For this one appeal I have available, I should only need to focus spotlight on but four paragraphs of the “Decision”.

 

The opinion scripted in those few clauses will pull back the curtain and expose the WCAT Chair as the Wizard of Doze.

 

It matters not whether the confusion, expressed in this latest “Decision”, is due to planned machination, incompetence, prejudice or overwork, the result is the same for me and mine.

 

If I have learned anything, WCAT will do as they wish.

 

However for a proper of my full history, with all factions of workplace injury, please read Acts ONE through FIVE prior to reading this Act SIX – Final Appeal.

 

Since I am not a Legal Practitioner this appeal is written in a colloquial format. It is, however, compiled with input and guidance of many constituents of the interweb.

 

We all await the new WCAT judgement in regards.

 

 

SCENE One : Third Oral Hearing Surprise.

Well before this Third Oral Hearing the WCAT Chair was provided two issues to decide on, quoted in the “Decision”.

 

WCAT Decision of Augaust 16, 2016 – Page 12;

Paragraph #79;

“Issue #1 : Did the Review Division have jurisdiction to consider the workers retroactive entitlement to a loss of earnings award”.

 

 

WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016 – Page 13

Paragraph #83

“ISSUE #2 : Is the worker entitled to a loss of earnings award and, if so, to what extent?”.

 

 

However, the WCAT Chair continued to cast her opinion long after recording her decisions on those two official issues.

 

During a Second Oral Hearing, back in 2003, I was denied a request for Relocation Assisstance. This WCAT Chair of 2016 could not remain quite regarding the thirteen year old decision.

 

However, Page 4, the WCAT Chair starts off on a vector of a major misunderstanding regarding the direction of the Relocation Request.

 

The WCAT Chair believes I was requesting reimbursement for relocation to this remote mountain town in 2006, after injury.

 

WCAT Decision of Augaust 16, 2016 – Page 4;

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 advised that he considered self-employment to be the only option for him to restore his income, as it was the only option  that was flexible enough to allo him to work through his pain….. earlier, the worker had also requested assistance from the board in starting up a business”.

 

 

In the two quotes below the WCAT Chair believes she is judging a man who, after serious back injury, chose to move to a rugged, remote lifestyle deep in the Cariboo Mountains.

 

WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016 – Page 17;

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”.

 

The WCAT Chair of 2016 then quotes the exact clause of Volume 1 policy which define a “reasonably available job”.

 

 

The WCAT Chair of 2016 then quotes the exact clause, of Volume 1 policy, which define a “reasonably available job”

 

WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016 – Page 14;

Paragraph #88;

“Policy item number 40.12 of the RSCM #1….. Sets out seven guidelines that must be followed in determining suitable and reasonably available jobs for a claimant”.

 

 

On the very next page the WCAT Chair then list guidelines by number;

 

WCAT Decision og August 16, 2016 – Page 15, (Guideline #6);

 

“6) A reasonably available job must be one that is within a reasonable commuting distance from the worker’s home. Where there is no available job within that commuting distance that the worker could reasonably be expected to undertake, the worker must be expected to relocate, depending on age, the availability of a suitable job elsewhere, and other factors; but relocation will not normally be expected unless the worker is offered the expenses of relocation….. by the Board or some other government agency”.

 

 

The crux of the issue here is that I have lived in this same house, deep in the Cariboo Mountains, since 1990, ten years pior to injury.

 

At time of injury, age 41, I was commuting from this home to work as Printer in Quesnel BC. I drove 90 minutes from my home to the print shop. At the time I also rented a motel room, in Quesnel by month, for I often worked very long shifts.

 

To be clear; My Relocation Request was to move me out of this isolated mountain town, shortly after injury, not to move me in.

 

A few months after I was recognized for injury assistance (Jan/01) the WCB Medical Avisor (MA) Dr. Dundas, diagnosed my “work restriction” to include “driving”.

 

Restrictions as written March/2001 by WCB Dr. Dundas below;

 

WCB – MA Reiew of Diagnosis – WCB Dr. Dundas March 7&9, 2001;

“permanent work restrictions are for heavy lifting, prolonged sitting as in long-distance driving especially off-road, prolonged bending”.

 

 

Due to the fact that driving is a major physical irritant I was begging to be relocated much closer to a small city. I could not begin to entertain a full schedule program of retraining and rehabilitation while living out of this very remote home.

 

However the WCB Case Worker devised a custom rehabilitation plan perfectly designed to deal with the driving restriction. In a new list, written three days later, the Case Worker simply removes any reference to “Driving”.

 

Although not a doctor the Case Worker decides to rewite her new version of the MA Review, on March 12, 2001. Even though she makes claim to “reflect the MA opinion with which I agree” the “updated” version drop any mention of “Driving”.

 

 

WCB LOG Entry of March 12, 2001;

“Regarding: Decision and Team Meeting:

I have updated the claim summary to reflect the MA opinions, with which I agree….. restrictions are outlined in the MA summary as being for heavy lifting, prolonged sitting and prolonged bending”.

 

 

I was never able to get “Driving” listed as the “Restriction” that Dr. Dundas had first diagnosed. I was simply told that everyone must drive. I do drive, it is extremely irritating.

 

Ample proof abounds in my file that I was requesting WCB assisstance to move me out of this small town and certainly not into it.

 

The WCAT Chair obviously believes I moved to this remote, isolated location some seven years after suffing a workplace back injury.

 

The truth is; Three years after injury I started to cope with the possible longevity of this injury. I did then launch a request for WCB to understand my situation. However my plea was launched in 2002 not 2006, as the Chair mistakenly beieves.

 

At that point in time I still had belief in the WCB system.

 

WCB Letter of June 28, 2002;

“you have asked about the availability of assistance from the board to permanently relocate you from Xxxxxx BC, where you resided before you were injured”.

 

 

So to be clear; This WCAT Chair of 2016 held the ability to make pivotal decisions regarding the future of my life yet she could not even correctly conclude whether I was coming or going.

 

The Chair notes so many other blatant mistakes throughout the WCAT “Decision” I cannot possibly detail them all here.

 

The Chair claims one of my jobs had me lifting three foot cants of wood. The truth is, I refused to lift the cants.

 

The Chair states that I claim “unable to climb a ladder. She then notes that at the Third FCE I was able to perform “three rungs…. 10 repetitions”.

 

Anyone who can climb stairs can repeat the bottom three rungs of a ladder ten times. The claim I did state, regarding ladders, is that I suffer greatly if I must work from a ladder for even ten minutes.

 

The WCAT Chair of 2016 then feels free to weave a tapestry of several incorrect muddy facts. Mud she could only have found in the convoluted WCRB “Findings” of March 31, 2003. 

 

The WCAT Chair of 2016 states, page three;

 

WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016 – Page 3;

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

 

 

The truth is I was reseaching a job as Electrical Technician (Robotic Operator) in Merritt BC when WCB wrongfully cut me off for not attending a WA as Neon Sign, Glass Tube Bender, in Kamloops.

 

The New VRC that I was assigned in 2014 proved that the First VRC never did identify a proper career replacement, required by RSCM Volume 1 policy in 2002.

 

Knowledge of Volume 1 policy was non-existent in 2003 never mind during my protest of 2014. The New VRC, which I was supplied, was pulled in from retirement in 2014 on short contract to handle my case. He was of age to be somewhat familiar with Volume 1 policy.

 

FACT: WCB would never have provided me the New VRC in 2014 if the proper procedure had been followed before cutting me off in 2002.

 

FACT: If Volume 1 policy had been respected, 2002, WCB would never have returned to paying me VR Benefits in 2014.

 

The New VRC wrote the “Employability Assessment” below;

 

WCB Employability Assessment of June 16, 2014 – Page 5;

“Though I do not question any previous actions/decisions taken by the previous VRC. 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 and the assistance required to achieve an identified occupational goal….. Neither is there documentation of some other deemed occupation on file that would meet these criteria”.

