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 # 118/17

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

  • Decision # 117/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to a permanent partial impairment award.

  • Decision # 116/17

    Issue: Whether or not the firm should be considered to be the employer of record in relation to a worker's claim for injury occurring April 9, 2015.

  • Decision # 115/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's estate is entitled to additional benefits.

  • Decision # 114/17

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the proposed right middle finger surgery.

  • Decision # 113/17

    Issue: 2013 Claim:Whether or not the worker is entitled to further benefits.2014 Claim:Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 112/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's current back difficulties are a consequence of the August 10, 1997 accident.

  • Decision # 111/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 110/17

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's meniscus tear as being a consequence of the January 29, 2016 accident.

  • Decision # 109/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after March 30, 2016.

  • Decision # 108/17

    Issue: Whether or not the employer is subject to the transfer of costs experience and rate of assessment.

  • Decision # 107/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 106/17

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's difficulties as being a consequence of the August 29, 2006 injury.

  • Decision # 105/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after September 9, 2016;Whether or not the vocational rehabilitation plan for the National Occupational Classification (NOC) 6623 Other Elemental Sales Occupations is appropriate; andWhether or not it was appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity of $320.00 per week effective January 1, 2013.

  • Decision # 104/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's tinnitus condition should be accepted as being a consequence of his compensable hearing loss condition.

  • Decision # 103/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits after July 5, 2016.

  • Decision # 102/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits from July 12, 2016 to July 22, 2016.

  • Decision # 101/17

    Issue: Whether or not the cumulative effects of the worker's back injuries resulted in the need for back surgery.

  • Decision # 100/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits after July 8, 2016; andWhether or not responsibility should be accepted for the medications Ketorloc and Celebrex.

  • Decision # 99/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's permanent partial impairment rating of 3% has been correctly calculated.

  • Decision # 98/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 97/17

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 96/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after June 8, 2016.

  • Decision # 95/17

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits after March 12, 2015; andWhether or not responsibility should be accepted for the purchase of a walker.

  • Decision # 94/17

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