Alberta Workers' Compensation Consulting

February 10, 2026

WCB Rate-Setting: It’s Not Always Limited to the Last 12 Months

In a 2022 Alberta Appeals Commission decision (Decision No. 2022-0507), Alberta Workers’ Compensation Consulting (AWCC) represented an injured worker to challenge a compensation rate that was not set in a fair and just way to adequately represent the worker’s insurable earnings prior to the date of accident.

A key takeaway is that pre-accident earnings are not automatically limited to the last 12 months. The Appeals Commission reviewed the rate-setting framework under the Workers’ Compensation Act together with WCB Policy 04-01, which requires WCB to assess earnings over a period that “fairly and justly” represents what the worker was earning at the time of injury.

In this case, WCB and the DRDRB relied on a 12-month period and did not accept that a longer period should be used—but on appeal, the Appeals Commission ordered the rate recalculated using 24 months of pre-accident earnings, as that longer period more accurately reflected the worker’s true earning pattern.

It’s also important to know that WCB compensation rates are based on earned employment income (insurable earnings), not passive income—so income from investments (like stocks, dividends, or capital gains) is not used to set the wage-loss rate. Decision No. 2022-0507 is publicly available on CanLII and other legal research databases and is a useful reference for workers/advocates questioning whether a compensation rate truly reflects real earnings justly and fairly before an injury.

January 15, 2026

Deeming 101: “Fit for sedentary work” is Not an Employability Determination

(Educational post for injured workers and advocates in Alberta. Not legal advice.)

If WCB says you’re “fit for sedentary work” and reduces wage-loss benefits based on deemed (hypothetical) employment, here’s the key principles:

1) The law: functional capacity is not a job (Gahir)

In Gahir v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), 2009 ABCA 59 (CanLII), the Alberta Court of Appeal said:

“Fit for full time sedentary employment” is a level of functional capacity; it is not a job.

Translation: being functionally able to do certain tasks does not automatically mean you are competitively employable in real jobs at real wages.

2) What “deeming” is (in one line)

A deeming is WCB’s estimate of what you could earn in suitable employment (after reaching maximum medical improvement when the claimant believes they are unemployable, or have been unable to secure alternate employment and are unable to return to date of accident employment) which WCB uses to reduce wage loss.

Gahir (2009 ABCA 59) is a reminder that this estimate can’t be based on a functional label alone.

3) How deeming should work (the simple version)

A proper deeming needs more than a label like “sedentary.” Under the principle confirmed in Gahir (2009 ABCA 59), WCB must not treat functional capacity as a substitute for employability. The analysis should connect your restrictions + your skills + the real labour market.

Step 1 — Confirm real restrictions and sustainability

Not just “range of motion.” WCB should consider endurance (how long you can sit/stand), symptom flares, pace, attendance reliability, medication/cognitive impacts.

Step 2 — Name a specific suitable occupation

“Sedentary work” isn’t a job. WCB should identify an occupation and the essential duties (physical and cognitive/pace/attendance demands).

Step 3 — Show you meet entry requirements (skills matter)

This is where many deeming often fails. If the job needs computer use, typing, customer communication, multi-tasking, or certification—WCB must show you actually meet those requirements (or have a realistic training bridge).

Step 4 — Prove real availability and a realistic wage

Simplified WCB labour market information often isn’t enough. WCB should show jobs are reasonably available in your area and the wage used matches entry-level reality via job employment postings and other real world indicators.

4) A real example (why this matters)

In a recent Alberta Appeals Commission decision, the panel looked beyond physical capacity and focused on whether the proposed job was actually suitable given the worker’s skills and what employers really expect. The takeaway:

Even if physical capacity is arguable, a job can still be unsuitable if you aren’t competitively employable because of skills/requirements or lack of sustainability.

Closing thought

When you see WCB leaning heavily on a functional label like “sedentary,” remember Gahir (2009 ABCA 59): a functional capacity description is not a job, and it does not automatically prove competitive employability.

If you’re facing a deeming, the strongest challenges usually focus on the missing bridge between (1) restrictions/sustainability, (2) real job requirements, and (3) real labour-market competitiveness.

If this helped, consider sharing so other injured workers and advocates can spot the difference between a functional label and real-world employability. If you are a claimant and facing this type of scenario and are interested in securing independent advocacy please fill out AWCC online form and we will respond to you as soon as practicable. https://albertawcc.com/contact-form

Another Successful Appeal!

WCB Deeming Overturned at the Appeals Commission

January 12, 2026 – Decision No. 2025-0781

AWCC received a decision from the Appeals Commission (AC) overturning a WCB deeming decision that had estimated a claimant’s post-injury earning capacity as a taxi dispatcher.

I am going to speak in generalities to protect the claimant’s privacy (as I always do). When the decision is anonymized and publicly available online, I will provide a link to it.

While I am pleased with this outcome, it is unfortunate that the claimant had to appeal to correct a decision that should never have been made in the first place.

Why the Appeal Succeeded

Even the WCB’s own Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) acknowledged that the claimant had only rudimentary typing skills, yet the WCB continued to deem him employable as a taxi dispatcher.

The Appeals Commission found:

Lack of required computer/typing skills – The claimant did not have the computer or keyboarding proficiency necessary for the role.

“We are not satisfied that the worker has the required computer skills. We find the position of taxi dispatcher is not consistent with the worker’s vocational circumstances.”

No prior administrative experience – The claimant’s work background was in trades and did not include the type of administrative or clerical experience expected for a dispatch position.

Physical restrictions not considered necessary to reach decision – Because the AC determined that the claimant lacked the necessary skill set to perform dispatch work, it did not need to go further into whether the claimant’s compensable physical restrictions would have also precluded that occupation.

The AC also granted Gahir relief—which is not automatic whenever a deeming is overturned. In this decision, the panel applied Gahir because the claimant had been effectively stuck in a “revolving door”: WCB had been unsuccessful three times in identifying a suitable position to estimate post-accident earning capacity, and this was the second time a deemed position had been overturned on review or appeal. The panel therefore found the claimant is entitled to Gahir relief until WCB identifies a suitable position.

What AWCC Argued

AWCC advanced a dual argument:

The claimant lacked the administrative and computer skills required for a taxi dispatcher position; and

The claimant’s compensable physical restrictions would, in any case, have prevented him from securing or sustaining such employment.

The AC agreed on the first point—insufficient administrative skills—and therefore did not need to decide on the second.

Why This Matters

For injured claimants and advocates, this case reinforces two key principles about deeming:

Suitability: A deemed occupation must align with the claimant’s real-world skills, abilities, and background—not theoretical capability.

Accessibility: Even if suitable in theory, a deemed occupation must also be reasonably available in the actual labour market.

A fair assessment of employability requires both. Deeming someone employable in a job they cannot realistically perform or obtain is neither fair nor consistent with WCB policy.

Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation Act reinforces this principle. When WCB is estimating a claimant’s earning capacity and looking at “other suitable employment,” it must consider the claimant’s physical and mental fitness to continue in the pre‑accident job or to adapt to some other suitable employment (Workers’ Compensation Act, s.63). In this case, the Appeals Commission found the taxi‑dispatcher deem was not consistent with the claimant’s vocational circumstances because the job required a level of computer/keyboard skills the claimant did not have—an example of how “mental fitness” includes real‑world transferable skills-or in this case a lack thereof.

Takeaway: If you or someone you know has been deemed capable of work that doesn’t reflect their skills, experience, or restrictions, that deeming can—and should—be challenged.

AWCC will continue to ensure injured claimants receive fair and evidence-based assessments of their true earning capacity. Complete our online form for a free over the phone consultation.

https://albertawcc.com/contact-form

A “Life-Changing” Decision
December 2025

In a recent Appeals Commission decision, AWCC did not succeed on every issue — but we did secure a significant extension of wage-replacement benefits. Our client described the outcome as “life-changing.”

We’ll update this post and publish the decision once the anonymized version is available.

Key takeaways for injured workers & advocates:
1. Business Procedures-decision timing matters.
The panel treated the Business Procedure version in effect at the time of the case manager’s decision as the applicable iteration for assessing that decision.

