Time Limits and Procedures in Workers' Compensation (7:X) - Revision history

Nate Russell at 22:14, 27 November 2025

2025-11-27T22:14:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 27 November 2025
Line 86:		Line 86:
	As in any legal arena, at all stages of the workers’ compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons: for example, these issues require specialized knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence.		As in any legal arena, at all stages of the workers’ compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons: for example, these issues require specialized knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence.

	Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html~~?autocompleteStr=2014%2520BCCA%2520499%2520&autocompletePos=1~~ Fraser Health Authority v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and, as such, they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html~~?autocompleteStr=2009%2520BCSC%2520493&autocompletePos=1~~ Page v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)]'', 2009 BCSC 493), particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard.		Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html Fraser Health Authority v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and, as such, they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html Page v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)]'', 2009 BCSC 493), particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard.

	While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include evidence from physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist.		While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include evidence from physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist.

	Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proven to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html~~?autocompleteStr=snell%2520v&autocompletePos=1~~ Snell v Farrell]'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 311; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html~~?autocompleteStr=2012%2520BCSC%25201820&autocompletePos=1~~ McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2012 BCSC 1820).		Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proven to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html Snell v Farrell]'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 311; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2012 BCSC 1820).

	As with all evidence in the claims process, there is no onus on the worker to prove their injury. Rather, once a claim has been made, the Board gathers the relevant evidence it needs to make a sound conclusion. However, the worker ''does'' need to provide some basic evidence of an injury to start the process. As set out above, the standard of proof is “as likely as not,” i.e., if the evidence is weighed 50/50, the tie goes to the worker. (See RSCM II, Policy #97.00).		As with all evidence in the claims process, there is no onus on the worker to prove their injury. Rather, once a claim has been made, the Board gathers the relevant evidence it needs to make a sound conclusion. However, the worker ''does'' need to provide some basic evidence of an injury to start the process. As set out above, the standard of proof is “as likely as not,” i.e., if the evidence is weighed 50/50, the tie goes to the worker. (See RSCM II, Policy #97.00).

LSLAP at 19:05, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:05:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~September 2, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 18 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = workers}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = workers}}

LSLAP: /* E. Evidence and Investigation */

2025-09-28T07:36:01Z

E. Evidence and Investigation

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:36, 28 September 2025
Line 92:		Line 92:
	Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proven to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%2520v&autocompletePos=1 Snell v Farrell]'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 311; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%2520BCSC%25201820&autocompletePos=1 McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2012 BCSC 1820).		Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proven to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%2520v&autocompletePos=1 Snell v Farrell]'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 311; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%2520BCSC%25201820&autocompletePos=1 McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2012 BCSC 1820).

	As with all evidence in the claims process, there is no onus on the worker to prove their injury. Rather, once a claim has been made, the Board gathers the relevant evidence it needs to make a sound conclusion. However, the worker ''does'' need to provide some basic evidence of an injury to start the process. As set out above, the standard of proof is “as likely as not,” i.e., if the evidence is weighed 50/50, the tie goes to the worker. (See RSCM II, Policy #97.00.)		As with all evidence in the claims process, there is no onus on the worker to prove their injury. Rather, once a claim has been made, the Board gathers the relevant evidence it needs to make a sound conclusion. However, the worker ''does'' need to provide some basic evidence of an injury to start the process. As set out above, the standard of proof is “as likely as not,” i.e., if the evidence is weighed 50/50, the tie goes to the worker. (See RSCM II, Policy #97.00).

	Workers also benefit from several evidentiary assumptions set out at RSCM II Policy #97.20. The RSCM II sets out a number of detailed policies on investigation of claims, use and weighing of evidence, and the powers that the Board has in investigating claims issues for determination. These powers are wide reaching and can be used at any stage of a claim. However, the need for extensive investigation typically occurs at the outset of a claim or when a worker seeks to have a new injury/symptom added to a claim. These policies, as well as policies governing acceptance and disclosure of information on a claim file, are set out at RSCM II Policies # 97.00–99.90, and at a number of more than 50 other policies. These policies are useful to review generally, but should always be specifically consulted when any issues around evidence/information arises on a claim file.		Workers also benefit from several evidentiary assumptions set out at RSCM II Policy #97.20. The RSCM II sets out a number of detailed policies on investigation of claims, use and weighing of evidence, and the powers that the Board has in investigating claims issues for determination. These powers are wide reaching and can be used at any stage of a claim. However, the need for extensive investigation typically occurs at the outset of a claim or when a worker seeks to have a new injury/symptom added to a claim. These policies, as well as policies governing acceptance and disclosure of information on a claim file, are set out at RSCM II Policies # 97.00–99.90, and at a number of more than 50 other policies. These policies are useful to review generally, but should always be specifically consulted when any issues around evidence/information arises on a claim file.

LSLAP: /* E. Evidence and Investigation */

2025-09-28T07:35:15Z

E. Evidence and Investigation

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:35, 28 September 2025
Line 86:		Line 86:
	As in any legal arena, at all stages of the workers’ compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons: for example, these issues require specialized knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence.		As in any legal arena, at all stages of the workers’ compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons: for example, these issues require specialized knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence.

	Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html?autocompleteStr=2014%2520BCCA%2520499%2520&autocompletePos=1 ''Fraser Health Authority v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')]). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and, as such, they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html?autocompleteStr=2009%2520BCSC%2520493&autocompletePos=1 ''Page v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)'', 2009 BCSC 493]), particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard.		Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html?autocompleteStr=2014%2520BCCA%2520499%2520&autocompletePos=1 Fraser Health Authority v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and, as such, they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html?autocompleteStr=2009%2520BCSC%2520493&autocompletePos=1 Page v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)]'', 2009 BCSC 493), particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard.

	While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include evidence from physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist.		While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include evidence from physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist.

LSLAP: /* E. Evidence and Investigation */

2025-09-28T07:34:40Z

E. Evidence and Investigation

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 28 September 2025
Line 90:		Line 90:
	While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include evidence from physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist.		While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include evidence from physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist.

	Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proven to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences ([https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%2520v&autocompletePos=1 ''Snell v Farrell'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 311]; [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%2520BCSC%25201820&autocompletePos=1 ''McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2012 BCSC 1820]).		Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proven to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%2520v&autocompletePos=1 Snell v Farrell]'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 311; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%2520BCSC%25201820&autocompletePos=1 McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal]'', 2012 BCSC 1820).

	As with all evidence in the claims process, there is no onus on the worker to prove their injury. Rather, once a claim has been made, the Board gathers the relevant evidence it needs to make a sound conclusion. However, the worker ''does'' need to provide some basic evidence of an injury to start the process. As set out above, the standard of proof is “as likely as not,” i.e., if the evidence is weighed 50/50, the tie goes to the worker. (See RSCM II, Policy #97.00.)		As with all evidence in the claims process, there is no onus on the worker to prove their injury. Rather, once a claim has been made, the Board gathers the relevant evidence it needs to make a sound conclusion. However, the worker ''does'' need to provide some basic evidence of an injury to start the process. As set out above, the standard of proof is “as likely as not,” i.e., if the evidence is weighed 50/50, the tie goes to the worker. (See RSCM II, Policy #97.00.)

LSLAP at 07:33, 28 September 2025

2025-09-28T07:33:19Z

LSLAP: /* E. Evidence and Investigation */

2025-09-21T20:35:17Z

E. Evidence and Investigation

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 21 September 2025
Line 84:		Line 84:
	== E. Evidence and Investigation ==		== E. Evidence and Investigation ==

	As in any legal arena, at all stages of the ~~Workers’ Compensation~~ process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons: for example, these issues require specialized knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence.		As in any legal arena, at all stages of the workers’ compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons: for example, these issues require specialized knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence.

	Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html?autocompleteStr=2014%2520BCCA%2520499%2520&autocompletePos=1 ''Fraser Health Authority v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')]). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and, as such, they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html?autocompleteStr=2009%2520BCSC%2520493&autocompletePos=1 ''Page v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)'', 2009 BCSC 493]), particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard.		Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html?autocompleteStr=2014%2520BCCA%2520499%2520&autocompletePos=1 ''Fraser Health Authority v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')]). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and, as such, they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html?autocompleteStr=2009%2520BCSC%2520493&autocompletePos=1 ''Page v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)'', 2009 BCSC 493]), particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard.

LSLAP: /* a) Entitlement Officers (EO) */

2025-09-21T20:33:23Z

a) Entitlement Officers (EO)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 21 September 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:
	Most decisions are made by frontline WCB officers. The major issues to be decided are whether the worker is covered by the WCA, whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and to what benefits the worker is entitled. The most important WCB officers, and the decisions that they make, are as follows:		Most decisions are made by frontline WCB officers. The major issues to be decided are whether the worker is covered by the WCA, whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and to what benefits the worker is entitled. The most important WCB officers, and the decisions that they make, are as follows:

	==== a) Entitlement ~~Officers (EO~~) ====		==== a) Adjudicator (formerly called Entitlement Officer) ====

	* Accepts or rejects claims;		* Accepts or rejects claims;

LSLAP at 23:46, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T23:46:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= September 2, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = workers}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = workers}}

Clicklaw Editor at 19:53, 12 September 2023

2023-09-12T19:53:34Z

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 28 September 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Injuries must be reported by workers to their employers and by employers to the Board as soon as possible. See paragraph VI.A.1 for details.		Injuries must be reported by workers to their employers and by employers to the Board as soon as possible. See paragraph VI.A.1 for details.

