In Decision 2006-137-AD (June 9, 2006), the tribunal addressed the issue of whether the definition of chronic pain contained in the Chronic Pain Regulations violated the equality rights contained in s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, insofar as it was the same definition contained in the FRP Regulations that had been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Martin.
In Decision 2006-109-AD (August 10, 2006), a panel addressed the issue of whether s.7 of the Chronic Pain Regulations infringed the equality rights in s. 15(1) of the Charter.
In Decision 2006-188-AD (October 24, 2006), the tribunal found that there was no infringement of s. 15(1) equality rights under the Charter where the Regulations did not provide for a 12.5 per cent PMI for chronic pain (s. 10E benefits) or wage-loss benefits for workers injured prior to March 23, 1990.
In Decision 2006-079-AD (December 12,
2006), the tribunal rejected an argument
that the definition of chronic pain
contained in the Chronic Pain Regulations
violated the worker’s equality rights under
s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Decision 2005-445-AD (February 27, 2007), the tribunal addressed the issue of the recalculation of chronic pain benefits under s. 12 of the Chronic Pain Regulations.
In Decision 2006-022-AD (April 27, 2006), the tribunal found that the worker was entitled to a PMI in addition to a PRI.
In Decision 2006-479-AD (November 28, 2006) a worker who suffered from bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome was awarded a PRI for chronic pain.
In Decision 2006-437-AD (August 9, 2006), the worker had been diagnosed by his family doctor as having “chronic pain syndrome.” Despite this diagnosis, the tribunal found that the worker’s symptoms, as described by his family doctor, did not match the statutory definition of chronic pain.
Decision 2006-532-AD (February 28, 2007) addressed the argument that the phrase “all other like or related conditions” contained in the statutory definition of chronic pain included conditions such as osteoarthritis and spinal stenosis.
In some cases, such as Decisions 2006- 273-AD (August 24, 2006) and 2006-279- AD (June 29, 2006), the tribunal concluded that awards made by the Appeal Board included an amount for chronic pain; as a result, workers were not entitled to an additional PRI award.
SECTION 84
In Decision 2006-014-AD (April 10, 2006) the worker’s benefits were suspended when she left the province without advising the board.
In Decision 2006-217-AD (May 15, 2006), the tribunal concluded that it was inappropriate to suspend a worker’s benefits where the worker was not reasonably able to conform his conduct to acceptable standards in order to participate in appropriate treatment to promote his recovery, due to his painful condition, documented psychological problems, and the stress of participating in a pain management program.
In Decision 2006-181-AD (July 31, 2006), the worker was seeking to overturn the board’s decision to suspend his benefits as a result of his refusal to attend the Columbia Health Centre for treatment.
Decision 2005-436-AD (August 31, 2006) addresses language as a potential barrier to compensation. The worker was a unilingual francophone whose benefits were terminated under s. 84, when she withdrew from her multi-disciplinary treatment program.
In Decision 2006-746-AD (January 22, 2007), the tribunal overturned the board’s decision to suspend the worker’s benefits due to several missed medical appointments and his failure to return to work on particular day.
Decision 2006-1007-AD (March 29, 2007) addressed the issue of what constituted the relevant date for CPP purposes, when assessing a worker’s entitlement to a supplementary benefit.
In Decision 2006-194-AD (July 31, 2006), the worker sought supplementary benefits prior to October 1, 2002. She met the conditions for a supplementary benefit under s. 227 except that her PPD had been paid as a lump sum because of the denial of compensation due to chronic pain. Once the PRI was awarded (it was backdated to 1990), the worker qualified, and was provided a supplementary benefit only backdated to Oct 1, 2002. See also Decision 2006-478-AD (October 30, 2006).
EMPLOYER APPEALS
In Decision 2006-552-AD (January 24, 2007), the employer challenged its assessment by the board. It argued that it was not an “employer” and therefore was not subject to mandatory coverage under the act.
In Decision 2006-211-AD (January 18,2007), the tribunal rejected the employer’s argument that it should not have been assessed a demerit to its experience rating because: (1) the worker’s claim should never have been accepted as compensable; or (2) even if it was compensable, the demerit should not be applied because the employer was not afforded the opportunity to challenge the acceptance of the claim until the worker had been in receipt of benefits for one and a half years.
Decision 2006-385-AD (September 28, 2006) involved the employer’s appeal of a decision in which the board had refused to recover an overpayment from the worker, even though the employer had demonstrated that the worker’s long-term rate had been incorrectly calculated.
In Decision 2006-350-AD (October 31, 2006), the employer appealed a recognition finding, arguing that there should not be recognition because the worker had taken himself out of his employment by attempting to start a fight.
SECTION 29
Decision 2006-237-TPA (August 23, 2006) involved an application by an extra-provincial company, performing a contract within the province for a short term, which involved the hiring of local labourers (one of whom was killed).
GECA STRESS
In 2005, the board approved policy 1.3.6 entitled “Compensability of Stress as an Injury Arising out of and in the Course of Employment - Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA).” It applies to all decisions made on or after July 25, 2005.
Decision 2006-328-AD (September 21, 2006) applied Board Policy 1.3.6.
In Decision 2006-156-AD (December 28, 2006), the worker sought recognition of work-related stress. Evidence did not support that the worker’s depression related to his compensable condition.
In Decision 2006-129-AD (January 12, 2007), the worker sought recognition that he suffered a compensable injury in the form of stress under s.4 (1) of GECA.
In Decision 2006-425-AD (February 19, 2007), a panel addressed a GECA claim for gradual onset stress.
STRESS
Decision 2005-156-AD (August 31, 2006) applied the test for a “traumatic” event as set out by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in Logan.
Decision 2005-465-AD (December 29, 2006) overturned the board’s recognition of a stress injury.