2. Business Procedures guide analysis-even though they don’t “bind” the panel. This decision is a good example of how panels may rely on Business Procedures for structure and criteria while still recognizing they’re guidance, not law. The AC is ‘bound’ by WCB Policy-an important distinction.

3. “Severe” symptoms don’t automatically equal higher PCA.
The panel accepted that the worker had serious back difficulties but ultimately weighed the medical and functional evidence and concluded it did not meet the threshold for an increased Personal Care Allowance. We fully respect the panel’s authority to weigh the evidence and decide — that is its mandate. However, we respectfully believe the evidence supported a different outcome.

4. Retirement-age / ELS extension: “intent” can be proven with real-world indicators.
The panel accepted evidence supporting the worker’s intent to continue working beyond age 65 which included: third-party statements (coworker / employer), worker and spouse statements, financial records, and other objective indicators showing ongoing plans and obligations consistent with continued employment.

5. Policy examples aren’t exhaustive.
Where policy lists examples of “satisfactory independent evidence,” those examples should be treated as non-exhaustive — other reliable indicators still matter.

6. Evidence isn’t restricted to “pre-accident only.”
WCB policy does not bar considering evidence from before or after an accident/recurrence when assessing retirement-age intent.

AWCC raised the recurrence issue because WCB (and then DRDRB) insisted probative evidence had to pre-date—or be confined to the period around—the accident thus excluding intent evidence that arose well after the injury. That stance forced an unnecessary “recurrence as a new accident” argument in an effort to secure admissibility of post-accident intent evidence. The Panel’s interpretation of policy supports that WCB/DRDRB made a significant error on this point.

Concluding Remarks:

If you’re navigating WCB Alberta, it’s worth understanding/ researching WCB Policy (binding) and WCB Business Procedures (guiding).

A.W.C.C. CHRONICLES

March 17/ 2022

Followers of AWCC’s blog and Facebook page know that I take the position that the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) needs to actually focus on ‘resolution’.

I believe the following is a good example of wrongfully denied entitlement that could have been resolved well prior to requiring the Appeals Commission’s involvement.

Although this happened well over a decade ago, it is a decision that has stayed with me all these years and I write of it here because it is emblematic of my position noted above.

The claimant in this scenario had an accepted claim for a significant neck injury that included a disc protrusion with radiculopathy (radiating pain into the left arm and shoulder) as well as a related compensable surgery. The claim was also accepted for cognitive impairment as the injury arose from a fall off a roof with the claimant having struck their head. This unfortunate accident resulted in the above noted injuries and other associated medical sequelae.

Six prescribed medications were in dispute. Of the six prescribed medications, five medications could have been prescribed for a multitude of medical conditions.

However, one of the six medications that the WCB disputed as being related was Tylenol #3.

Most folks without any form of medical training would understand that this is a medication prescribed for pain control.

This medication, and the five other medications were summarily denied by the case manager without any form of consultation with the injured worker’s primary treatment providers.

When the matter went before the “Resolution Specialist” at the DRDRB, said decision-maker relied solely on a WCB in-house documentary based medical opinion and denied all six medications prescribed by the treating family physician and treating specialist, including Tylenol #3.

When the matter went to the Appeals Commission all of the medications, excluding one, were found to be related to the compensable conditions.

Of course, Tylenol #3 was accepted as related to the compensable injuries.

Within the same hearing, alternate decisions by the DRDRB decision maker were also overturned by the Commission, and said matters were referred back to the WCB for retroactive cost coverage and ongoing adjudication.

Unfortunately, it is not atypical in my experience that the DRDRB decision-maker made no effort to reach out and consult with the primary treatment providers to determine their position/opinion on causality as it relates to the prescribed medications. In this scenario the DRDRB decision maker simply ignored reporting from the family doctor and the treating specialist, beyond refusing to seek their opinion on causality.

Fortunately the Appeals Commission did not ignore the weight of medical reporting, and placed little if any weight on the WCB's in-house documentary medical opinion.

