wcb-rub.net

Please read the following to witness the massive amount of boiling prejudice I faced from WCB & WCAT. Second; sample the bitter sabotage provided by the Office of Advisors to Injured Workers.

The WCAT Chair of 2016 was clear that she held a very low opinion of me. I do prove that she suffered a massive misunderstanding.

In the first few pages I repeat the fact that my request for relocation was launched in 2002, not 2006 as the Chair states.

When a WCAT Chair displays such ill-conceived “Reasons” the following “Decision” is bound to be as equally tainted.

WCB denied my Disability Pension for 13 years. My case should have faced government investigation when I got my pension five days after the Kamloops Newspaper printed my protest photo.

The sole fact that the pension began with a 13 year retro-active payment, should have triggered an RCMP investigation.

For 13 years WCB only provided Opiods, yet NO POLITICIAN CARES.

wcb-rub.net

The following, ACT Six, is a rather Dry Read because it is built using only quotes of WCB/WCAT and is formatted for Appeal

If you wish a Jovial Version work the above Menu from: Home..... to..... Illegal

OR - Scroll Down this page to "SCENE Three" to reduce to a FIVE MINUTE READ

How Speaking Truth to Power drove the WCAT Chair to pass a Blind Rage Judgement.

If Not Worshipped - WCAT Arbiters Are Bitter

TOPIC : Appeal of "WCAT Decision, August 16, 2016"

Sobriety Finally Delivers Me Clarity

There are hundreds of mistakes within my WCB file.

I will now prove how all those mistakes can compound into massive misunderstanding for those who attempt judgement.

The WCAT Chair, of a life changing appeal, clearly writes of her belief that I moved INTO this remote town, in 2006, six years after serious back injury.

She believes that I then made request for WCB to pay for the move as well as assist me with self-employment due to lack of work in the area.

The truth is easily observed:

In 2001 a WCB doctor listed driving as a restriction so my relocation request, of 2002, was to move me OUT of this remote location, in a hope at successful retraining.

I moved to this town in 1990, a decade prior to this injury.

I requested help from my MLA Sheldon Clare with the following letter detailing my WCB history

To: MLA Sheldon Clare

I request you have WCAT confirm with your office that:

#1 My relocation request was to move OUT of this town.

In 2002, I requested that WCB move me FROM my very isolated, town, prior to retraining. Months earlier a WCB doctor identified driving as a restriction so relocation was required to have any chance at a new, medication free, life.

To confirm the above:

READ: WCB Denial Letter of June 28, 2002, which reads;

“WCB June 28, 2002 – You have asked about…… assistance….. relocate you from Xxxxxx BC where you resided before you were injured….. request denied”.

#2) In 2001 A WCB Doctor restricted long distance driving.

I also request that both your office and WCAT confirm that, as early as March 9, 2001, a WCB doctor listed Long Distance Driving as one of my Permanent Work Restrictions.

To confirm the above:

READ: WCB: Medical Advisor Review of March 9, 2001 which lists “long distance driving” as a “work restriction“.

#3) The WCAT Chair believes I moved remote, after injury.

Now refer to my latest judgement from WCAT, written August 16, 2016. An opinion issued by one sole judge of a Tribunal system with zero teamwork, oversight or appeal.

The WCAT Chair clearly voices her belief that, in 2006, I requested that WCB pay to move me TO this remote town.

The Chair clearly believes that, after serious back injury, I moved remote and then requested assistance with self-employment due to the lack of suitable work in the area.

For a WCAT Chair to harbour such drastic confusion, painting me as a scammer, can only testify to the resulting prejudicial judgement which then followed;

READ: WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016, as written;

Paragraph #24

“In August 2006 the worker wrote the board and asked for assistance with the expense of relocating to the remote, small town where he currently lives. He considered self-employment to be the only option to restore his income”

Paragraph #97

“I acknowledge that there are limited employment opportunities in the remote location where the worker currently resides. However, the worker’s choice to move to that location was a personal one which the Board did not support“.

