Decision #120/20 - Type: Workers Compensation


The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that the occupational goal within National Occupation Classification (NOC) 7411 Truck Driver is appropriate and that it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity in the amount of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000. A teleconference hearing was held on October 22, 2020 to consider the worker's appeal.


Whether or not the occupational goal within National Occupation Classification (NOC) 7411 Truck Driver is appropriate; and

Whether or not it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity in the amount of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000.


The occupational goal within National Occupation Classification (NOC) 7411 Truck Driver is appropriate; and

It is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity in the amount of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000.


The WCB accepted the worker’s claim for an injury to his left knee that occurred on June 11, 1996. He had surgery to correct a lateral meniscus tear on August 13, 1996 and a second surgery on November 6, 1996. A third surgery took place on March 19, 1998.

The worker was not able to return to his pre-accident employment and the WCB referred him for vocational rehabilitation services. The WCB developed a Vocational Rehabilitation Plan (“VR Plan”) in National Occupation Classification (“NOC”) 7411 - Truck Driver for the worker and he successfully gained employment in the field on April 27, 2000. At a meeting on May 30, 2000, the worker advised the WCB that he no longer required vocational rehabilitation services as he would obtain employment on his own. When the worker’s vocational rehabilitation plan ended on August 25, 2000, the WCB deemed the worker capable of earning $421.00 per week.

On November 16, 2001, the WCB established permanent restrictions for the worker of avoid stairs/uneven ground, no repetitive climbing, avoid kneeling, twisting and turning on the left knee, and no prolonged walking.

On June 12, 2019, the worker’s representative requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decisions that the occupational goal of NOC 7411 – Truck Driver was appropriate and that it was appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000. The worker’s representative submitted the occupation goal was not appropriate as the worker’s earlier diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome had not been treated and had not resolved, thus remaining a barrier to the worker returning to any form of employment. The worker’s representative went on to note that evidence on the worker’s file indicates the WCB priority changed from treating the worker’s chronic pain syndrome to getting the worker back to work through a vocational rehabilitation plan; however, the vocational rehabilitation plan did not support the worker’s permanent restrictions.

With respect to the worker’s post-accident deemed earning capacity of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000, the worker’s representative noted this was established before permanent restrictions were in place. As such, the worker’s occupation goal and post-accident deemed earning capacity should have been reviewed again once the restrictions were made permanent.

Review Office determined on August 1, 2019 that the occupational goal of NOC 7411 - Truck Driver was appropriate and that it was appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000. Review Office found the worker’s alcohol or anger issues were not related to the workplace injury and were not the responsibility of the WCB, acknowledging those issues could have been barriers to the worker gaining employment but were personal in nature. Review Office further found the worker’s complaints of chronic pain were in relation to his right knee, which had been earlier determined to not be compensable. Review Office determined as well that while the worker’s post-accident deemed earning capacity was established before his permanent restrictions were identified, there was no requirement within The Workers Compensation Act (the Act) that this occur after permanent restrictions are placed. Further, Review Office noted the permanent restrictions in place for the worker would have enabled him to be employable within NOC 7411 Truck Driver.

The worker’s representative filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on January 20, 2020. A teleconference hearing was arranged for October 22, 2020.


Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the Act, regulations under the Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors.

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid to the worker.

Section 22(1) of the Act requires that the worker mitigate the effects of the compensable injury by taking reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate any loss of earnings resulting from an injury, and co-operating with the board in developing and implementing programs for returning to work, rehabilitation or disability management or any other program the board considers necessary to promote the worker's recovery. If a worker fails to comply with these obligations, the board may reduce or suspend the compensation payable to the worker pursuant to s 22(2).

Section 27(20) of the Act allows the WCB to provide academic, vocational, and rehabilitative assistance to injured workers who could experience a long-term loss of earning capacity. The WCB has established Board Policy 43.00, Vocational Rehabilitation (the "VR Policy"), elaborates upon the goals, terms, and conditions of vocational rehabilitation assistance available to a worker under s 27(20) of the Act. The VR Policy states, in part, that: “The goal of vocational rehabilitation is to help the worker to achieve a return to sustainable employment in an occupation which reasonably takes into consideration the worker's post-injury physical capacity, skills, aptitudes and, where possible, interests.” Other goals of the VR Policy are to help the worker as much as possible to be as employable after injury as before the injury and to provide reasonable assistance to support a return to work, although services may not always continue until the worker actually returns to work. Vocational rehabilitation also strives to return workers to the salary level they were earning before the injury or illness.