There is a special onus on decision-makers at the WCB, the DRDRB, and the Appeals Commission because their responsibilities arise out of legislation and that’s what differentiates the WCB from a private insurance company.

Decision-makers have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that their decision-making is based on a “reasonableness test” made on the “balance of probabilities”. In doing so decision-making must be neither subjective nor arbitrary.

Injured workers should know that in 1999/2000 the Alberta Ombudsman recommended that both the WCB and the attendant appeals bodies should defer to and/or place greater weight on the medical opinions of primary treatment providers over the opinions of WCB in-house medical advisors. These parties all agreed.

Yet this same DRDRB member continues to this day rendering decisions that lack objectivity, often refusing to consult with primary treatment providers, and relying on selective evidence (cherry-picking) to wrongfully deny injured workers their rightful entitlement.

If you have questions or concerns about your WCB claim, feel free to reach out to me for a free consultation at 780-440-6047.

Button text

PDF ARCHIVE

Medical Reports Divide Opinion: Calgary Herald Article May 1999 5.39 MB

WCB Experience Painful: Calgary Herald May 1999 6.61 MB

Doctors Reexamine Insurance Work: Calgary Herald May 1999 1.06 MB

When is an Independent Medical Exam (IME) Not Independent?

“This is not a level playing field, it is not fair, and it offends the basic principles of natural justice.”
-Justice LD MacLean/Alberta Court of Queen’s bench

When is an Independent Medical Exam (IME) Not Independent?

Recently an AWCC client underwent a WCB sponsored psychiatric IME.

Upon receiving and reviewing said opinion it was noted that the opinion provider was frequently used by the WCB. His name and work was readily identifiable to AWCC.

Simply stated, AWCC sees the same “independent” medical opinion providers furnishing both exam based and document based opinions to the Board on a frequent basis.

AWCC is not alone in relation to concerns pertaining to the frequent use of the same medical opinion providers by the WCB and insurance companies.

Let’s travel back in time and tap into AWCC’s “Way Back File”.

Here we find numerous articles published in various Alberta newspapers in 1999/2000 challenging the independence of so-called “independent medical opinion” providers.

In the articles numerous individuals, organizations, and interested parties expressed a multitude of concerns and allegations.

The allegations included:

-A lack of fairness and bias against injured workers on the behalf of some independent medical examiners,

-The application of psychological/psychiatric testing that is improperly interpreted or improperly applied,

-The inappropriate use of psychiatric exams in the adjudication of physical/organic medical conditions.

The articles referenced herein can be found at the top of the blog post page as archived articles in PDF form.
https://albertawcc.com/blog-on

The Alberta Courts also found this problematic.

As per the article published by the Calgary Herald on May 1, 1999, reference was made to a decision by Justice LD MacLean, a Medicine Hat Court of Queens Bench Judge.

Judge MacLean took the following position:

“In relation to the worker, the (compensation) Board has an overwhelming wealth of knowledge and experience. It has the financial ability to fund sophisticated investigations involving highly qualified experts and have the material presented to them, guided and orchestrated and propounded by its in-house counsel responsible to the Board and paid for by the Board….

“The application of any standard under the rules of natural justice would identify such circumstances as being unequal in negotiating ability and unfair.

This is not a level playing field, it is not fair, and it offends the basic principles of natural justice.”

Unfortunately not a great deal has changed since 1999 in the opinion of AWCC.

In a perfect world we would like to believe that there is a fully fair and completely unbiased process of evaluation in relation to documentary based and independent medical examination opinion.

However, it is reasonable to have concerns in relation to the monetary incentives involved for physicians that make a great deal of their living providing “independent” medical opinion.

The same concerns also arise in relation to the Board’s own in-house medical opinion providers and their ability to ensure fair and unbiased medical opinion provision.

It is important to note that claimant’s have the right to request that the WCB seek medical opinion from their primary healthcare providers, particularly in relation to questions of causality and scope. However the Board should not need prompting in this regard and has a fiduciary responsibility to seek medical opinion from primary treatment providers.

