Difference between revisions of "Disability and Causation in Workers' Compensation (7:IX)"

'''“Arising out of employment”''' relates to causation and means that the work must have '''causative significance''' to the injury. According to well-established jurisprudence, this means that the work does not have to be the sole or even the dominant cause of the injury; It must be only of causative significance greater than being trivial or ''de minimis'': [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc1574/2009bcsc1574.html?autocompleteStr=2009%2520BCSC%25201574&autocompletePos=1 ''Chima v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2009 BCSC 1574], [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc1580/2007bcsc1580.html?autocompleteStr=2007%2520BCSC%25201580&autocompletePos=1 ''Schulmeister v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)'', 2007 BCSC 1580], and [[ https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2006/2006bcsc838/2006bcsc838.html?resultIndex=1|''Albert v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)'', 2006 BCSC 838]]. Not all injuries at work are caused by work, as some are naturally occurring conditions which would have happened in any event. For example, a worker with heart disease, who is working in a sedentary job, may have a heart attack at the office. There is likely nothing in the work activity which would have causative significance to this injury.