The WCB has also established Board Policy, Post-Accident Earnings – Deemed Earning Capacity (the “Deemed Earning Policy”) to outline the circumstances in which the WCB will determine that a worker is capable of earning more than they are actually earning. This policy requires that the WCB must demonstrate that the worker is capable of competitively finding, competing for, obtaining, and keeping employment in the occupation or group of occupations on which the earning capacity is based and that the worker has the physical capacity, education, skills, aptitudes, interests, and personal qualities needed to obtain and keep employment in the occupation or group of occupations in the labour market. Further, the WCB must demonstrate that work exists for the occupation group on which the earning capacity is to be based. The Deemed Earning Policy sets out that deemed earning capacity will be used in the loss of earning capacity calculation when:

i. The worker has completed the training part of the vocational rehabilitation plan designed to help the worker obtain new skills or improve current skills; 

ii. The worker has been given reasonable job search assistance (i.e., separate from the training part of the plan); and, 

iii. The information the plan was based on, including labour market analysis, has not substantially changed.

Worker's Position

The worker appeared in the hearing with a worker advisor. The worker advisor provided a written submission to the panel in advance of the hearing and made oral submissions to the panel in the hearing. The worker provided oral testimony in answer to questions posed to him by the worker advisor and by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position, as outlined by the worker advisor, is that the VR Plan established by the WCB for the worker is not appropriate as the worker was not sustainably employable in the truck driving industry when the WCB concluded its vocational rehabilitation services in August 2000. Further, it was improper for the WCB to implement a deemed earning capacity on August 26, 2000 in reliance on temporary work restrictions identified in March 1999, given that the worker’s permanent physical restrictions established on November 16, 2001 would preclude him from employment in positions within NOC 7411.

In the written submission, the worker advisor outlined to the panel that after the worker was diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome by WCB orthopedic and pain management consultants in 1997, the WCB failed to facilitate treatment for the condition and instead moved forward with vocational rehabilitation services. The worker’s position is that this diagnosis remained a factor leading up to, during and beyond the delivery of the WCB’s vocational rehabilitation services.

With respect to the development of the VR Plan, the worker advisor stated that the WCB did not adequately assist the worker in achieving a return to sustainable employment in that it did not provide the worker with treatment for his anger, pain and disability prior to implementing that plan. In particular, the worker advisor noted the WCB did not facilitate adjustment services to assist the worker to address personal, social or emotional difficulties that result for the compensable injury and must be addressed in order for the plan to progress. Further, the worker advisor stated the WCB did not take the necessary preliminary steps to assist the worker to overcome or mitigate the significant complications arising out of his injury and subsequent surgeries, and for this reason, the VR Plan was not based on a realistic goal.

On the question of the deemed earning capacity, the worker advisor noted that if the panel determines that the VR Plan is unsuitable, it follows that the associated earning capacity is also unsuitable. If the panel determines that the VR Plan was suitable, the worker’s position is that it was not appropriate to implement a deemed earning capacity because the worker was not capable of sustained employment in this field and the WCB did not demonstrate that the worker had physical capacity to maintain that employment before implementing the deem. Further, the WCB relied upon temporary work restrictions in place since March 1999 and did not consult further on the matter of permanent restrictions before the VR Plan was presented to the worker in December 1999.

The worker’s position is that the WCB prioritized moving forward with vocational rehabilitation at the expense of the worker’s long-term health and well-being, resulting in a VR Plan that was destined to fail. Although the worker initially expressed interest in resuming employment, first as a crane operator and then as a truck driver, the worker advisor argued it was unwise for the WCB to opt for a career operating a large vehicle in consideration of the permanent restrictions imposed and while the worker continued to experience a chronic pain condition that was disabling.