Paragraph #98

“has not sought employment that would maximize his earnings beyond the area around his remote community where he now lives“.

To confirm the above:

Please read the WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016.

#4) The WCAT Chair further allowed her drastic confusion to taint continuing judgement of my history when she writes;

Paragraph #21

“in 2002, he refused to participate in a Board sponsored Work Assessment for position as an electronics technician and his VR benefits were suspended in March 2002”.

I was actually cut from VR assistance for showing little interest in the WCB offer to become a Glass Tube Bender at a Neon Sign Shop, as noted in the WCB Log below.

A WCB Assessment of the retraining effort of 2002/2003, is best summed up, 11 years later, in WCB June 16, 2014.

To confirm the above:

READ: WCB Employment Assessment of June 16, 2014.

Page #5

“Though I do not question any previous actions/decisions taken by the previous VRC (2003) . I cannot confirm that either the Neon Sign Factory Job or theCeramics Job meets the criteria under RSCM Volume 1, Chapter 11, that clarify a suitable rehabilitation plan….. neither is there documentation of some other deemed occupation on file that would meet these critria”.

#5) Due to her gross misunderstanding the WCAT Chair then usurps my right to a proper “balance of probabilities”.

My doctor provided a letter, contracted and funded by the BC Ministry of Labour, focused on this specific appeal.

Although presented through official channels, the WCAT Chair rejected every word from my doctor and chose to only recognize a WCB Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE).

To confirm the above:

READ: WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016.

Paragraph #95

“I also acknowledge the opinion that Dr. Xxxx provided at the review division level….. he bases his opinion on the worker’s report….. I do not consider Dr. Xxxx’s opinion as reliable“

The reason the WCAT Chair discredited every word from my doctor was to avoid a “balance of probabilities”. Any recognition would tip the scales of justice to my favor.

The WCAT Chair writes of the “balance of probabilities” to explain why it was so pivotal to “acknowledge” yet ignore the letter from my doctor, to justify the denial of the appeal.

To confirm the above:

READ: WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016.

Paragraph #79

“The standard of proof that applies in this appeal is the balance of probabilities….. where the evidence supporting different findings on an issue….. is evenly weighed, WCAT must resolve….. in a manor that favorurs the worker“.

#6) If I had not been forced into the mental desperation to protest outside the WCB building in Kamloops I may well be dead, due to this type of legislated prejudicial judgment.

One month after I began my public humiliation, outside the WCB, 2014, I was finally recognized for the long overdue Loss of Earnings (LOE) Disability Pension.

To confirm the above::

READ: WCB Letter of March 25, 2014…….

“it was premature to make a decision that you had not sustained a loss of earnings”.

On the day I was recognized for a monthly WCB pension I was also provided a, 13 year, retro-active payment.

To confirm the above:

READ: WCB 13 year retro-active payment of Jan/2016.

#7) Until that day, for 13 years, the only support which WCB faithfully conducted was the full payment for a solid supply of Morphine, Fentanyl, Tylenol 3 and Emtech.

For 13 years WCB supplied the opiods to keep me ready for work, causing me to starve in my remote house, all while I was deserving a Monthly Disability Pension.

To confirm the above:

READ: WCB Automated Drug Payment File.

#8) I have always allowed the hundreds of mistakes and ill judgements, housed within my WCB File, to distract me.

I held a belief that, if I finally corrected most the mistakes, the ill judgement and conduct would automatically rectify.

Now, this one document uses direct quotes of WCB/WCAT correspondence as evidence. No audit of ill registered data or re-judgement is required to clarify fact.

I appeal for a Duty of Care deserved through Natural Law.

In closing, I supply a collection of WCB Letters of Apology to further prove a total neglect for Duty of Care toward an opiod supplied/addicted, injured worker.

I have dozens of WCB appologies for shortfall of service.

#9) WCB: December 10, 1999 – Apology

“I am sorry to learn of the delay you experienced in receiving a response”.

