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.
  • Decision # 103/06

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 102/06

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility for the total knee replacement surgery should be accepted.

  • Decision # 101/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond June 2, 2004.

  • Decision # 100/06

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 99/06

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 98/06

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the purchase of a Tempur-Pedic pillow.

  • Decision # 97/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits beyond November 9, 2005 to December 13, 2005.

  • Decision # 96/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker has recovered from the effects of his 1999 and 2003 workplace injuries; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond December 6, 2005.

  • Decision # 95/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker has recovered from the compensable left knee injury; Whether or not there is a relationship between the compensable left knee injury and the worker's back complaints; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits between August 14, 2005 and September 17, 2005.

  • Decision # 94/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to temporary total disability benefits beyond February 20, 2005.

  • Decision # 93/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond December 10, 2004; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to medical aid benefits beyond February 14, 2005.

  • Decision # 92/06

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 91/06

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 90/06

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's bilateral hand condition beyond April 14, 2005.

  • Decision # 89/06

    Issue: Whether or not an occupational goal of working within National Occupational Classification 6421, Retail Sales Person and Sales Clerk, is appropriate.

  • Decision # 88/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to additional wage loss benefits.

  • Decision # 87/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond November 29, 2004.

  • Decision # 86/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker should be reimbursed for the full traveling distance to Winnipeg to attend his chiropractor.

  • Decision # 85/06

    Issue: Issue 1: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's liver failure and transplant; Issue 2: Whether or not the employer is entitled to 100 percent cost relief.

  • Decision # 84/06

    Issue: Whether or not the current dental treatment the worker is receiving to her front teeth is related to the April 11, 1989 compensable injury.

  • Decision # 83/06

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 82/06

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the arthroscopic surgery and the subsequent time loss from work.

  • Decision # 81/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's average earnings should be $425.15 per week.

  • Decision # 80/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to a Permanent Partial Disability (hereafter "PPD") Award in relation to his facial condition.

  • Decision # 79/06

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits or services beyond May 18, 2004; and Whether or not a Medical Review Panel should be convened pursuant to subsection 67(4) of the Act.