The worker confirmed in his evidence that when he was driving truck in 2001, vibration from the truck would make his knee go numb and that holding down the clutch or driving over bumps would cause significant pain in his knee. He described a close call at one point when his knee gave out and he could not hold the clutch as needed. The worker indicated that it was too hard on him to continue as a truck driver at that time, explaining it was hard on his knee and back and very uncomfortable. The worker confirmed to the panel that he has not worked at all since December 2001 and has not applied for any position since that time.

On questioning by the panel, the worker indicated an interest in further education and noted he had requested the WCB provide him with further opportunities in that regard. He described his work history as limited to working with his hands or physically. The worker stated that he wanted sustainable employment, but that truck driving was not sustainable for him.

In sum, the worker’s position is that the VR Plan for NOC 7411 is not appropriate as it does not align with the worker’s physical capacity and was implemented prematurely before the worker’s permanent restrictions were determined. For this reason, the panel should allow the worker’s appeal and determine that the occupational goal within National Occupation Classification (NOC) 7411 Truck Driver was not appropriate and that it was not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity in the amount of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.


The questions for the panel to determine on appeal are whether the VR Plan for NOC 7411 Truck Driver is appropriate and whether it was appropriate for the WCB to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000. For the worker's appeal of these issues to be granted, the panel must find that the vocational rehabilitation plan provided to the worker did not reasonably consider the worker’s post-injury physical capacity, skills, aptitudes and interests, and that the worker was not capable of earning $421.00 per week at the time the deeming was implemented.

On reviewing the facts of this case and for the following reasons, the panel finds that the VR Plan of employability in NOC 7411 was appropriate and that the worker was capable of earning the deemed amount of $421.00 per week as of August 26, 2000.

Development and Implementation of the VR Plan 

The panel carefully reviewed the file record with respect to the development of the worker’s VR Plan, presented to him in December 1999. The file record reveals that at least as early as November 1997 the WCB raised the possibility of vocational rehabilitation with the worker with a view to the possibility that the treating surgeon would advise against a return to the worker’s pre-accident employment. Further discussions on the subject took place in late January 1998 before the worker saw the orthopedic surgeon, but when a further surgery was scheduled, this planning was put on hold until after the surgery.

A file memorandum from April 14, 1998 indicates the worker had requested vocational rehabilitation and soon thereafter, the WCB indicated to the worker that career and interest aptitude testing would be arranged. These services were provided to the worker and the May 19, 1998 assessment report indicates the worker’s primary vocational interest to be heavy equipment operation, in particular operating a front-end loader. Other interests expressed included supervision of construction and crane operation. The assessor noted that the worker’s “above average mechanical abilities on testing would suggest that he would be successful at the equipment operation” and that training be on the job rather than in school for work that would allow for relatively independent work, outdoors as much as possible.

A file memorandum dated July 6, 1998 outlines that the WCB explored, on the worker’s behalf, the option of training for a crane operator and noted that this option might be limited by the condition of the worker’s knee; therefore, the WCB proposed to the worker the alternative option for truck driver training. The WCB subsequently arranged to enrol the worker in a truck driving program as the Class-1 licence was a prerequisite for entry into the crane operator training program. The worker successfully completed this training in fall 1998.

In January 1999, the worker indicated to the WCB that he was no longer confident in his physical ability to operate a crane and declined to participate in any further training in pursuit of that occupational goal. The WCB vocational rehabilitation consultant recorded in a file memorandum dated January 29, 1999 that returning to work in the labour market region where the worker previously worked “…with his limited education and specific work skills would ensure a long-term requirement of wage loss supplement by the WCB. In response, [the worker] advised that he would be speaking to a close friend of his to determine if, in fact, he was able to do long-haul truck driving.”

The WCB referred the worker to its employment specialist in spring 1999 to set up a short work experience with a trucking company to determine whether the worker was physically able to operate a tractor/trailer unit. After a brief short haul experience on June 2, 1999 the worker advised the Employment Specialist that he was willing to complete a one-week work experience driving long distance. On this basis, the employment specialist recommended, in a file memorandum dated June 3, 1999 that if the worker was able to “successfully complete a one week work experience driving a long distance, Voc-Rehab and Employment Services should develop a VR plan and earning capacity analysis in the truck driving field.”