Then a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) returned with 15 mistakes of data, two misquotes of my neurosurgeon and a claim of wrist injury, 6 years before I was even born.

The evaluator fell asleep during my evaluation and then showed me photos of his new, colicky, baby at home.

#10) WCB: Drake Medox – February 15, 2002.

“thank you for pointing out the errors….. they were honest errors that should have never been made in the first place.

I am sorry for any confusion that my errors may have caused you”.

Then WCB front counter staff handed me a, hand written, Application for an injured nurse at the hospital. The form held the wage, SIN and all contact information and work schedule for the injured nurse, as well as several witnesses.

#11) WCB March 11, 2002

“thank you for bringing this very serious matter to our attention….. you were assisted by staff member….. working on the document….. this document was inadvertently included when your photocopies were returned to you”.

Then, two weeks later, I had to return the medical files, provided by WCB, for yet another injured worker.

#12) WCB March 27, 2002

“thank you for providing the information I requested….. I have contacted the client in question to advise of the error”.

Then I found my WCB assistance had been delayed, for 10 weeks, because my file had been lost within the WCB computer system. It was one year before I discovered this delay. I know the dead file was only identified when a routine scan, for dormant files, reactivated it, June 1, 2001.

#13) WCB Letter of April 19, 2002

“to apologize for any negative impact the service delays mentioned may have had on the delivery of either the Vocational Rehabilitation Service or the benefits you were entitled to….. In closing, I would again like to offer my personal apology for the delays involved in processing the referal of your case to the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Department”.

Then a Physical Evaluation returned with 12 left/right mistakes. It happened that, immediately following my evaluation, the entire office was taking the first two weeks of holidays in two years. There was a massive count-down party going on during my test.

#14) WCB: Canadian Impairment Evaluation, Oct 2, 2002

“symptom response….. page 7 (twice), page 9 and page 10, Our apologies for any inconvenience or difficulties the error may have caused”.

When the rehabilitation efforts of 2002/2003 proved to be non-compliant, to proper guiding policy, WCB wrote;

(Repeated from within #4)

#15) Employment Assessment of June 16, 2014 – Page 5

“Though I do not question any previous actions/decisions taken by the previous VRC (2003) . I cannot confirm that either the Neon Sign Factory Job or the Ceramics Job meets the criteria under RSCM Volume 1, Chapter 11, that clarify a suitable rehabilitation plan….. neither is there documentation of some other deemed occupation on file that would meet these criteria”.

It was 15 years after my workplace injury that WCB wrote the first retraining proposal ever offered, March 25, 2014. The final sentance qualifies this letter as another apology.

#16) The WCB letter of March 25, 2014 clearly records:

“limitations may change from day to day and depend on such factors as the nature of the surface you are standing on”.

“I feel we did not provide you with a clearly identified occupational goal when that decision was made (2003) Without this goal it is difficult to determine if the assistance you have been offered is sufficient and appropriate….. On behalf of Vocational Rehabilitation Services I apologize for this confusion”.

In 2014 WCB compiled the first and final career retraining offer, while I was still consuming maximum Fentanyl.

#17) WCB June 10, 2014

“accepted that you have the following limitations…………. Difficulty with prolonged standing, sitting, repetetive stooping, bending, flexion, rotation”.

“restriction….. repetitive lifting over 50 pounds”.

“I have offered you the assistance…… to become a parts and warehousing person“.

Google: – Injury statistics in the Career of Warehousing to find that “BACK INJURIES” are second, only to “FORKLIFT INJURIES”.

SCENE Three

Timeline of WCB History Collated to my AGE:

41 – I suffered a workplace injury, April 12, 1999.

43 – 1st Appeal, Jan 5, 2001, finds the incident to have caused a NEW workplace injury, UNRELATED to any previous medical history.

45 – Confirmation of a Permanent Functional Impairment (PFI) dictates that I then qualify for both a Funtional Loss Evaluation as well as a Loss of Earnings (LOE) Calculation. I only received the Functional Evaluation.

