Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division"

Transcription

1 Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: and Decision Number: Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the review application was held at the Glynmill Inn in Corner Brook, NL on August 27, The worker attended the hearing and was represented by Donna Ryan, C.U.P.E. 2. The Commission was represented by Kathy Fry, Hearing Officer, who attended and participated in the hearing process. The employer did not attend nor participate in the hearing process. Introduction 3. The worker, while employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse, sustained an injury to her neck and left shoulder on January 15, The worker, on January 2, 2008, also injured her lower back while working as a Ward Clerk. 5. The worker had previously received a Permanent Functional Impairment (PFI) assessment and received a PFI rating award of 15%. On February 11, 2014, the worker received a PFI re-assessment for her neck, shoulder and lower back. She was found to be entitled to a 19% combined PFI rating which represented an increase of 4%. The worker was advised of this in correspondence from the Client Service Assistant in correspondence dated April 7, The worker appealed this decision and, on May 20, 2014, the Internal Review Specialist rendered a decision that upheld the April 7, 2014 decision by the Client Service Assistant. 7. It is the May 20, 2014 decision by the Internal Review Specialist that is before me. Issue 8. The worker is asking that I find the Commission erred in increasing her PFI rating by 4%, resulting in a combined rating of 19% for her neck, shoulder and lower back injuries. She is asking that this amount be increased to reflect the nature of her injuries. 1

2 Outcome 9. I find the decision by the Commission dated May 20, 2014 to be in accordance with the Act, regulations and policies. I find the recommended rating for each body part to be appropriate and the overall 19% PFI entitlement to be correct. With respect, the review is denied. Legislation and Policy 10. The jurisdiction of a Review Commissioner is outlined in the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (the Act), Sections 26(1) and (2), 26.1 and 28 which state, in part: Review by review commissioner 26(1) Upon receiving an application under subsection 28(1) a review commissioner may review a decision of the commission to determine if the commission, in making that decision, acted in accordance with this Act, the regulations and policy established by the commission under subsection 5(1) as they apply to (a) (a.1) (b) (c) (d) (e) compensation benefits; rehabilitation and return to work services and benefits; an employer's assessment; the assignment of an employer to a particular class or group; an employer's merit or demerit rating; and the obligations of an employer and a worker under Part VI. (2) An order or decision of a review commissioner is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in a court of law and proceedings by or before a review commissioner shall not be restrained by injunction, prohibition or other process or proceedings in a court of law or be removable by certiorari or otherwise in a court of law. Review commissioner bound by policy 26.1 A review commissioner shall be bound by this Act, the regulations and policy. Application to a review commissioner 28(1) A worker, dependent or an employer, either personally or through an agent acting on their behalf with written consent, may apply to the chief review commissioner for the review of a decision as referred to in subsection 26(1), within 30 days of receiving the written decision of the commission. (2) A review commissioner shall not review a decision under subsection (1) except in accordance with subsection 26(1). 2

3 (4) A review commissioner to which a matter has been referred for review shall (a) (b) notify the person seeking the review and the commission of the time and place set for the review; and review the decision of the commission and determine whether it was in accordance with this Act, the regulations and policy. (4.1) Where a review commissioner determines that the decision of the commission was in accordance with this Act, the regulations and policy, he or she shall confirm the decision of the commission. (4.2) Where a review commissioner determines that the decision of the commission was not in accordance with this Act, the regulations and policy, he or she shall identify how the decision of the commission was contrary to this Act, regulations and policy, specify the contravened provision, set aside the decision of the commission and (a) (b) make a decision which is in accordance with this Act, regulations and policy; or where it is appropriate to have a new decision from the commission, refer the matter to the commission for a new decision with or without direction on an appropriate remedy. 11. Other relevant sections considered are Sections 2(1), 19(1), 43.1, 60, and 73(1) of the Act, along with Policy EN-01: Permanent Functional Impairment. Relevant Submissions and Positions 12. Ms. Ryan gave a brief history of the worker s injury and treatments, noting that there were two separate incidents and injuries in the worker s claim history. 13. Ms. Ryan referenced the PFI assessment and stated that this report did not explain to the worker how the Assessor had arrived at the additional 4% rating award. 14. Ms. Ryan states that the worker disagreed and objected that a non-work related proportionment was added to her PFI rating award. The worker contends that to do so violates Section 43 of the Act and Policy EN-01: Permanent Functional Impairment. 15. Ms. Ryan submits that the PFI Assessor did not use the American Medical Association s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in her assessment as required. Furthermore, she also contends that Policy EN-01 Permanent Functional Impairment does not support the use of the Combined Values Chart. 3