As a result of a secondary injury the further work experience did not take place until September 1999. In November 1999 the worker expressed interest in a six-week training opportunity. During this period, the WCB employment specialist prepared an earning capacity analysis for NOC 7411- Truck Driver, dated November 24, 1999 and concluded that based on the worker’s “present training and current labour market information, and taking into account his present physical restrictions, he should be able to earn a starting salary of $420.68 per week within NOC 7411-Truck Driver.”

The WCB VR consultant presented the worker with an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan (the VR Plan) on December 21, 1999 and the worker at that time signed his agreement to participate in the plan focused on an occupational goal of NOC 7411- Truck Driver. The VR Plan notes that the worker’s “…restrictions on his knee are not a factor in all positions. The main physical demands consist of prolonged periods of sitting, shifting and standard gear shift, and gripping and turning the steering wheel.” In terms of stated interests, the VR Plan sets out that the worker had “…voiced his opinion that truck driving is the best alternative to re-education while enabling him to regain his pre-accident income level. It allows him independence and freedom and a position that he is familiar with.” The VR Plan outlines that job search assistance will be provided by WCB Employment Services through to August 25, 2000 and that upon completion of the plan the worker should be capable of earning $420.68 per week.

The panel noted the worker contacted the WCB VR consultant in January 2000 claiming he was tricked into signing the VR Plan and noting it contained an error as to his level of high school completion. The WCB VR consultant explained the plan to the worker again, clarifying some misconceptions and indicated the error would be corrected but that the VR Plan remained in effect.

The file record for the period of the worker’s job search reveals that the worker was placed in two positions during the period of March - May 2000. The first position was arranged through the efforts of the WCB employment specialist and commenced March 9, 2000 but was discontinued by the worker before March 13, 2000. Through his own effort, the worker secured a second position beginning on April 27, 2000. On May 23, 2000, the WCB contacted the worker and learned that he had ended this employment as he did not feel he was paid well enough.

In a May 25, 2000 file memorandum, the employment specialist indicated the worker had found another driving position and noted that the worker’s history of quitting positions in which he has been placed by the employment specialist. An August 9, 2000 memorandum to file from the employment specialist indicates that the worker indicated to him on May 31, 2000 that he did not wish any further job search assistance from the employment specialist. Attempts to contact the worker after this date were not successful, and as of August 26, 2000, when the VR Plan concluded, the WCB deemed the worker capable of earning $421.00 per week as outlined in the VR Plan. 

The Worker’s Functional Abilities 

The panel also carefully reviewed the medical evidence with respect to the worker’s functional abilities during the period when the VR Plan was in development and implementation.

A May 9, 1997 file note from a WCB medical advisor sets out that the worker’s objective findings “…do not support any ongoing disability but do support the presence of ongoing discomfort” and notes that psychosocial factors may be at play. On May 16, 1997 the WCB medical advisor referred the worker to Pain Management. The WCB also referred the worker for psychological counselling and he was assessed on June 17, 1997. In the resulting report dated September 9, 1997, the psychologist noted that “…it seemed to me that he likely wouldn’t derive a great deal of help from counselling sessions because of his aggressivity and agitation.” No further counselling took place at that time.

When the worker was assessed by a WCB Pain Management Medical Advisor on June 25, 1997, the advisor determined the worker qualified for a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome and noted that this diagnosis “…appears to be mitigated heavily by his prior alcoholism and his current recovery from same. He appears to have a personality disorder associated with his alcoholism.” A psychological assessment was recommended to determine whether the worker’s personality presented any barrier to treatment at an interdisciplinary pain management program. As well, physiotherapy was recommended to address muscle atrophy and increase the functional capacity of the worker’s left leg.

A psychological assessment took place on August 20, 1997 as outlined in a report dated September 9, 1997. The psychologist noted the worker’s cooperative and open approach to the assessment. The psychologist concluded that the interview and personality profile assessment tool results “…identified several clinical factors which might interfere with his participation in a multidisciplinary pain management program. I would see his prognosis as being only fair, due to characterological and alcohol consumption issues….[The worker] presents as an individual possessing an Aggressive Personality pattern which would make compliance with a pain management program more difficult.”

