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 # 123/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is responsible for the overpayment in the amount of $66.34.

  • Decision # 122/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits beyond November 8, 2010.

  • Decision # 121/11

    Issue: Whether or not the firm's payroll allocation has been correctly determined.

  • Decision # 120/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to chiropractic treatment beyond June 30, 2010; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond June 4, 2010.

  • Decision # 119/11

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's right knee problems for which he first sought medical attention on July 2, 2009.

  • Decision # 118/11

    Issue: Whether or not psychological difficulties resulting from matters related to the administration of the claim are compensable; andWhether or not the worker's gross average earnings have been correctly calculated.

  • Decision # 117/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after January 1, 2010.

  • Decision # 116/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's panic attacks and depression are related to his compensable injury.

  • Decision # 115/11

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 114/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's claim for low back difficulties is acceptable.

  • Decision # 113/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's permanent partial impairment has been correctly assessed at 2.7%.

  • Decision # 112/11

    Issue: Whether or not a Medical Review Panel should be convened pursuant to subsection 67(4) of the Act.

  • Decision # 111/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker's back difficulties on May 22, 2009 are related to the compensable injury of September 5, 2008; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beginning May 22, 2009.

  • Decision # 110/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after May 26, 1999.

  • Decision # 109/11

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 108/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits after May 28, 2010; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits and services.

  • Decision # 107/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits effective April 11, 2003.

  • Decision # 106/11

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for recurrence of left shoulder difficulties in relation to the compensable injury of September 28, 2007.

  • Decision # 105/11

    Issue: Whether or not effective March 28, 2011 the worker's wage loss benefits should be reduced based on a deemed earning capacity of $380.00 per week.

  • Decision # 104/11

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 103/11

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after June 21, 2009.

  • Decision # 102/11

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 101/11

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's neck and back complaints in relation to his compensable injury of October 11, 2007.

  • Decision # 100/11

    Issue: Whether or not the date of accident has been correctly established; andWhether or not the worker's permanent partial impairment has been correctly calculated.

  • Decision # 99/11

    Issue: Whether or not effective January 1, 2010, franchise operators with combined employee earnings below the minimum level, should be considered workers of the franchisor.Whether or not effective January 1, 2010, the franchisor's assessable earnings calculation should be based on 95% of the net labour percentage rate.