2,734
edits
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 21:33, 13 December 2022
, 21:33, 13 December 2022→E. Evidence and Investigation
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
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 proved to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%20BCSC%201820&autocompletePos=1 Snell v Farrell, (1990) 2 SCR 311]; [http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%20v&autocompletePos=1 McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2012 BCSC 1820]) | Also, recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proved to the level of scientific certainty. The finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences | ||
([http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%20v&autocompletePos=1 Snell v Farrell, (1990) 2 SCR 311]; [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%20BCSC%201820&autocompletePos=1 McKnight v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2012 BCSC 1820]) | |||
([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1820/2012bcsc1820.html?autocompleteStr=2012%20BCSC%201820&autocompletePos=1 Snell v Farrell, (1990) 2 SCR 311]; [http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii70/1990canlii70.html?autocompleteStr=snell%20v&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) | ||