A consulting physician, in a report dated August 27, 1997 noted “significant ongoing impairment of knee function from the patellofemoral dysfunction that has serious implication for [the worker’s] ability to return to his regular work…which requires considerable agility and frequent squatting in precarious situations….” The physician therefore recommended retraining in another occupation.

The file documents the worker continued to complain of severe pain although objective findings did not support there was any organic cause for permanent restrictions at that time. The WCB medical advisor on September 23, 1997 concluded that given:

“…the reported pain and alleged sensation that his knee gives way on occasion…makes me think it is ill advised to allow him to return to his pre-accident job working at heights and climbing ladders and stairs is contraindicated at present. I feel however if the psychological and pain factors can be dealt with, return to full employment at his pre-accident job may still be a realistic possibility.”

The treating orthopedic surgeon reported on January 26, 1998 that the worker’s left knee complaints continued at that time although there were no diagnostic findings of concern. Because of the worker’s ongoing reports of symptoms, the surgeon proposed a further arthroscopic procedure, which took place on March 18, 1998. The surgical report indicates that the worker’s knee was “mechanically sound. He does have some early wear and tear changes in the lateral compartment which may give him some aching. There is no instability. His patellofemoral articulation is actually very well preserved.” The worker was subsequently referred to physiotherapy for post-surgical rehabilitation. The physiotherapist’s initial assessment report dated March 30, 1998 indicated the worker’s significant pain focus and that therefore the prognosis for a complete and normal recovery was not good.

The follow up assessment notes from the orthopedic surgeon dated May 11, 1998 again indicate that the worker’s left knee was mechanically sound and stable, although lacking in muscle. The surgeon stated:

“I think that if he just got a bit more muscle in his left leg I see no reason why he cannot go back to work. …I think he needs lots of reassurance…I stressed to him the importance of keeping the muscles in good shape and his ability to get back to work as long as his muscles are in fact strong. He has to accept the fact that the knees are going to be somewhat noisy and there is nothing that can be done for that. They will give him the occasional ache but this will be compatible with quite good function if he keeps his quadriceps in good shape.”

At the request of the WCB, a strength assessment of the worker’s knees was conducted on January 18, 1999. The resulting report of January 22, 1999 notes profound weakness of both the right and left quadriceps, although greater in the left, as well as very weak left hamstrings.

The panel noted that it was based on these results that the WCB medical advisor determined on March 4, 1999 that the worker should have restrictions of avoiding repetitive stairs, squatting, or climbing of a repetitive nature, as well as avoiding kneeling. The medical advisor noted that the worker should recover with continued exercise, strengthening and maintaining his overall fitness.

In a medical report dated December 1, 1999, the treating physician reported injury to the worker’s lower back arising out of driving and sleeping in a truck. The report noted the worker “…found 24 [hours] with a stranger & driving on icy roads extremely stressful” and proposed a gradual return to work after three weeks. The worker again saw the orthopedic surgeon on January 20, 2000. The surgeon’s chart note indicates that at that time the worker continued to have “bilateral patellofemoral crepitus and patellofemoral pain, particularly in the left knee.” Noting the worker’s left knee was unchanged from the previous examination in May 1998, with some early patellofemoral arthritis, the surgeon suggests he keep his quadriceps in good shape and suggests permanent restrictions to avoid squatting, climbing or heavy lifting.

The medical reporting reveals that the worker continues to experience pain in his left knee. The worker’s treating physician from early 1999 reported on November 7, 2000 that the worker’s long-term prognosis was:

“…likely to worsen as time goes on with osteoarthritic changes. I am unsure whether his problems are related to his accident in 1996, however, that chance that it played a role is certainly very good. It is often quite painful to drive a truck or car with patellofemoral syndrome and I believe physiotherapy should alleviate any pain due to patellofemoral syndrome. He should thus improve to a state where he certainly should be able to drive a car or truck if the patellofemoral syndrome is indeed a cause for his pain”

The worker sought care from a new physician at some point in 2001, and in a report to the WCB dated September 26, 2001, that physician reported the worker’s status with respect to his left knee was unchanged from 1998 when he saw the orthopedic surgeon but noted the worker’s complaints that his left leg is “…still quite bothersome at times and unstable, that it hyperextends and pops.”

