5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Governing Legislation, Policy and Guidelines(7:II)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Governing Legislation, Policy and Guidelines(7:II) (view source)
Revision as of 03:10, 15 November 2016
, 03:10, 15 November 2016no edit summary
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Lastly, Board policy must be consistent with the WCA. If someone considers that a Board policy is inconsistent with the WCA, they are entitled to challenge that policy in a WCAT appeal in which it is relevant. If the WCAT panel agrees that the policy is not supported by the WCA, the panel will refer the matter to the WCAT Chair; if the Chair agrees, they will refer the policy to the WCB’s Board of Directors for ultimate determination and possible policy change (s. 251, WCA). | Lastly, Board policy must be consistent with the WCA. If someone considers that a Board policy is inconsistent with the WCA, they are entitled to challenge that policy in a WCAT appeal in which it is relevant. If the WCAT panel agrees that the policy is not supported by the WCA, the panel will refer the matter to the WCAT Chair; if the Chair agrees, they will refer the policy to the WCB’s Board of Directors for ultimate determination and possible policy change (s. 251, WCA). | ||
== C. Non-Binding Practices == | |||
Both WCB and WCAT also provide useful interpretive guides that combine policy, important decisions, and best practices. WCB issues Practice Directives (PD) that advise on many particularly complex issues such as chronic pain, mental disorders, and overpayments. These are accessible through the “Law and Policy” tab at the [http://www.worksafebc.com WCB site] under the title “Compensation Practice Directives and Reference Guides”. WCAT’s guidelines are published in the MRPP discussed above. These publications can be extremely useful and are worth exploring though neither are binding on their respective bodies. | |||
== D. Arguing Medical 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. 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” (''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 (''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 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 causation does not need to be proved to the level of scientific certainty and that the finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''Snell v Farrell'', [1990] 2 SCR 311; ''McKnight v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2012 BCSC 1820). | |||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | ||