The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An appeal panel hearing was convened on April 25, 2006, to hear the worker's appeal of the Review Office's September 22, 2005 decision. The worker represented himself at the hearing.

Issue

Whether or not the worker is entitled to Special Additional Compensation benefits beyond age 65.

Decision

That the worker is not entitled to Special Additional Compensation benefits beyond age 65.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On December 4, 1986, the worker sustained a compensable injury. The Workers Compensation Board (hereafter the "WCB") accepted the claim for compensation.

On January 26, 1998 the WCB advised the worker in writing that he would be receiving Special Additional Compensation (hereafter "SAC benefits"). SAC benefits were explained as follows:

"SAC is an administrative payment plan, which replaces the previous biweekly benefit, in the form of a monthly pension, until anticipated retirement…"

On October 3, 2002, the worker was informed by the WCB that he would no longer be receiving SAC benefits once he reached the age of 65 in 2005, as he did not contribute to a company pension plan at the time of his workplace injury.

The worker appealed the October 3, 2002 decision to Review Office. The worker stated, in part, "I was shocked by her comments (a WCB case manager) suggesting that I should have paid into a private pension plan as soon as I received compensation. Once a worker has experienced a permanent work related injury due to his or her financial downturn related to the accident, the worker has lost all or any ability to pay into a private pension plan. I find this reasoning very unfair, unjust, and discriminatory towards the majority of workers who work for smaller, non unionized companies that had no pension plans in place." The worker also pointed out that he had a meeting with his vocational rehabilitation consultant on September 16, 1994 and was told at that time that when he reached age 65, his WCB benefits would cease and he would receive a lifetime pension of $200.00 per month.

On September 22, 2005, Review Office confirmed that the worker was not entitled to SAC benefits beyond age 65. It is this decision that the worker appeals.

Reasons

WCB Policy 44.60.30 (hereafter the "Policy") provides that SAC benefits are paid to a worker on pre-1992 claims when the monthly pension paid to a worker for the physical loss (permanent impairment) resulting from a workplace accident does not adequately compensate him for the loss of earning capacity caused by the injury. SAC benefits are paid until the worker's date of retirement.

Where the worker belongs to a registered retirement pension plan as defined in The Pension Benefits Act or applicable federal pension legislation at the time of the accident and the worker's entitlement to that pension has been negatively affected by the accident that prompted the payment of SAC benefits, the WCB will pay a lifetime monthly benefit after the date of retirement.

Section 1(1) of The Pension Benefits Act, C.C.S.M. c. P32 defines a registered pension plan as a pension plan that is registered with and certified by the commission as a plan organized and administered in accordance with this Act.

Section C of the Policy clarifies that this definition includes a pension provided through the worker's employer or union. It specifically excludes a CPP pension or a RRSP pension which the worker contributed to himself.

The worker's pension contributions have been solely to CPP and RRSPs. According to the Policy the worker is not entitled to a lifetime monthly benefit after the date of his retirement.

The worker submitted that this Policy was unfair because he suffered a loss of payment toward his CPP and RRSPs in the same way that worker suffered a loss of payment toward a private pension. This analogy is not necessarily true. Workers who formerly paid into a private pension might also suffer a loss to their CPP and RRSP.

The worker also stated that he was told in person that he would be entitled to a lifetime monthly benefit. While this might be true, verbal advice by a WCB employee cannot override what the Act and WCB policies allow a worker to be paid. Further, the January 26, and March 4, 1998 letters to the worker do rectify any prior information or misinformation given to the worker. This latter advice was confirmed to the worker in 2002.

For these reasons, the worker's appeal is denied.

Panel Members

L. Martin, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

L. Martin - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 8th day of June, 2006