Public Decisions

To help refine your searches, follow these rules to get more accurate results.

Limit the Dates - Set a date range to limit the number of results to be within that range.
If a term must be in all results, prepend +. (e.g. +required)
If a term must not be in any results, prepend -. (e.g. -banned)
If matches can start with a term or partial word, append *. (e.g. partial*)
Search for an exact word match of words or phases, enclose them in ". (e.g. "exact phrase")
Limit the Decision Type - Restricts the search to only the Decisions of that type.

Signed between and

Show decisions matching

Decision Type

Decision # 30/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 29/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker’s ongoing complaints are related to the February 11, 2005 compensable injury; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond February 1, 2008.
Decision # 28/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker’s right shoulder difficulties should be accepted as a compensable condition in relation to the 1996 compensable injury and/or to the general nature of the worker’s duties subsequent to 1996;Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond February 14, 2001; andWhether or not the worker should be reimbursed for costs associated with retraining.
Decision # 27/09

Issue: Whether or not the WCB should accept responsibility for the worker’s total right knee replacement.
Decision # 26/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 25/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 24/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to further wage loss and medical aid benefits.
Decision # 23/09

Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the purchase of home exercise equipment.
Decision # 22/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker’s psychological symptoms are related to the April 4, 2006 compensable accident.
Decision # 21/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits from June 30, 2008 to July 9, 2008.
Decision # 20/09

Issue: Whether or not the injured worker should be considered an independent contractor or an employee of the employer.
Decision # 19/09

Issue: Whether or not the vocational rehabilitation plan with an occupational goal of working within National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) 6421 (Retail Salesperson and Salesclerk) was appropriate; andWhether or not a deemed post-accident earning capacity of minimum wage should have been implemented as of November 22, 2006.
Decision # 18/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits and medical treatment beyond May 16, 2001.
Decision # 17/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 16/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 15/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 14/09

Issue: Whether or not a Medical Review Panel should be convened pursuant to subsection 67(4) of the Act; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to benefits and services after July 27, 2004.
Decision # 13/09

Issue: Whether or not a deemed post-accident earning capacity of minimum wage based on a 40 hour week should have been implemented effective October 27, 2004.
Decision # 12/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 11/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker’s current problems are related to the April 21, 2003 compensable injury.
Decision # 10/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond February 25, 2005.
Decision # 09/09

Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision # 08/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to an increase in the cosmetic impairment rating.
Decision # 07/09

Issue: Whether or not the employer should be considered a compulsory firm under the Act.
Decision # 06/09

Issue: Whether or not the worker’s wage loss benefit rate is correct.