From age 45 I sent several letters and phone calls, in desperation, for some understanding. I requested the LOE Calculation many times.

56 – Due to my protest of 2014 the New VRC uses the decade of hindsight available, to document the shortfall of the First VRC;

WCB June 16, 2014 Employment Assessment;

“he was entitled to VR assistance, and that based upon my review, that assistance is not necessarily limited to the types of assistance defined in a letter dated June 2, 2004“.

56 – One month after starting my protest, five days after the newspaper prints my protest photo, WCB write the letter below and finally recognizes my right to a LOE Pension, after 13 years;

WCB Letter of March 25, 2014;

“it was premature to make a decision that you had not sustained a loss of earnings“.

This same letter then makes claim to understand;

“limited…. prolonged standing, sitting, repetitive stooping, bending (at the waist) as well as flexion and rotation (at the waist).

“limitations may change from day to day….. the nature of the surface you are standing on”.

The same letter then has the New VRC again recognize the poor effort applied in 2003, and then cascade to yet another WCB apology;

“I feel we did not provide you with a clearly identified occupational goal when that decision was made (2003). Without this goal, it is difficult to determine if this assistance you have been offered is sufficient and appropriate….. On behalf of VR Services, I apologize for this confusion“.

The same letter goes on to slander my honesty in reporting pain;

“there is no accurate way of measuring your tolerance to pain“.

The New VRC then pivots in attempt to regain my trust;

Continued from WCB March 25, 2014;

“we do not necessarily have to seek work for you which pushes your physical abilities to the maximum limited“.

Finally, ten weeks later, the New VRC offers;

WCB Letter of June 10, 2014;

“I have offered you the assistance to training to become a……… Parts and Warehousing person“.

Three days later the New VRC justifies his choice;

WCB June 16, 2014 Employment Assessment;

“The NOC rates this work as medium in nature. This requires lifting up to 20kg or 44 pounds. Mr S. is restricted from lifting more than 50 pounds“.

58 – I finally receive the LOE monthly pension, January of 2016, delivered with a 13 year retro-active payment.

59 – The WCAT Decision of the Third Appeal then confirms the offer of Parts and Warehousing as an accepable career replacement.

60 – Would have been my age at completion of the Warehouse Course.

This would finally qualify me for the Relocation Assistance, which I requested in 2002, (age 44).

If this history is found as acceptable to any reader it will also confirm, as acceptable, that I can be injured at age 41 as long as I am retrained by age 60.

I can only close now by providing the proclaimed “Mission Statement” found printed on the back of WCB business cards;

WCB MISSION STATEMENT

To assist employers and workers to create a culture of health and safety

To deliver quality decisions and advice

To provide a compassionate and supportive service

To ensure solid financial stewardship

At completion of this blog, wcb-rub.net, conclude for yourself if any facton of that promise holds as sincere, respeted, or truthful.

I thank all for perusing this blog/play.

Thank you for reading - FINAL ACT SIX

If you can stand 20 more minutes of government neglect

Please Now Read

- Timeline - Twist of Fact - Office of Advisor Conduct -

First:

The Timeline of the WCB Rehabilitation Team

compiled: August 1, 2025

-January 5, 2001 – The Chair of my First Appeal writes;

“I therefore allow his appeal for acceptance of the claim”.

-May/2001 – While I waited for the first contact from WCB I approached the Kamloops University (TRU) and paid for a Skill & Aptitude test as well as a GED (Grade 12) test.

-July 12, 2001 – First Appointment with the Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant (VRC). This appointment was a basic introduction. My drivers licence was photocopied and I provided the results of my Skill & Aptitude tests.

-August 9, 2001 – Second Appointment with the VRC at which I was requested to research an introductory computer course.

Unfortunately the VRC did not document the meeting, until five weeks later, September 14, 2001, three days after New York 911. Mistakes are numerous throughout the letter.

