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 # 75/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after February 22, 2008.

  • Decision # 74/10

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 73/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s ongoing symptoms are related to her compensable injuries of April 2000 or August 2001; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits.

  • Decision # 72/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits to May 29, 2009.

  • Decision # 71/10

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 70/10

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker’s left trochanteric bursitis.

  • Decision # 69/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits and services beyond December 31, 2008.

  • Decision # 68/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits beyond January 22, 2009.

  • Decision # 67/10

    Issue: Whether or not the firm has been properly classified; andWhether or not compulsory coverage should be made retroactive to January 1, 2007.

  • Decision # 66/10

    Issue: Claim for accident occurring June 13, 1997Whether or not the worker’s back complaints are related to the June 13, 1997 compensable injury; andClaim for accident occurring February 5, 1998Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 65/10

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 64/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits February 10 and 11, 2008.

  • Decision # 63/10

    Issue: Whether or not the February 23, 2007 low back surgery should be accepted as a WCB responsibility in relation to the September 13, 2004 compensable injury.

  • Decision # 62/10

    Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker’s bilateral shoulder condition as being related to the July 10, 2007 compensable injury.

  • Decision # 61/10

    Issue: Whether or not the claim should be accepted on the basis of a strain superimposed on a pre-existing condition; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to benefits beyond 12 weeks.

  • Decision # 60/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits beyond April 27, 2009.

  • Decision # 59/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s bridge benefit should be included as a source of income in the worker’s post-accident earnings.

  • Decision # 58/10

    Issue: Whether or not the employer is entitled to cost relief.

  • Decision # 57/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s low back complaints are related to the 1982 compensable accident; andWhether or not a Medical Review Panel should be convened pursuant to subsection 67(4) of the Act.

  • Decision # 56/10

    Issue: Whether or not the employer is required to report assessable payroll and pay premiums to the WCB retroactive to January 1, 2009.

  • Decision # 55/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s permanent partial disability rating has been properly determined.

  • Decision # 54/10

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s net average earnings for the period July 23, 2007 to April 30, 2009 have been correctly calculated.

  • Decision # 53/10

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 52/10

    Issue: Whether or not the injured worker should be considered an independent contractor or an employee of the employer.

  • Decision # 51/10

    Issue: Whether or not the employer is entitled to cost relief.