Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Time Limits and Procedures in Workers' Compensation (7:X)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks

Time Limits and Procedures in Workers' Compensation (7:X) (view source)

Revision as of 21:56, 2 December 2021

1 byte removed ,  21:56, 2 December 2021
→‎E. Evidence and Investigation
Line 81: Line 81:
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” ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html?autocompleteStr=2014%20BCCA%20499%20&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 ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html?autocompleteStr=2009%20BCSC%20493&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” ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca499/2014bcca499.html?autocompleteStr=2014%20BCCA%20499%20&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 ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc493/2009bcsc493.html?autocompleteStr=2009%20BCSC%20493&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.  
Retrieved from "https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/51207"