	Section 151 [Former Act, s. 55] of the WCA requires that generally, a worker must apply for compensation '''within one year''' of the date of injury. Subsections 151(4) and (5), as well as section 152 [Former Act, s. 55(3.2)], provide several exceptions for when late applications may be accepted:		Section 151 [Former Act, s. 55] of the ''WCA'' requires that generally, a worker must apply for compensation '''within one year''' of the date of injury. Subsections 151(4) and (5), as well as section 152 [Former Act, s. 55(3.2)], provide several exceptions for when late applications may be accepted:

	* If exceptional circumstances exist which precluded the worker from making an application within one year and the application is less than three years after the date of injury (WCA, s. 151(4) [Former Act, s. 55(3.1)]), the worker’s application may be accepted. If a worker’s application has been denied because of a late application, please consult Policy #93.22 of the RSCM II to assess what evidence of “exceptional circumstances” may be relevant in that case.		* If exceptional circumstances exist which precluded the worker from making an application within one year and the application is less than three years after the date of injury (''WCA'', s. 151(4) [Former Act, s. 55(3.1)]), the worker’s application may be accepted. If a worker’s application has been denied because of a late application, please consult Policy #93.22 of the RSCM II to assess what evidence of “exceptional circumstances” may be relevant in that case.
	* Even after more than three years post-accident, the Board may still accept a claim based on “exceptional circumstances,” however the Board can only pay compensation from the date of the application forward, not from the date of the injury (WCA, s. 151(5) [Former Act, s. 55(3.1)]).		* Even after more than three years post-accident, the Board may still accept a claim based on “exceptional circumstances,” however the Board can only pay compensation from the date of the application forward, not from the date of the injury (''WCA'', s. 151(5) [Former Act, s. 55(3.1)]).
	* If death or disablement is due to an occupational disease but sufficient scientific evidence did not exist at the time of the application to prove this and there is new scientific evidence regarding the occupational disease causation, the application may be accepted. However, the worker must make the application no more than three years after sufficient medical or scientific evidence became available to the board (WCA, s. 152(1) [Former Act, s. (3.2)]).		* If death or disablement is due to an occupational disease but sufficient scientific evidence did not exist at the time of the application to prove this and there is new scientific evidence regarding the occupational disease causation, the application may be accepted. However, the worker must make the application no more than three years after sufficient medical or scientific evidence became available to the board (''WCA'', s. 152(1) [Former Act, s. (3.2)]).
	* The Board may also reconsider an old occupational disease decision that meets the subsections 152(1) and (2) criteria.		* The Board may also reconsider an old occupational disease decision that meets the subsections 152(1) and (2) criteria.

Line 33:		Line 33:
	=== 1. Initial Decision-Making Process ===		=== 1. Initial Decision-Making Process ===

	Most decisions are made by frontline WCB officers. The major issues to be decided are whether the worker is covered by the WCA, whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and to what benefits the worker is entitled. The most important WCB officers, and the decisions that they make, are as follows:		Most decisions are made by frontline WCB officers. The major issues to be decided are whether the worker is covered by the ''WCA'', whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and to what benefits the worker is entitled. The most important WCB officers, and the decisions that they make, are as follows:

	==== a) Adjudicator (formerly called Entitlement Officer) ====		==== a) Adjudicator (formerly called Entitlement Officer) ====
Line 74:		Line 74:
	== D. Procedure After Application ==		== D. Procedure After Application ==

	The family doctor plays a crucial role in the acceptance and continuance of the worker’s claim as well as with their treatment. The WCA requires that the doctor file an initial report with the Board, as well as progress reports for each visit. Doctors are also required to give all necessary advice and assistance to a worker making an application for compensation, including furnishing proof that may be required. Some doctors are very helpful to injured workers, while others refuse to get involved in what they consider to be a legal issue. Such an attitude can be very harmful if there is a medical dispute between the Board and the worker.		The family doctor plays a crucial role in the acceptance and continuance of the worker’s claim as well as with their treatment. The ''WCA'' requires that the doctor file an initial report with the Board, as well as progress reports for each visit. Doctors are also required to give all necessary advice and assistance to a worker making an application for compensation, including furnishing proof that may be required. Some doctors are very helpful to injured workers, while others refuse to get involved in what they consider to be a legal issue. Such an attitude can be very harmful if there is a medical dispute between the Board and the worker.

	The Board has extensive inquiry and investigative powers. It may require the worker to be medically examined by a WCB staff doctor or by independent consultants. WCB officers called Entitlement Officers, Case Managers, Disability Awards Officers, and Rehabilitation Consultants decide whether to accept the claim and what benefits, if any, should be paid. Although rarely used, the Board has the authority to conduct a formal inquiry at which the claimant and other witnesses are compelled to appear and be questioned. Important decisions occur at various times as a result of the interaction and correspondence between various WCB officers, the worker, the family doctor, and any specialist.		The Board has extensive inquiry and investigative powers. It may require the worker to be medically examined by a WCB staff doctor or by independent consultants. WCB officers called Entitlement Officers, Case Managers, Disability Awards Officers, and Rehabilitation Consultants decide whether to accept the claim and what benefits, if any, should be paid. Although rarely used, the Board has the authority to conduct a formal inquiry at which the claimant and other witnesses are compelled to appear and be questioned. Important decisions occur at various times as a result of the interaction and correspondence between various WCB officers, the worker, the family doctor, and any specialist.