 

 

My workplace injury dates to April 12, 1999.

 

For any injury prior to June/2002 WCB is to follow policy found in Volume 1 (Former Provisions) of the Rehabilitation Services claims Manual (RSCM).

 

The policy of Volume 2 (Current Provisions) was introduced for injuries resulting since June/2002.

 

The First VRC of 2001 was not familiar with Volume 1 policy so procedure was not followed and thusly the paperwork required was not filed, prior to cutting me off VR assistance in 2002.

 

Prior to the Third Oral Hearing, resulting in this rub.net, ACT Six, appeal, I did resubmit much of the evidence, ignored since 2003. Much of the “151 pages” did consist of paperwork filed earlier, however several pages spoke to new evidence.

 

The omnipotent power, granted to the WCAT Chair of 2016, allowed her to simply deem all the evidence I supplied as “historical details that are not relevant”, as below;

 

The 2016 WCAT Chair writes;

 

WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016 – Page 11;

Paragraph #74

“provided to me is 151 pages long. Much of the material has been filed in submissions the worker previously prepared for the various prior review and appeal proceedings, deals with the historical details that are not relevant to my decision”.

 

 

It is clear that the Chair will not view the many corrections so her muddy didactic attitude leads her further astray as an ultimate blind judge.

 

My Physician provided a letter specifically focused for this Third Oral Hearing. The letter speaks to the personal degradation that chronic pain inflicts on quality of life. My doctor tries to explain the delirium from pain induced sleep loss. He touches on the detrimental effect the Morphine and Fentanyl, supplied by WCB, has on both home and work.

 

I now carefully battle pain with alcohol. All through the Fentanyl decade the daily news spoke to the increasing opiod deaths across Canada. Now alcohol steps into the public spotlight as a most cancerous substance.

 

To justify ignoring my doctors the WCAT Chair chose to recognize only the one FCE report from a Kinesiologist. An FCE for which I drove 350km to attend so my skin was absorbing full lable use of Fentanyl (2x25mg).

 

The training of Kinesiology supply no education which permit a comment on a decade of Opiod use to battle pain. Kinesiologists hold no experience with the multi-faceted mathematics that attempt to guide a healthy, quality life.

 

The position held in highest regard is called a Family Physician, there is no profession as Family Kinesiolgist. Kinesiologist, or at least this one, work for WCB/WCAT.

 

The reason the WCAT Chair of 2016 opts to respect only the Kinesiologist became obvious on page 12;

 

WCAT Decision of August 16, 2016 – Page 12;

“The standard of proof that applies in this appeal is the balance of probabilities….. on an issue respecting the compensation of a worker is evenly weighted, WCAT must resolve that issue in a manor that favors the worker”.

 

 

If the WCAT Chair had recognized even one of my many doctors the evidence would result as evenly weighted.

 

The procedure here is a very simple one. WCB is allowed to ignore any evidence when it is first submitted. Then if the evidence is presented for a second time, it can be deemed as, “historical details” and ignoed even further.

 

Anyone with a grasp of my WCB Case will conclude that the WCAT Chair finished writting her “Decision” holding a gavel in one hand and an empty box of wine in the other.

 

FACT:  It is clearly recorded the WCAT Chair believes I moved to this remote, rustic, isolated lifestyle six years after workplace back injury.

 

FACT:  She believes I wanted WCB to not only pay for the move but then help me with the self-employment required, because of the move.

 

My exposing this massive mishandling of justice pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Doze that is the entire system. No more proof should be required here, from me, to rebuke the “Decision” of August 16, 2016.

 

It is wrong for a Government legislated system to allow these lone Chairpersons to make wild decisions which lack research and then face absolute zero oversight.

 

For such emotionally charged “Decisions”, from one single person, to then be deemed as binding leaves little doubt why all WCB/WCAT Management tend to perform like bitter drunken kings.

 

And…. It only gets worse in the following “Scene Two”………………..

—————————————————————–