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 # 107/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 106/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after February 22, 2019 in relation to the March 8, 2018 accident.

  • Decision # 105/20

    Issue: Accident of June 1, 2001: Whether or not the worker’s claim is acceptable; andAccident of November 1, 2010: Whether or not the worker’s claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 104/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 103/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to further additional coverage for the prescription Ralivia.

  • Decision # 102/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits after January 17, 2019.

  • Decision # 101/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after January 6, 2020.

  • Decision # 100/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 99/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 98/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to further benefits after November 28, 2018.

  • Decision # 97/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 96/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 95/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's permanent partial impairment rating of 1% has been correctly calculated.

  • Decision # 94/20

    Issue: Whether or not there is entitlement to benefits in relation to the worker's death.

  • Decision # 93/20

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker’s right shoulder difficulties as being a consequence of the December 29, 2017 accident.

  • Decision # 92/20

    Issue: Whether or not in addition to alteration costs, the worker is entitled to a footwear allowance.

  • Decision # 91/20

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility for costs associated with a service/therapy dog should be accepted.

  • Decision # 90/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to a lumbar belt.

  • Decision # 89/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after February 12, 2019.

  • Decision # 88/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits after January 29, 2016.

  • Decision # 87/20

    Issue: 1. Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after August 15, 2017; 2. Whether or not the worker is entitled to further medical aid benefits beyond the pre-approved kinesiology sessions; 3. Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for moving costs; and 4. Whether or not the worker's psychological difficulties should be accepted as being a consequence of the February 10, 2016 accident.

  • Decision # 86/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after April 22, 2019.

  • Decision # 85/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 84/20

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 83/20

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after October 23, 2019.