4 16. Ms. Ryan states that the PFI Assessment was completed on the worker one week after she received therapy. She contends that this gives an unrealistic assessment of the worker, as the worker s condition would worsen in weeks three and four. 17. Ms. Fry notes that Ms. Ryan had referenced that the Commission had violated Section 43 of the Act and Policy EN-01: Permanent Functional Impairment in the PFI assessment. Ms. Fry stated that Section 43 of the Act applied to proportioning of Extended Earnings Loss (EEL) benefits and not PFI rating awards. 18. Ms. Fry states that the use of the Combined Values Chart, contrary to Ms. Ryan s position, is within the relevant policy. There is no violation of the legislation or policy in this instance. 19. Ms. Fry notes that the worker was advised by the Client Service Assistant, in writing on April 7, 2014, that the Commission had reviewed the claim and the Commission s Medical Officer had assessed the worker for a PFI award on February 11, The method and results were explained to the worker, at that time, contends Ms. Fry. The Client Service Assistant had noted in her correspondence that the PFI findings were based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 20. Ms. Fry notes that the worker had an earlier PFI re-assessment completed by the Commission s Medical Consultant on January 23, He had concluded that the worker s condition had not changed. 21. Ms. Fry notes that the worker was again assessed by the Commission s Medical Officer on February 20, 2002 and was awarded an additional 2.5% PFI rating for her lower back. 22. Ms. Fry references a PFI re-assessment that was completed on the worker on December 13, 2002 and in which she was awarded an additional 7.5% PFI rating for limitations of her lumbosacral spine. This, states Ms. Fry, explains the 15% PFI rating that existed until the PFI re-assessment of February 11, 2014, that increased the PFI rating award by 4% to now equal 19%, as indicated by the Combined Values Chart of the AMA Guidelines. 23. Ms. Fry states that the worker contends that the Medical Officer who did the PFI on February 11, 2014 was not aware that the worker had previous surgery. Ms. Fry references the medical history of the worker in the PFI re-assessment which does note prior surgery in January Ms. Fry submits that a comparison of the 2002 PFI re-assessment and the February 11, 2014 PFI re-assessment demonstrates that the worker s condition had actually improved. 25. Ms. Fry states that the file confirms that the Medical Officer assessed the worker s tolerances and limitations and appropriately concluded that a 5% rating would be applied for the non-work related injury. 4

5 Analysis 26. It is the position of the worker that her impairment should be higher than the 19% rating awarded her. She notes that she received 15% in 2002 and now, some 12 years later, after a second injury in 2008, and surgery since that time, she has only been awarded an additional 4%. 27. It is the position of the Commission that the Medical Consultant assessed the worker on February 11, 2014 and considered the demonstrated results, as well as the worker s medical history, and appropriately arrived at a PFI rating award that reflected the worker s impairment. 28. Before I address the PFI issue, I note for the record that, in addition to the issue relative to the PFI rating award, the Review Division had identified, in error, a second issue stated as The worker is requesting the Review Commissioner find the Commission erred in determining the proportioning factor on her claim is 25% and the percentage of her compensation rate payable is 75%. I pointed out to the worker and her representative, as well as the Commission s representative, that the decision by the Internal Review Specialist, dated May 20, 2014, noted the following, relative to the proportioning factor applied to the claim: From my review of the evidence, I conclude the evidence and opinion of the Medical Consultant, does support a long-standing history of pre-existing noncompensable lower back condition. However, I conclude the information gathering process is not completed. Therefore, this issue is referred back to the Case Manager to obtain information regarding any lost time prior to the January 2008 work injury, the periods of absences, whether there was any accommodation or modified work required as suggested by the Medical Consultant. Once this information is received, another review is required in consultation with the Medical Consultant to review the proportionment rating. In light of the above finding, both parties agreed that it was not appropriate to argue this issue, since a final decision had not been rendered on this matter. 29. I note that Policy EN-01, Permanent Functional Impairment provides for a worker who suffers a permanent impairment, as a result of a work injury, the opportunity to pursue entitlement in the form of a lump sum payment. 30. A PFI award is intended to reflect the diminishment of the physical or functional capacity of the body. There is a recognized process which provides structure to that analysis. The Commission, in its authority under Section 5 of the Act, has adopted Policy EN-01, Permanent Functional Impairment, which is also permitted by Section 73, which states, in part: 5

6 73. (1) Where, as the result of an injury, a worker is disabled or impaired either permanently or temporarily, totally or partially, the commission shall pay in relation to the worker (b) a lump sum award for the permanent impairment as determined by the commission after consideration of a rating schedule; and (2) The maximum and minimum lump sum awards payable under paragraph (1)(b) shall be as prescribed by regulations. (3) The board of directors may for the purpose of paragraph (1)(b) approve a rating schedule which may be considered in calculating the amount of an award for a permanent impairment arising out of an injury. 31. The term impairment is also defined in the Act, as is the term disability. Subsection 2(1) states, in part: 2.(1) In this Act (g.1) "disability" means the loss of earning capacity of a worker as a result of an injury; (l.1) "impairment" means a physical or functional abnormality or loss, including a disfigurement, as a result of an injury; 32. Under the Act, an injury may produce a disability or impairment, and it may produce both. Where the injury has a negative effect on earning capacity, a disability occurs. Where the injury causes a physical or functional abnormality or loss, there is impairment. One may exist without the other. For example, an injury may produce an impairment but not a disability if the injury does not affect an individual s pre-injury employment because of the nature of his or her job. 33. Also, the concept of impairment is recognized as a physical or functional abnormality or loss. It is measuring a specific effect of a compensable injury, not every effect of a compensable injury. It is intended to measure the degree to which the body s functioning is impaired. It is not measured by the degree to which an individual s quality or enjoyment of life is affected, or the loss of specific pre-injury activities. The two often overlap, but the emphasis is on the degree to which the part, or parts, of the body are diminished in function and how this translates into a total body impairment. As the name suggests, the award is a permanent impairment award. 6

