994, and the Worker was awarded a 12 percent permanent
More informationSpinal cord compression: what it means and how it can be treated
Spinal cord compression: what it means and how it can be treated Patient Information Oncology Department Author ID: Acute Oncology Nurse Specialist Leaflet Number: CC 036 Version: 2.1 Name of Leaflet:
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G208623 TRACIE L. YOUNG, EMPLOYEE L M WIND POWER BLADES, INC., EMPLOYER TWIN CITY FIRE, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC. CARRIER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F712377 WAYNE OWENS WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC. CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 22, 2009
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F GNB TECHNOLOGIES (EXIDE) ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F011769 JOE GILL GNB TECHNOLOGIES (EXIDE) ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER
More informationAutomobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission
Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal by [the Appellant] AICAC File No.: AC-07-135 PANEL: APPEARANCES: Mr. Mel Myers, Q.C., Chairperson The Appellant, [text deleted],
More informationBack Safety Healthcare #09-066
Back Safety Healthcare Version #09-066 I. Introduction A. Scope of training This training program applies to healthcare employees whose job requires them to lift patients or other heavy objects. Lifting
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 793/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 793/15 BEFORE: G. Dee: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 9, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: July 7, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT 1487
More information