In the late 90s the Alberta Ombudsman weighed in on the issue of how decision-makers and appeals bodies place weight on medical opinion. The Alberta Ombudsman unequivocally advised these parties that they were to place greater weight on medical opinion from primary healthcare providers when adjudicating entitlement.

AWCC all too often must request the Board performed their due diligence and ensure that they are requesting medical opinion and input from primary healthcare providers, as opposed to simply relying on their in-house medical advisors and contracted independent medical examiners.

If you have any questions or concerns about your WCB entitlement contact us for a free consult 780-440-6047.

Denial of Treatment: ‘Functional Gain’ Versus 'Quality of Life'

Denial of Treatment: ‘Functional Gain’ Versus ‘Quality of Life’

AWCC has found that the WCB of Alberta is often too focused on achieving “functional gain” as opposed to overall quality of life for severely injured Albertans.

Recently a severely injured worker was denied ongoing physiotherapy and massage therapy on the premise that cost coverage could not be extended in the absence of identifiable “functional gain”.

Through well researched and compelling submissions produced by AWCC we were able to have the prior denial overturned and physical therapy and massage therapy reinstated for cost coverage on behalf of our client.

Here is an excerpt from one of AWCC's submissions made on the client’s behalf that helps inform WCB responsibilities in this regard:

‘Policy 04-06 Part 1 advises:

“WCB provides or pays for any reasonable and necessary medical aid to treat injuries or alleviate the effects of injuries resulting from compensable accidents.”

Although one of the objectives of providing medical aid is to “promote safe and early recovery and return to work” said aid is not limited in this regard.

A further objective noted in said policy is as follows:

“To alleviate the effects of workplace injury or illness by facilitating the timely and safe delivery of appropriate, quality and cost-effective care and treatment,…”

In this context medical aid coverage would not be required to result in functional progress/gains as the WCB objectives are not exclusionary.”

Although the Board will not use the term “quality of life” in relation to these types of decisions, the following formed part of the response from the WCB and we share this with you here:

“In XXX case I would agree that as functional improvement is not always reflected as a result of his treatment, that other measures may need to be considered including subjective reporting of improved wellness and alleviation of pain.

With this in mind, we will do our best going forward to collaborate with XXX, his treatment providers and our own physiotherapy consultants to develop clinically advisable treatment plans to help “treat or alleviate” the effects of XXX injuries.”

Note: the citation above was utilize with the full permission of AWCC’s client. Although the client gave permission to identify them, AWCC has chosen not to. We take the confidentiality of our clients seriously and do everything in our power to protect that.

It is relevant to also note, as quoted above, the case manager advised that these therapies can be covered for cost when the goal(s) is/are for “improved wellness and the alleviation of pain”.

That is a ‘quality of life’ metric.

Therefore, the case manager’s original decision to deny the therapies on the grounds that further ‘functional gains’ were not being achieved was not a supportable rationale for the denial.

The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that they support an injured worker fully; including improved wellness and the alleviation of pain outside of a 'functional gain' scenario.

If you been denied any form of entitlement call us at 780-440-6047 for a free consult.

WCB Suppression of Investigative Evidence

“Tapes Kept from Workers"

In 2003-2004 I became aware of the WCB suppressing evidence from investigations if the evidence did not support a contention of fraud against injured workers.

I came to understand this through a careful review of payment records attached to one of my client’s WCB files.

Having an understanding of the WCB’s ‘nature of payment codes’ and other information contained in the payment history of the claim file I was able to establish that the Board had paid for investigations, who the investigation companies were, and the approximate time the investigations took place.

Systematically reviewing other clients' files I also came to understand that this was not an isolated incident.

I took my concerns to the WCB via their Access to Information Department. One of the initial positions the WCB took in relation to my concerns was to state that because the investigative material had not been used in decision-making it was not relevant to the file. Thus the WCB’s position was that if the information was in their estimation “irrelevant” it was not to be placed on the claim file

I countered stating that said investigative material was evidentiary by virtue of the fact that it did not support fraud and therefore supported entitlement. I contended that in every instance investigative material should be submitted to the file, regardless of the findings.