7 34. Policy EN-01, Permanent Functional Impairment provides a Rating Schedule and it also allows reference to the AMA Guidelines. That is the rating schedule which the Commission has adopted under Section 73. It is important to note that pain, in and of itself, is not a separate rating criteria, but the expected effects of pain associated with a type of injury are already contemplated by the Policy. Policy EN-01, Permanent Functional Impairment states, in part: A worker who suffers a permanent impairment as a result of a work related injury may be entitled to a lump sum payment for Permanent Functional Impairment (P.F.I.). The P.F.I. benefit recognizes noneconomic loss, as opposed to loss of earning capacity, and is based on measurable loss of bodily function. Entitlement is determined by the Commission through consideration of its adopted rating schedule known as the Permanent Functional Impairment Rating Schedule. Where the Permanent Functional Impairment Rating Schedule does not address a certain type of impairment, or where it is not precise enough to fully evaluate the extent of an impairment, the Commission may use the American Medical Association (A.M.A.) Guides as a reference. The impairment percentages given in the A.M.A. Guides include allowances for the pain that may occur with the impairment. The existence of pain does not enhance the impairment percentages recommended. No award is given specifically for pain and suffering. (emphasis added) 35. It is also important to note that the PFI Rating Schedule is a guide. Many cases will not fit into the Rating Schedule, and it is on these occasions when the examining physician will be required to exercise judgment, relative to the symptoms and signs of impairment demonstrated by the injured worker. A medical finding is entitled to due weight as an expert opinion, and unless the opinion of the physician is outbalanced by evidence of greater weight, or is proceeding on a wrong or incomplete assumption, the Review Commissioner is not in a position to simply disagree with a medical finding and substitute his or her own personal opinion. The Review Commissioner is reviewing whether the Commission followed the Act, regulations, and policies, but cannot make purely medical findings of its own as part of this process. 36. I note, also, that the functional impairment is expressed as a percentage of impairment to the body part affected and that the Commission s PFI Rating Schedule is generally used for the purpose of neck and back injuries. Where there is multiple body parts affected, a Combined Values Chart is used to determine the total body impairment, or overall PFI rating. 37. I accept that the worker has sustained injuries to multiple body parts and that it has had a significant effect on her life. I also note that her combined total body impairment of 19% is not insignificant. In the case of this worker, I must review the file and the process to determine whether the 19% rating was arrived at in accordance with the Act, regulations, 7

8 and Policy. In determining whether the Commission erred, it is not my role nor do I have the authority, to suggest that the Commission should use different criteria than that found in the legislation and policy, or that the Commission should adopt a different set of criteria to apply to the process. It is the Commission s role to determine the degree of physical or functional diminishment, based on the established criteria, and not necessarily the worker s subjective presentation of how the injury has generally affected her life and daily activities. It is necessary to understand that the effect of an injury may impact the quality of an individual s life more than others, but this is not the process which is established by the policy. It is not my role to review the policy itself, but rather whether the Commission followed the criteria set out in the policy, and in a manner that is in accordance with the Act. 38. I have reviewed the findings for the worker s neck and shoulders as indicated in the PFI reassessment of February 11, The following results are noted by the PFI Assessor: C-spine forward flexing at 20 degrees; rotating to left was 50 degrees of normal and rotating to the right was 75 degrees of normal. Left shoulder tenderness and spasm in the paravertebral and trapezius border. Both shoulders abducted to 180 degrees; forward flexing for both shoulders was 180 degrees; extension was 50 degrees bilaterally and adduction was 40 degrees bilaterally. Normal internal and external rotation of both shoulders were indicated. There was normal sensory of the upper limbs with good power and tone. Biceps, triceps and brachioradialis indicated normal sensory and the wrists and elbows showed normal flexion and extension. 39. I note that the PFI Assessor wrote that the worker did have tenderness and spasms in the paravertebral muscles and trapezius border on the left shoulder. However, I find no indication by the findings that the worker has experienced any neurological changes. 40. In my review of the WHSCC Permanent Functional Impairment Rating Guide for Spinal Injuries, F-2, the 10-20% category states that under signs the worker would demonstrate moderate or severe loss of movement. Muscle spasms of the neck. Motor and/or neurological changes diminished upper limb reflexes. In the 5-10% category, the signs noted are moderate loss of movement, some flattening of the Lordotic curve, no nerve root signs. While the PFI Assessor does note that the worker has demonstrated spasms in her paravertebral muscles and trapezius border of the left shoulder, there is no evidence of nerve root signs or motor and/or sensory neurological changes. In my review of the findings for the c-spine and comparing these with those noted in the Permanent Rating Guide for Spinal Injuries, I find that they do not fit neatly in either of 5-10% category nor the 10-20% category. However, I do agree that the worker s signs and symptoms are at the top end of the 5-10% category and at the low end of the 10-20% category. As was noted earlier, there are times when the PFI Assessor will have to make a judgment call and, in this instance, I find the 10% rating applied to the worker s c-spine functional impairment is appropriate. 8