-September 14, 2001 – WCB Letter from VRC;

“Although you appear motivated……… these fall short of the expectations of active rehabilitation involveement”.

The work pace of the First VRC is best audited in WCB November 16, 2001 when her promise to make one phone call to my ex-employer is finally fulfilled, four months later.

-November 16, 2001 – WCB Letter, written by the VRC;

“as per my July 12, 2001 correspondence…………………….

I have confirmed with your employer that they are unable to accommodate you with your ability”.

However, my no return status was confirmed as early as June 1, 2001 which is the day a computer search re-booted my file, dead in the WCB system for 10 weeks.

-June 1, 2001 – WCB Log Entry;

“does not appear referal to VR was carried out after it was established worker did not have any opportunity to return with AE. I refer at this time for assignment to VR.

It took me one year to learn that my file had been lost in the computer system, but when I question why, WCB wrote;

-April 23, 2002 – WCB Letter;

“Between March 19, 2001 and June 5, 2001 your case manager investigated………… the opinion of a medical advisor”.

However a Medical Review, by a WCB Doctor, is one of the Log Entries listed, a few days before my file was lost.

-March 9, 2001 –MA (Medical Advisor) Review, Dr. Dundas

“Prior to the injury on claim he was not disabled……………… Permanent work restrictions are for heavy lifting, prolonged sitting, as in long-distance driving, especially off-road, prolonged bending”.

WCB then tried to cover up the computer glitch, as written;

-May 17, 2002 – WCB Letter

“it needed to be decided whether it was…….. or due to your pre-existing disability“.

“lack of clear documentation on your claim file for this period…….. it would be a mistake to assume that there was nothing happening on your claim“.

A few weeks later WCB continues the cover up with;

-July 4, 2002 – WCB Letter

“it would have been preferable to have clear and specific documentation available……. March 19 to June 5, 2001. However there is no documentation in the log detailing those activities“.

Finally WCB chose to print an apologetic letter of truth;

-April 19, 2002 – WCB Letter

“to apologize for any negative impact the service delays mentioned may have had on delivery of either the Vocational Rehabilitation Service or the VR benefits you were entitled to…. In closing, I would again like to offer my personal apology for the delays involved in processing the referral of your case to the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Department”.

In regards to my TRU Skill & Aptitude Tests from May, the VRC was pleased to recognize these tests, as written;

-October 7, 2001 – WCB Letter

“Asked Jim if he felt that further vocational testing would be valuable. He did not think it was necessary given the Strong Inventory that he completed. He feels that he has a good sense of his strength, skills, interests, and I agree completely“.

However, six weeks later, the VRC orders new tests when she realizes that I not only paid for the TRU tests, but did so while lost in the dead computer system;

-November 14, 2001 – WCB Log;

“Interest/Aptitude/Achievement testing has been confirmed with the Kamloop Phsch”.

Three months later the VRC had yet to see the test results;

-February 8, 2002 – WCB Log (13 Month after First Appeal)

“He asked about the psych-vocational report and I apologize as I had not seen it yet”.

During that Christmas break I phoned an Electrical Equipment Manufacturer in Quesnel BC.

The President of the company requested privacy in regards to a relocation to Merritt BC and the resulting need for new employees.

This opened a very good chance to retrain, as an “Electrical Technician”. However it also seemed to challenge the VRC”.

Keeping all quiet, in the next few weeks, I had to meet with the President and help scout for a new building in Merritt.

When the VRC saw a pamphlet of recording equipment, built in Quesnel, I was allotted two weeks, free of all other commitments, as written;

-February 8, 2002 – WCB LOG – Follow Up Meeting

“We agreed to meet again the week of February 25, 2001.

I felt this would give Jim sufficient time to negotiate with the Merritt employer and determine if there was anything there”.

However, during that two weeks the VRC phoned and demanded I immediately attend a Work Assessment (WA) for position as “Neon Glass Tube Bender” .

