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 # 17/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to laser therapy.

  • Decision # 16/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits after October 5, 2015.

  • Decision # 15/17

    Issue: Accident date: April 17, 2015Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits and/or medical aid benefits.Accident date: August 25, 2015Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 14/17

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

  • Decision # 13/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits beyond March 25, 2012.

  • Decision # 12/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits after May 1, 2015.

  • Decision # 11/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after June 8, 2015.

  • Decision # 10/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 09/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's diagnosis of lymphedema is a consequence of the August 24, 2001 compensable injury.

  • Decision # 08/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 07/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's secondary accident of September 6, 2012 should be accepted as a consequence of the March 4, 2012 compensable injury; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to further benefits.

  • Decision # 06/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to further benefits.

  • Decision # 05/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's left leg dystonia is a consequence of the January 3, 2011 accident; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits in relation to her concurrent employment after August 21, 2011.

  • Decision # 04/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 03/17

    Issue: Whether or not the focal tenosynovitis should be accepted as a consequence of the July 20, 2012 compensable accident; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after October 3, 2012.

  • Decision # 02/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 01/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's L4 radiculopathy is related to the September 24, 2014 compensable accident; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and/or medical aid benefits.

  • Decision # 00/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claimant should bereimbursed for the loss of her diamond.

  • Decision # 190/16

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after August 13, 2015.

  • Decision # 189/16

    Issue: Whether or not a Medical Review Panel should be convened pursuant to subsection 67(4); andWhether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after December 29, 2014.

  • Decision # 188/16

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after November 2, 2015.

  • Decision # 187/16

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's average earnings have been correctly calculated.

  • Decision # 186/16

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 185/16

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to further benefits.

  • Decision # 184/16

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.