9 41. In my review of the February 11, 2014 PFI re-assessment, I note the following findings for the worker s lower back: Worker demonstrated moderate to severe back pain with referred pain. Worker avoids moderate lifting and bending. There is a moderate loss of movement with some muscle spasm. The worker experienced tenderness in the paravertebral muscles of the lower lumbosacral spine. There was a decreased sensation in the lateral aspect of the left thigh, left calf and left foot at big toe region. Straight leg raises were 90 degrees bilaterally. 42. I have taken the findings for the worker s lower back and did a comparative analysis of the signs and symptoms criteria that appear in the WHSCC Impairment Rating Guide for Spinal Injury, Section F-2. I note that the signs category of the 10-20% criteria indicate that worker would demonstrate moderate to severe loss of movement. Muscle spasm. Mild objective neurological changes, but no muscle wasting. The Symptoms criteria indicate that the worker would demonstrate moderate to severe back pain. Intermittent referred pain. Avoids all lifting, bending and twisting. I note that the PFI Assessor had written, relative to the lower back impairment, that the worker is experiencing moderate to severe back pain with referred pain. She does avoid any moderate lifting and bending. She has a moderate loss of movement with some muscle spasm. In my comparison of the signs and symptoms exhibited by the worker with the criteria set forth in the WHSCC Impairment Rating Guide for Spinal Injury, Section F-2, I find the PFI Assessor in assigning a 15% rating has placed the worker s impairment at the mid-range of the 10-20% category. In my review, I cannot find any evidence to contradict that determination. 43. I note that the PFI Assessor, after assigning a 15% rating to the worker s lower back impairment, wrote: She has a moderate loss of movement with some muscle spasm secondary to motor vehicle accidents preceding the injury sustained at work in 2002 and I feel that a 5% rating would be applied for the non-work related injury, subtracting this then from the recommended 15% gives a 10% recommendation as being her work related eligible injury. At the hearing, Ms. Ryan states that to apply a proportionment to the PFI rating was in violation of the policy, so I must acknowledge her argument in this regard. 44. Although the Commission has already remitted the proportionment issue back for further investigation, and the parties had agreed at the outset of the hearing that this matter was no longer a live issue before me as a result, I would note that Policy EN-01 Permanent Functional Impairment states, in part: 9

10 Permanent functional impairment benefits shall be proportioned based on the difference between functional impairment caused by the work injury and the known or estimated functional impairment due to other causes. Where, for example, the overall impairment rating for a worker with a back impairment is 25%, but the worker has a non-work related spinal fusion which would by itself be rated 10%, the worker s entitlement will be 15% Therefore, Section 43.1 of the Act and Policy EN-01 do specifically allow the Commission to consider the application of proportionment to PFI awards. The Commission has legislative authority to investigate this issue, and apply a proportionment factor if it is appropriate to the evidence on the claim. Therefore, I cannot make a ruling at this point that the Commission is precluded from considering the issue of proportionment, but I would also note that the Commission has decided, on its own, to re-evaluate its previous ruling on this issue. Rather than attempt to speculate as to what the result of the new decision will be, I would decline to make any further comment, as the issue may become moot if the Commission decides not to apply a proportionment rating as a result of its new decision. If the Commission does subsequently decide that a proportionment rating applies, Ms. Ryan will be free to seek review of that decision and argue the application of a proportionment rating in response to that decision. 46. Returning to the process for the establishment of the PFI award, I would reiterate that the PFI process depends on a medical evaluation based on an examination and interpretation of medical documentation and findings. It is conducted by a medical doctor with experience in that area. It is fair to challenge the assessment on the basis that the assumptions are incorrect or incomplete, but the errors alleged must have some material effect on the outcome or the methodology. The worker states that the PFI assessment was performed within a week of her having received therapy. She contends that the findings were not valid since, in week three or four, after her therapy treatments, she has a worsening of her symptoms. She argues that the findings are a false reflection of her functional capacity. I do not accept this argument because the testing measures observable function and the worker s physical function was what it was recorded to be on the date of the PFI assessment. Therefore, I cannot find that the methodology was flawed or the results inaccurate. While I can appreciate the worker s position, in the absence of a qualified source to support that the methodology was flawed or the assessment was conducted incorrectly, I must reject that argument. 47. Likewise, I cannot reject the findings on the basis of the argument that the testing fails to capture the overall reduction of the worker s quality of life, or their effect on specific activities previously performed by the worker. I do not minimize the change in the lifestyle and activities the worker has experienced, however, my role is to review the Commission s decision relative to whether it followed the Act, regulations and Policies, and not on other criteria that are not contained in the legislation. 48. Ms. Ryan states that the PFI Assessor should have used the AMA Guides in the assessment of the worker s functional impairment. Relative to this argument, the following excerpt from Policy EN-01, Permanent Functional Impairment addresses this issue and tends to confirm that the PFI was assessed in accordance with policy: 10

