LSLAP's Role at the Initial Decision Level for Workers' Compensation Claims (7:IV)

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Revision as of 21:11, 28 May 2016 by Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}} LSLAP students may only assist workers with a few formal procedures at the initial decision level. However, the student’s role at th...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search



LSLAP students may only assist workers with a few formal procedures at the initial decision level. However, the student’s role at this point is still important. If the initial claim is done well, appeals may be avoided. These types of inquiries are usually done by correspondence, but may be in person at the worker’s request.

One important aspect of the CMS data management system is the “portals” which allow workers, employers and representatives to access claim files directly. The worker needs to call the Board and obtain an ID and PIN in order to do this. Such access allows an advocate or advisor to see exactly how the claim has been handled.

Students should get a copy of the file and review the relevant documents with the worker. They may also request that the Board provide an opportunity to make submissions prior to the final decision. Some officers will comply with these requests.

It is important to help a client prepare the best possible case at this level. For example, a projected loss of earnings assessment always includes an extensive interview between the Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant and the worker regarding the types of employment that are suitable and available to the worker. The worker should be prepared for this interview, and should be ready to explain issues such as what they are capable of doing, what job activities they cannot perform, and why this is the case. The Board rarely decides that a worker is 100 percent disabled, and workers should therefore be discouraged from expecting such a ruling, unless thereis very strong medical evidence of unemployability.

In addition to filing an appeal, a student can contact the officer who made the decision to request that it be reconsidered on the basis of significant new evidence, or to seek further explanation of the officer’s reasons. Note that this must take place within 75 days of the original decision.

Initial decision-making at the Board level is extremely important, and very informal in its procedure. In general, if a representative doesn’t understand how or by whom a decision will be made, or what factors will be considered, it is always possible to call the Board and ask. The Claims Manual, Workers’ Advisors Office, and other sources of information mentioned in Section I: Introduction of this chapter can also help prepare a successful claim. See Appendix B for a checklist for a student conducting a client interview.

A. The WCB Fair Practices Officer

The WCB has a Fair Practices Officer (Formerly “Chief Complaints Officer” and before that “Ombudsman”), who has been assigned to deal with issues of alleged unfairness related to the WCA. A claimant who has a complaint about a decision must first pursue all available routes of appeal. The Fair Practices Officer may investigate a complaint after all routes of appeal are exhausted. Individuals or groups with complaints about the fairness of WCB decisions, recommendations, actions, procedures, practices, or regulations may contact the WCB Complaints Officer by phone, fax, mail, or in person.

The WCB Fair Practices Officer should not be confused with the province’s Ombudsman, who still has authority to investigate complaints against the WCB. The BC Ombudsman’s policy is to suggest that all complaints go first to the WCB Chief Complaints Officer, but a worker may ask that the provincial Ombudsman intervene immediately if the Fair Practices Officer is unable to resolve the problem. Advocates are beginning to make more complaints to the BC Ombudsman recently, and students can insist that this be done if the complaint process seems ineffective. See Chapter 5: Public Complaints Procedures.