On October 1, 2001, the WCB assessed the worker for a permanent partial impairment rating. The WCB medical advisor noted the worker’s report that he had been unable to return to his pre-accident job and that he had tried truck driving but was not able to “…tolerate due to vibrations and difficulty holding down the clutch.” Based upon the October 1 permanent partial impairment rating examination and the file documents, the WCB medical advisor, on November 26, 2001 concluded that permanent restrictions should be established for the worker at this time. The worker should avoid: stairs/uneven ground; climbing repetitively; kneeling, twisting and turning on the left knee; and prolonged walking.

The panel notes that the WCB was aware of the worker’s chronic pain diagnosis before the VR Plan was developed and did not determine that the worker’s psychological issues, identified in 1997, were a barrier to employment. The panel also noted there is no indication at the time the VR plan was developed and implemented that the worker’s previously identified issues with alcohol were at play or a barrier to his employment as a truck driver, nor that there were any lingering concerns expressed by any of the medical professionals at that time about his psychosocial presentation.

Further, beginning in the spring of 1998 after his recovery from surgery, the evidence reveals that the worker cooperated with and actively participated in the vocational rehabilitation process. After his interests and aptitudes were assessed that spring, the worker entered a training program for truck driving as this was a prerequisite to the crane operator position. When it became apparent to the worker in early 1999 that his physical abilities would not align with work as a crane operator, he decided to shift his focus to obtaining employment as a truck driver.

The VR Plan that was fully developed in the fall of 1999 was based upon the known physical restrictions in place for the worker at that time, which were put in place earlier in the same year. The medical findings from the orthopedic surgeon post-surgery in 1998 supported the worker’s return to work in a different occupation and on follow up in January 2000, there were no findings to suggest any change in the worker’s prognosis. Indeed, the worker’s physician in November 2000 confirmed again that there was no evidence of any change in the worker’s left knee dating back to 1998.

There is evidence on file that in late 1999, after he injured his lower back, the worker was finding the work as a truck driver to be stressful, and the worker testified that in 2001 he struggled with his job responsibilities, as he had difficulty in using a clutch. This is confirmed by his report to the WCB medical advisor on October 1, 2001. Nonetheless, the worker continued in this occupation until at least December 2001.

The panel finds that the fact the worker had difficulties with driving a truck in 2001 does not mean that the VR Plan developed and agreed upon two years earlier was inappropriate at the time it was put in place. Further, the fact that permanent restrictions put in place in November 2001 may have precluded implementation of the occupational goal for NOC 7411 at that time does not mean that the NOC selected was not appropriate in December 1999.

Based on the file evidence reviewed and considering the worker’s testimony and the submissions made on his behalf, the panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that the WCB VR Plan provided to the worker in December 1999 appropriately considered the worker’s post-injury physical capacity, skills, aptitudes and interest as required. The occupational goal within NOC 7411 – Truck Driver was within the worker’s tested functional capabilities, aligned with his assessed skills and aptitudes, and also was within the worker’s expressed interests.

The panel is also satisfied that the evidence supports a finding, on a balance of probabilities that the worker was capable of earning $421.00 per week as of August 20, 1999 and that it was appropriate to deem him capable of earning that amount. As required by the Deemed Earning Policy, the worker’s deemed earning capacity will be used in calculating the loss of earning capacity when the worker has successfully completed the training within his VR plan, has been provided with reasonable job search assistance, here over the course of January – August 1999, and the information the plan was based on, including labour market analysis had not substantially changed by that date.

Therefore, the occupational goal within National Occupation Classification (NOC) 7411 Truck Driver is appropriate and the post-accident deemed earning capacity in the amount of $421.00 per week effective August 26, 2000 is also appropriate.

The worker’s appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Witiuk, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

K. Dyck - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 2nd day of December, 2020