11 Entitlement is determined by the Commission through consideration of its adopted rating schedule known as the Permanent Functional Impairment Rating Schedule. Where the Permanent Functional Impairment Rating Schedule does not address a certain type of impairment, or where it is not precise enough to fully evaluate the extent of an impairment, the Commission may use the American Medical Association (A.M.A.) Guides as a reference. The impairment percentages given in the A.M.A. Guides include allowances for the pain that may occur with the impairment. The existence of pain does not enhance the impairment percentages recommended. No award is given specifically for pain and suffering. (emphasis added) 49. I note that the PFI Assessor wrote the following summary, relative to the assessment and the findings: [The worker] has sustained work injuries to her neck and shoulder as well as her lower back. In this report, based on the history of injury, treatment received and findings on today s exam, I am recommending a combined PFI rating of 19%. To date, [the worker] has received 15% rating eligibility and at this time I am recommending that she be eligible for a 4% rating increase. Please note that pain has not been rated separately, but is incorporated into the value assigned today. I have reviewed the Combined Values Chart and find the rating to be accurate and reflect the information in the table. It is also confirmed in the April 7, 2014 decision by the Client Services Assistant that the worker had already received a 15% rating and the worker has not contested this fact. 50. Section 73 of the Act allows the Commission to adopt a rating schedule and Policy EN-01 states that the Commission is allowed to consult the AMA Guidelines. The Act does not mandate which schedule that Commission has to follow in specific cases, or require the Commission to follow one schedule versus another. Therefore, I do not find that the Commission erred in either using the Combined Values Chart, or by consulting the Schedule in Policy EN-01: Permanent Functional Impairment versus the AMA Guidelines. 51. I find the Assessor recorded her medical findings and interpretation, with reference to the Ratings Schedule, and the values selected are within the range suggested by these findings. I find the correct process was followed and that is what I am reviewing in this instance. Under Sections 73 and 5 of the Act, the Commission established a general methodology for measuring the level of impairment due to the injury. In this case, I find the correct methodology was followed and I find the Commission acted in accordance with the Act, regulations and policy. Therefore, I cannot overturn the decision. 11

12 Decision 52. I find the decision by the Commission dated May 20, 2014 to be in accordance with the Act, regulations and policies. I find the recommended rating for each body part to be appropriate and the overall 19% PFI entitlement to be correct. With respect, the review is denied. Review Denied Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner September 30, 2014 Date 12

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13277-12 WHSCC Claim No: 633272 Decision Number: 14132 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The review took

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14275-11 WHSCC Claim No: 837491 Decision Number: 15034 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13252-11 WHSCC Claim No.(s): 604016, 611050, 672511 705910, 721783, 731715, 753775, 784014, 831110 Decision Number: 14189 Marlene

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13111-04 WHSCC Claim No: 832088 Decision Number: 14017 Margaret Blackmore Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14150-06 WHSCC Claim No: 871322 Decision Number: 15005 Keith Barry Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 15128 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the review

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 12307-12 WHSCC Claim No: 857036 Decision Number: 13090 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The

More information

DECISION 13080. Lloyd Piercey. Review Commissioner

DECISION 13080. Lloyd Piercey. Review Commissioner WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION 6 Mt. Carson Ave., Dorset Building Mt. Pearl, NL A1N 3K4 DECISION 13080 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner May 2013 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 15171 Gordon Murphy Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the review application

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL. [Personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information]

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL. [Personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information] PLAINTIFF AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DEFENDANT DECISION #41 [Personal

More information

What Happens After I Report the Injury?

What Happens After I Report the Injury? Introduction The Iowa Workers Compensation Act provides the only legal remedy against their employer for workers who are injured on the job. Workers Compensation law can be very technical. The law is administered

More information

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS Claims Between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1997

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS Claims Between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1997 WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS Claims Between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1997 The following information relates to workers injured on the job between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1997. Accidents

More information

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador. Permanent Functional Impairment (PFI) rating schedule

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador. Permanent Functional Impairment (PFI) rating schedule Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador Permanent Functional Impairment (PFI) rating schedule Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador Permanent Functional

More information

DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY

DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY The worker suffered a whiplash injury in a compensable motor vehicle accident in May 1991. The worker appealed a decision of the Hearings Officer denying entitlement when

More information

REVIEW DECISION. Review Reference #: R0103014 Board Decision under Review: March 3, 2009

REVIEW DECISION. Review Reference #: R0103014 Board Decision under Review: March 3, 2009 REVIEW DECISION Re: Review Reference #: R0103014 Board Decision under Review: March 3, 2009 Date: Review Officer: Lyall Zucko The worker requests a review of the decision of WorkSafeBC (the Board) dated

More information

SUMMARY. Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment).

SUMMARY. Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1033/98 Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment). The worker was a stope miner for four years beginning in 1987. In

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1602/11

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1602/11 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1602/11 BEFORE: M. M. Cohen: Vice-Chair HEARING: August 16, 2011 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: August 23, 2011 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2011

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99. Accident (occurrence).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99. Accident (occurrence). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99 Accident (occurrence). The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for low back disability. The worker experienced the onset of back

More information

CITATION: Danny Weston AND Q-COMP (WC/2012/35) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: Danny Weston AND Q-COMP (WC/2012/35) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Danny Weston AND Q-COMP (WC/2012/35) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - procedure for

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARY JANE WAGGONER ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,001,815 THE BOEING COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) INSURANCE COMPANY ) STATE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Advanced Dermatology Associates : (Selective Insurance Company of : America), : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2186 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: May 22, 2015 Workers Compensation

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15 BEFORE: E. Kosmidis : Vice-Chair E. Tracey : Member Representative of Employers C. Salama : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: N/A (Employer) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Employer) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Worker) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL

More information

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA WORKERS COMPENSATION INFORMATION FOR THE INJURED WORKER Phoenix Office: Industrial Commission of Arizona 800 W. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2922 Claims Phone:

More information

Notice of Independent Review Decision DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICE OR SERVICES IN DISPUTE:

Notice of Independent Review Decision DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICE OR SERVICES IN DISPUTE: Notice of Independent Review Decision DATE OF REVIEW: 08/15/08 IRO CASE #: NAME: DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICE OR SERVICES IN DISPUTE: Determine the appropriateness of the previously denied request for physical