Unfortunately the date for the WA overlapped with the Merritt meeting.

The date of the WA was absolutely ridged although the job of Neon Glass Tube Bender had been posted for six weeks;

-December 5, 2001 – WCB – Phone Call Taken

“I had a call from……… director of I believe a couple of neon shops (Prince George, Kamloops). He is looking for a Neon Glass Bender”.

Over the phone, the VRC gained my trust and guided me to show more interest in Technician than Neon Glass Bender, as clearly written below;

-February 15, 2002 – WCB Log Entry

“I had arranged a WA with the Neon Sign Company for Monday morning at 8:30am. He said that….. he had plans with the Merritt company….. I really hope that the Merritt job works out….. he need to understand that if it doesn’t that he would be provided with a limited period of job search and a training on the job when he had a confirmed job opportunity”.

Any potential for the Electrical Manufacturer was suddenly terminated through a sudden divorce. A company, which I saw hire a dozen employees in Quesnel, was disolved overnight.

By Monday morning the VRC chose to terminate me also;

-February 18, 2002 – WCB Letter of Termination.

“your benefits will be terminated as of March 4, 2002. refusal to participate in the WA is evidence that you are not cooperating in the vocational rehabilitation process”.

It was a week after my termination that the VRC made a visit to the Neon Sign Shop. The VRC recorded the duties and the physical demands for the job she used to cut me off.

In the sixweeks since it was phoned in, not one WCB official visted.

Able to customize the report, it still reads ” a lot of sitting”;

-March 11, 2002 – WCB Site Visit – Neon Sign Factory

“Job duties…… border tubing can require a lot of sitting….. crawling in confined areas with wire to install sign”.

When I protested, outside the WCB in 2014, I was provided a new VRC who wrote the following assessment of the rehabilitation effort of 2002/2003.

WCB would have never assigned a New VRC in 2014 if proper procedure had been followed in 2002/2003.

-June 16, 2014 – WCB Employment Assessment

“Though I do not question any previous actions/decisions taken by the previous VRC (2003). I cannot confirm that either the Neon Sign Factory Job or the Ceramics Job meets the criteria under RSCM Volume 1, Chapter 11, that clarify a suitable rehabilitation plan….. neither is there documentation of some other deemed occupation on file that would meet these criteria”.

Now proven as non-compliant, at the time, the offer to retrain as “Neon Glass Tube Bender” spun to the negative.

My Second Appeal in 2003 produced the “Finding” below;

-March 31, 2003 – WCRB Decision

“he undertook to find new employment. He saw employers, looked into self-employment, sought career guidance, and investigated the availability and profitability of various careers. I find that he participated in the VR process as well as he was able without direction”.

“looked into….. Goldsmith, watch repair and security technician….. a sales position….. he investigated jobs in motor rewinding, television repair and property inspection….. small engine repair”.

The 2003 Chair of my Seond Appeal then concludes the opposite;

-Con’t – March 31, 2003 – WCRB Decision of Second Appeal;

“the worker has not shown the interest or dedication to the VR process….. I find that the worker has consistently failed to participate….. and has actively thwarted the board in its effort to secure new employment for him”.

During my Third Appeal in 2016 the WCAT Chair studies the misguided data of 2003. Then, 11 years later, she spins in her own misunderstanding atop all;

-August 16, 2016 – WCAT Decision of Third Appeal

“in 2002, he refused to participate in a Board sponsored Work Assessment for position as an electronics technician and his VR benefits were suspended in March 2002”.

The following is some of the fiction of 2003 that the WCAT Chair of 2016 was able to access prior to Decision;

-March 31, 2003 – WCRB Decision of Second Appeal

“the worker ‘s refusal to attend the work assessment for an appropriate, local job with a cooperative, reputable employer, constituted failure to participate; the vocational rehabilitation consultant’s decision to suspend benefits under those circumstances was therefore appropriate”.