More information

FD: ACN=1004 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 609/87 STY:PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Jago DDATE:23/07/87 ACT: 40(3) [old 41(2)], 40(2)(b) [old 41(1)(b)] KEYW:

FD: ACN=1004 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 609/87 STY:PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Jago DDATE:23/07/87 ACT: 40(3) [old 41(2)], 40(2)(b) [old 41(1)(b)] KEYW: FD: ACN=1004 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 609/87 STY:PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Jago DDATE:23/07/87 ACT: 40(3) [old 41(2)], 40(2)(b) [old 41(1)(b)] KEYW: Temporary partial disability (level of benefits); Availability

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97 Suitable employment. The worker slipped and fell in January 1992, injuring her low back and hip. She was awarded a 28% NEL award for her low back condition. The worker appealed

More information

28/08/2014. The Structure Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 Act of Parliament

28/08/2014. The Structure Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 Act of Parliament Janis Veldwyk At the end of the workshop participants should: Be more familiar with the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 Know Employer and employee obligations with relation to

More information

Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012

Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012 New South Wales Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012 under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the

More information

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95 New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other

More information

L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L. R. Opinion No. 57-06WC By: Margaret A. Mangan v. Hearing Officer Fletcher Allen Health Care For: Patricia Moulton

More information

Client Services Policy Manual

Client Services Policy Manual Definitions Second Injury Relief: The total or partial cost of an individual claim is redirected from the claims cost record of an assessable employer to a general account (known as the Second Injury Relief

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2004 ONWSIAT 737 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1960/03 [1] This written appeal was considered in Toronto on March 31, 2004, by Tribunal Vice-Chair E.J. Sajtos. THE APPEAL

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1387/99. Pensions (lump sum) (calculation) (discount rate).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1387/99. Pensions (lump sum) (calculation) (discount rate). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1387/99 Pensions (lump sum) (calculation) (discount rate). The worker suffered a back injury in 1989 for which he was granted a 10% pension in 1990. The worker requested payment as

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WILLIAM G. GUGENHAN ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 162,711 GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION ) Respondent ) Self-Insured ) AND ) ) WORKERS

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2015-00701 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: February 27, 2015

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2015-00701 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: February 27, 2015 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2015-00701 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: February 27, 2015 Payment of Interest - Policy item #50.00 of the Rehabilitation Services and Claims Manual, Volume

More information

VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION VICKIE RUTH HELMS Claimant VS. Docket No. 152,668 TOLLIE FREIGHTWAYS, INC. Respondent INSURANCE

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1119/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1119/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1119/09 BEFORE: T. Mitchinson: Vice-Chair HEARING: June 3, 2009 at Sudbury Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 8, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor T.J., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, NORTH ATLANTA STATION, Atlanta, GA, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director

More information

MARITIME WORKER JOB RELATED INJURY

MARITIME WORKER JOB RELATED INJURY JEFFREY S. MUTNICK, P.C. jmutnick@mutnicklaw.com Admitted in Oregon MARITIME WORKER JOB RELATED INJURY As a maritime worker, your employer must provide compensation for job-related injuries. This entitlement

More information

NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY. Decision: WCAT-2005-02255-RB Panel: Rob Kyle Decision Date: April 29, 2005

NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY. Decision: WCAT-2005-02255-RB Panel: Rob Kyle Decision Date: April 29, 2005 NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY Decision: WCAT-2005-02255-RB Panel: Rob Kyle Decision Date: April 29, 2005 Is Worker Occupation a Factor to Consider when Calculating Functional Impairment Permanent Disability

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2115/14

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2115/14 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2115/14 BEFORE: C. M. MacAdam : Vice-Chair S. T. Sahay : Member Representative of Employers K. Hoskin : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

Revised May 2015. What Is Workers Compensation?

Revised May 2015. What Is Workers Compensation? This pamphlet provides an overview of the workers compensation system in the State of New Hampshire, including what is covered by workers compensation, what benefits are available, and what you should

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION (Issued in accordance with section 294 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998) MATTER NO: 002321/10 APPLICANT:

More information

DECISION 13088. Keith G. Barry Review Commissioner

DECISION 13088. Keith G. Barry Review Commissioner WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION 6 Mt. Carson Ave., Dorset Building Mt. Pearl, NL A1N 3K4 DECISION 13088 Keith G. Barry Review Commissioner May 2013 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKER DECISION #114

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKER DECISION #114 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] AND: APPELLANT WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT AND: WORKER EMPLOYEE DECISION #114 Appellant

More information

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016 2014 Construction of Statute Definition of Injury (Causation) Revises Section 50-6-116, Construction of Chapter, to indicate that for dates of injury on or after July 1, 2014, the chapter should no longer

More information

Workers Compensation and Seniors

Workers Compensation and Seniors Chapter 10 Workers Compensation and Seniors Gregory B. Cairns, Esq. Cairns & Associates, P.C. SYNOPSIS 10-1. Workers Compensation 10-2. Benefits Available 10-3. Filing a Workers Compensation Claim 10-4.

More information

of life Quality Life compensation Accident Evaluation Compensation for a Diminished Quality

of life Quality Life compensation Accident Evaluation Compensation for a Diminished Quality Accident Evaluation compensation Quality automobile INSURANCE of life NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE Compensation for a Diminished Quality of Life Applicable for accidents that have occurred since January 1, 2000

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC. BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER TYNET CORPORATION INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # OPINION

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # OPINION BETRICE ROBINSON, PLINTIFF, 2003 CO #177 S T T E O F M I C H I G N WORKER'S COMPENSTION PPELLTE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 02-0371 MGM GRND DETROIT, L.L.C., SELF INSURED, DEFENDNT. PPEL FROM MGISTRTE BRNEY.

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.]

[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] [Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] THE STATE EX REL. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.,

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29. BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee)

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29. BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee) STATE OF MAINE APPELLATE DIVISION WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29 BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee) and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal

More information

Have you or someone you know suffered a personal injury? TIPS TO MAXIMIZE COMPENSATION

Have you or someone you know suffered a personal injury? TIPS TO MAXIMIZE COMPENSATION Have you or someone you know suffered a personal injury? TIPS TO MAXIMIZE COMPENSATION If you have suffered a personal injury it is important to consider all potential sources of compensation. A personal

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE BETTY JO SISSOM V. STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION SECOND INJURY FUND Direct

More information

General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case

General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case Idaho Industrial Commission PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0041 Telephone: (208) 334-6000 Fax: (208) 332-7558 www.iic.idaho.gov

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee. MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee. MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754 JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F608015. AMANDA VOLKMANN, Employee. SONIC DRIVE-IN, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F608015. AMANDA VOLKMANN, Employee. SONIC DRIVE-IN, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F608015 AMANDA VOLKMANN, Employee SONIC DRIVE-IN, Employer FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED

More information

Certificate of Currency Our Ref: 076719. Surf Life Saving Western Australia, including clubs, branches and/or affiliated entities.

Certificate of Currency Our Ref: 076719. Surf Life Saving Western Australia, including clubs, branches and/or affiliated entities. 24 October 2014 Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd ABN 69 009 098 864 27 Evelyn Street NEWSTEAD QLD 4006 PO Box 2321 Fortitude Valley BC QLD 4006 Tel +61 7 3246 7555 Fax +61 7 3246 7590 www.jlta.com.au Certificate

More information

PSPIM403A Make claim determinations

PSPIM403A Make claim determinations PSPIM403A Make claim determinations Revision Number: 2 PSPIM403A Make claim determinations Modification History PSPIM403A Release 2: PSPIM403A Release 1: Unit Descriptor Layout adjusted. No changes to

More information

North Carolina State Government

North Carolina State Government North Carolina State Government W O R K E R S C O M P E N S A T I O N E M P L O Y E E H A N D B O O K PURPOSE The contents in this handbook are designed to provide employees of the State of North Carolina

More information

Gilbert Varela, M.D., Inc 5232 E. Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90022 Phone: (323) 724-6911 Fax: (323) 724-6915

Gilbert Varela, M.D., Inc 5232 E. Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90022 Phone: (323) 724-6911 Fax: (323) 724-6915 Gilbert Varela, M.D., Inc 5232 E. Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90022 Phone: (323) 724-6911 Fax: (323) 724-6915 September 10, 2007 Law offices of xxxxxxxxx Santa Monica, CA 90405 REGARDING:

More information

A GUIDE TO INDIANA WORKER S COMPENSATION

A GUIDE TO INDIANA WORKER S COMPENSATION A GUIDE TO INDIANA WORKER S COMPENSATION 2004 EDITION MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN 445 North Pennsylvania Street Suite 401 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800 Phone: (317) 637-2345 Fax: (317) 637-2369 A GUIDE TO INDIANA

More information

The Worker sought compensation under the new Chronic Pain Regulations. This led to the following two decisions:

The Worker sought compensation under the new Chronic Pain Regulations. This led to the following two decisions: CLAIM HISTORY AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS: On August 30, 1983, the Worker* injured his lower back while lifting an arch rail. The Board accepted his claim and provided him with 22 weeks of temporary benefits

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13200-08 WHSCC Claim No: 564310 Decision Number: 14012 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The

More information

2014 CO 5. No. 11SC926, Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. v. Loofbourrow Workers Compensation.

2014 CO 5. No. 11SC926, Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. v. Loofbourrow Workers Compensation. Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: March 25, 2014 CLAIM NO. 201166969 REBECCA MAHAN PETITIONER VS. APPEAL FROM HON. R. SCOTT BORDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PROFESSIONAL

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DONALD BRYAN SMITHHISLER Claimant VS. LIFE CARE CENTERS AMERICA, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,014,349 AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

More information

New York State Department of Financial Services

New York State Department of Financial Services New York State Department of Financial Services Home Regulation 68 index page In order to assist you in viewing Regulation 68 in its most current form, this webpage has incorporated the text of the 1st

More information

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA WORKERS COMPENSATION INFORMATION FOR THE INJURED WORKER Phoenix Office: Industrial Commission of Arizona 800 W. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2922 Claims Phone:

More information

WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No. E12850768 --- S GARNETT MELBOURNE REASONS FOR RULING ---

WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No. E12850768 --- S GARNETT MELBOURNE REASONS FOR RULING --- !Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No. E12850768 CHERYL ANN COWIE Plaintiff v ELYNWOOD PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: S GARNETT WHERE HELD:

More information

FactsforWorkers.com A Legal Information Resource for Workers provided by Hedberg & Boulton, P.C.