The 2016 WCAT Chair could also peruse the following;

-Con’t – March 31, 2003 – WCRB Decision of Second Appeal

A functional capacity examination was undertaken on January 22, 23rd, 2002 (I note that the examination had been delayed because the worker had refused to attend on December 11 & 12, 2001 because of prior commitments)”.

Check the WCB Log and you will find that I was booked for two appointments, on the same day, December 11, 2001;

-December 11, 2001 – REGARDING: Appointment Conflict?

“left a message…… Kamloops Psychological Services.

Ron H did call back to say he had a final appointment with Mr. S at 9 AM on Tuesday, December 11th“.

So what is judged as a “prior commitment”, by the WCRB Chair of my Second Appeal, was actually two overlapping appointments on December 11, 2001.

Penultimate;

I supply a copy of five letters that, for over a year, were mailed to a wrong address for my ex-employer.

I close with two short explanations of VR details.

I thank all for the time involved.

– The Facts of Computer Training –

The WCB Physiotherapist insisted that I not overlap sitting at a computer with the few weeks of physiotherapy offered.

FACT: I started Panda Computer School on September 27th and completed the coarse on November 19, 2001 with the grade of 93%.

However the Chair of my Second Appeal writes;

-March 31, 2003 – WCRB Decision of Second Appeal

“2001 decision letter says that he did not do the computer training, he began the course at the end of 2001”.

– The WCB Skill & Aptitude Tests-

The “Vocational & Psych” test the the VRC arranged for me, 10 months into VR, was extremely specific to exact jobs.

Where the TRU tests, which I paid for in May, identified more broad career avenues with dozens of job titles in each, the more focused test of WCB was able to identify six, specific careers;

-Concrete Scuptor
-Surgeon
-Veterinarian (Poultry)
– Model Maker
-Landscape Architect
-Architect

-This completes “Timeline of WCB Rehabilitation Team”-

-If you wish to read of yet more neglect-

SECOND:

WCB Twist Fact & Medical Input as Convenient

compiled: August 2, 2025

The WCRB Chair of my First Appeal writes physical fact;

-Janurary 5, 2001 – Findings of First Appeal

“Mr S was not suffering from back problems which interfered with his work or required treatment at any level of his spine in the months prior to April 12, 1999….. therefore I allow his appeal for acceptance of the claim“.

Two months later a WCB Doctor wrote a MA Review;

-March 9, 2001 – WCB MA Review of Diagnosis, Dr. Dundas

“the Review Board has accepted that prior to the injury on claim he was not disabled MA recommends he be assessed for PFI. Permanent work restrictions are for heavy lifting, prolonged sitting as in long-distant driving especially off-road, prolonged bending”.

Three days following the MA Review a Case Worker re-writes most of the words of Dr. Dundas, but chooses to drop the reference to long distant driving;

-March 12, 2001 – WCB Case Worker Entry – REGARDING:

-Claims Management, RB Decision and Team Meeting.

“I have updated the claim summary to reflect the medical advisor opinions, with which I agree, as documented in his log entry addendum of March 7, 2001 Mr. S’s restrictions are outlined in the medical advisor’s summary as being for heavy lifting, prolonged sitting and prolonged bending”.

WCB can even twist fact after Dr. Dundas clearly declares,

“the Review Board has accepted that prior to the injury on claim he was not disabled”.

Even against in-house medical input WCB is free to write;

-March 19, 2001 – WCB Letter

“Pre-existing L5-S1 condition”.

-June 15, 2001 – WCB Letter

“Problems that were evident in your back prior to April 12, 1999”.

-May 17, 2002 – WCB Letter

“or due to your pre-existing disability”.

WCB “Form 24” is used to calculate the correct payment for a Functional Loss Pension, following the proof of a Permanent Functional Impairment (PFI).

On page three WCB limit my PFI pension by declaring;

-September 6, 2002 – WCB Form #24, PAGE 3

“Mr. S’s pre-existing condition was mild to moderate”.