FactsforWorkers.com A Legal Information Resource for Workers provided by Hedberg & Boulton, P.C. FactsforWorkers.com A Legal Information Resource for Workers provided by Hedberg & Boulton, P.C. Iowa Workers Compensation Law Fast Facts An Overview on Work-Related Injuries for Iowa Workers What is Workers

More information

North Carolina State Government WORKERS COMPENSATION EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK

North Carolina State Government WORKERS COMPENSATION EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK North Carolina State Government WORKERS COMPENSATION EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK November 2015 PURPOSE The contents in this handbook are designed to provide employees of the State of North Carolina with an understanding

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GARRETT QUINT ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 208,451 VANDEE STUCCO ) Respondent ) AND ) ) AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

Insurance Bulletin. The Court has its Say! Assessment of General Damages Under the Civil Liability Act (Qld) May 2005

Insurance Bulletin. The Court has its Say! Assessment of General Damages Under the Civil Liability Act (Qld) May 2005 Insurance Bulletin The Court has its Say! May 2005 Assessment of General Damages Under the Civil Liability Act (Qld) This is the first occasion in Queensland where the quantum provisions of the CLA have

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98. Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98. Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98 Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease. A construction worker injured his wrist while moving a plank on September 25, 1991. He continued working and did not seek medical treatment

More information

Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act

Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act Area Addressed Current Law Reform Act Workers Compensation Division The Division of Workers Compensation operates under

More information

WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No.C12401789 --- S GARNETT MELBOURNE REASONS FOR DECISION ---

WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No.C12401789 --- S GARNETT MELBOURNE REASONS FOR DECISION --- !Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No.C12401789 ZIVKA SAPAZOVSKI Plaintiff v ONE FORCE GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: S

More information

28 Texas Administrative Code

28 Texas Administrative Code 28 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 127 - Designated Doctor Procedures and Requirements Link to the Secretary of State for 28 TAC Chapter 127 (HTML): http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.viewtac?tac_view=4&ti=28&pt=2&ch=127.

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT Decision Date: December 22, 2006 Panel: Cynthia Katramadakis

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT Decision Date: December 22, 2006 Panel: Cynthia Katramadakis Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2006-04763 Decision Date: December 22, 2006 Panel: Cynthia Katramadakis Reconsideration New Matter for Adjudication Effect of Prior Non-Compensable Pre- Existing

More information

A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE INJURED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE INJURED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE INJURED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CONTENTS General information 02 Early payment of expenses 03 The Accident Notification Form (ANF) 03 Who can make a claim Other driver or owner at

More information

SUBCHAPTER 29. MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULES: AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION AND MOTOR BUS MEDICAL EXPENSE INSURANCE COVERAGE

SUBCHAPTER 29. MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULES: AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION AND MOTOR BUS MEDICAL EXPENSE INSURANCE COVERAGE SUBCHAPTER 29. MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULES: AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION AND MOTOR BUS MEDICAL EXPENSE INSURANCE COVERAGE 11:3-29.1 Purpose and scope (a) This subchapter implements the provisions

More information

ILARS POLICY Funding of applications by injured workers to pursue claims for compensation

ILARS POLICY Funding of applications by injured workers to pursue claims for compensation ILARS POLICY Funding of applications by injured workers to pursue claims for compensation Introduction This WIRO Policy sets out the circumstances in which the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service

More information

Closed Automobile Insurance Third Party Liability Bodily Injury Claim Study in Ontario

Closed Automobile Insurance Third Party Liability Bodily Injury Claim Study in Ontario Page 1 Closed Automobile Insurance Third Party Liability Bodily Injury Claim Study in Ontario Injury Descriptions Developed from Newfoundland claim study injury definitions No injury Death Psychological

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this a Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS

More information

Is the Worker entitled to medical aid in the form of blood pressure or cholesterol medication?

Is the Worker entitled to medical aid in the form of blood pressure or cholesterol medication? 1 CLAIM HISTORY AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS: The Worker suffered workplace back injuries in 1981, 1982 and 1984. A discectomy was performed in 1986, and a two-level fusion and nerve root decompression was performed

More information

TRIBAL COURT CODE CHAPTER 93 WORKERS COMPENSATION. 93.102 No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity or Application of State Law.

TRIBAL COURT CODE CHAPTER 93 WORKERS COMPENSATION. 93.102 No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity or Application of State Law. TRIBAL COURT CODE CHAPTER 93 WORKERS COMPENSATION CONTENTS: 93.101 Citation and Purpose. 93.102 No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity or Application of State Law. 93.103 Definitions. 93.104 Reporting Obligations.

More information

Guide to. For Connecticut Private Sector Employees

Guide to. For Connecticut Private Sector Employees Guide to Workers Compensation For Connecticut Private Sector Employees NEW ENGLAND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES UNION DISTRICT 1199, SEIU 77 Huyshope Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 860-549-1199 September 2009 Workers

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No.

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No. STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Sharon A. Jones, Petitioner v State Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1214 Agency

More information

How Canada Pension Plan. wage-loss benefits

How Canada Pension Plan. wage-loss benefits How Canada Pension Plan disability benefits impact WHSCC wage-loss benefits The information in this brochure provides the reader with general information about the Canada Pension Disability Benefit and

More information