NOTE; Two pages later, in the same Form #24, WCB need to pass the maximum penalty to the ex-employer so write;

-September 6, 2002 – WCB Form #24, PAGE 5

“There is no evidence of any pre-existing condition”.

Whether it be illegal accounting as displayed immediately above, or manipulation of medical fact, WCB is omnipotent.

WCB is able to write, 11 years after all the machination;

-March 25, 2014 – WCB Letter

“I feel we did not provide you with a clearly identified occupational goal when that decision was made (2003) Without this goal it is difficult to determine if the assistance you have been offered is sufficient and appropriate…… On behalf of Vocational Rehabilitation Services I apologize for this confusion“.

-Thank You for reading “WCB Twist Fact & Medical input”-

-If you wish to read yet more neglect-

-OR-

If you think you will get help from The Office of Advisors

–READ ON-

THIRD:

Office of Advisors to Injured Workers Conduct

compiled: August 3, 2025

Many times through the years I would request WCB recognize the long overdue Loss of Earnings (LOE) pension.

I would receive feedback such as the WCB Letter below;

-April 16, 2010 – WCB Letter

“You state in your correspondence….. disability awards are calculated using two methods. I would point out that was mentioned on page 24 of the Review Board Chair’s decision dated March 31, 2003 to which you refer to”.

“The board has two methods of assessing permanent partial disability; physical impairment and loss of earnings”.

“Review Board Chair….. uphold the decision to base your award on the functional or physical impairment….. Legislative changes have taken effect with respect to WorkSafe BC’s ability to reconsider previous decisions”.

In 2014, having lost 25% of my body weight, I was forced into the public humiliation to protest outside the WCB.

My protest began, February 11, 2014 in harsh winds of -15c.

Nine days into my public protest this photo was in the newspaper.

Five days after this photo was published WCB suddenly decided to recognize me for the LOE pension, after 13 years of denials.

-March 25, 2014 – WCB Letter

“it was premature to make a decision that you had not sustained a loss of earnings”.

The day that I was recognized for the Monthly LOE Disability Pension I also received a, 13 year, retro-active payment.

Until that day, for 13 years, the only support which WCB faithfully conducted was the full payment for a solid supply of Tylenol 3, EMtech, Morphine and Fentanyl.

For 13 years WCB supplied the opiods to keep me ready for work, causing me to starve in my remote house, all while I was deserving a Monthly Disability Pension.

I received the long overdue pension, Janurary, 2016.

READ: WCB 13 year retro-active payment, Janurary/2016.

Shortly after I received the LOE recognition I was to face a Third Oral Hearing, to appeal WCB Letter of June 10, 2014, blow;

-June 10, 2014 – WCB Career Retraining Offer

“accepted that you have the following limitations…………

Difficulty with prolonged standing, sitting, repetitive stooping, bending, flexion, rotation”.

“restriction….. repetitive lifting over 50 pounds”

“I have offered you the assistance……… to become a Parts and Warehousing Person“.

My Doctor supplied a report, contracted and funded by the Office of Advisor to Injured Workers, specifically focused on the Parts and Warehousing career.

When did the official questions, written by the Office of Advisor’s, change from Warehouse Person to that of the validity of the 13 year retro-active LOE, which I had already received;

August 16, 2016 – WCAT Decision – PAGE 12

Issue #1 : Did the Review Division have jurisdiction to consider the worker’s retroactive entitlement to a Loss of Earnings award”.

Issue #2 : Is the worker entitled to a Loss of Earnings Award and, if so, to what extent”.

Can anyone believe that I wanted to challenge the, 13 year, retro-active Disability Pension that I fought so hard to receive?

This can only testify that the staff of the Office of Advisor to Injured Worker’s did not represent any part of my best interest.

This alteration, to the focus of my appeal, cannot be accidential.

Other than prejustice, why would my Advisor to Injured Worker wish to word the preface, of a WCAT appeal, to threaten my LOE?

Again I thank all involved for the time involved.