In essence, if the video of the injured worker demonstrated that they had restrictions, difficulties with mobility, demonstrated pain behaviour when in public settings, and other indicators supportive of a significant disability this information must be placed on the injured worker’s file.

Moving up the WCB bureaucracy I continued to get the same response.

In 2004 I submitted a complaint to the Alberta Ombudsman on behalf of my client.

I argued that the Board’s practice was in contravention of the following sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act and Regulations, which I will simply list here for brevity.

-WCB Regulations Section 11 (4);
-WCA Section 13.2 (5);
-WCA Section 13.4 (7); and,
-WCA Section 46 (2).

The above regulations and sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act mandate the release of “ALL” information in the WCB’s possession to decision-making bodies and other parties specified in the legislation.

I advised the Office of the Ombudsman that the WCB’s practice was denying the Appeals Commission (AC) relevant information that could have a substantive impact on decision-making related to issues of appeal.

I called into question the fairness of hearings before the Commission in which non-disclosed investigative material was excluded from the decision-making process. Particularly in cases where said information would’ve supported the appellant’s appeal for entitlement.

Although the process with the Alberta Ombudsman was somewhat protracted, and after making several submissions over the course of 2005-2006, my client and I were advised on December 11, 2006 that the Ombudsman supported the position we had taken:

“From an administrative fairness perspective, access to all information, including investigative material, is of critical importance. A worker is entitled to full and complete disclosure of the existence of all available information, particularly if the worker enters the appeals process.”
(see scan below)

The Ombudsman went on to further note that the CEO of the WCB had responded in November of 2006 indicating that effective December 1 of the same year all surveillance reports for investigations, upon completion, would be placed on workers’ claim files. Moreover, the Ombudsman stated that the CEO had taken steps to amend procedures and properly notify staff of said changes.

Upon receiving the decision my client and I felt the need to ensure that injured workers and the public were aware of both the WCB practice and the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. My client contacted the Edmonton Sun, who in turn contacted me.

The Edmonton Sun ran an article in late December 2006 titled: “Tapes Kept from Workers". I apologize for the quality of the scan below, and I am only in possession of part of the article.

The article advised that the Ombudsman had upheld our complaint, and went on to quote portions of the Ombudsman’s letter. Of note is the journalist interviewing a former Appeals Commissioner who confirmed that in the past (prior to December 2006) an employee of the Appeals Commission had identified payments being made to investigators but that the investigation reports were not found on the appellant`s file received from the WCB.

I believe the implications of the WCB’s practice of evidence suppression in this regard, and how it may have been prejudicial to injured workers’ appeals, has never been fully investigated and rectified. As such the concerns I had in the past remain today in relation to how this past practice may have prejudiced appeals prior to 2006.

If you have concerns about the Board’s conduct in relation to your claim file, be it via investigations and/or other actions that may prejudice your claim, please feel free to contact AWCC.

History Repeats?

Back in 2000* Retired Judge Samuel Freeman issued a report, having been requested by the then sitting government to review the WCB appeals process.

Injured workers, advocates, unions, and lawyers found many of the report’s findings supported their experience, particularly workplace accidents that resulted in significant disabling injuries:

“Retired judge Samuel Friedman released a report two weeks ago that expressed concern about what appeared to be a "well-entrenched culture of denial within the WCB".

Mary Cameron, the president of Alberta's Workers Compensation Board at the time attempted to downplay this ‘highly critical government report’ that described the WCB as "unfair and unaccountable".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/wcb-brushes-off-critical-report-1.202637

Fast forward 18 years….

The Alberta Government conducted another review of the Alberta WCB in 2016-2017, and as per the executive summary:

“…the WCB can be overly efficient, and tends to manage the claim in aggressive accordance with strict rules, even when the resulting decisions fly in the face of common sense. This raises frustration among workers and employers alike and it contributes to a perception that the WCB has a “culture of denial”…

Rather than decision-making that focuses on assisting people with their injuries, illnesses or concerns, the system’s decision-making currently focuses on efficient management of claims. Too often, it seems, the latter is given attention at the expense of the former.”

https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/WCB-Review-Executive-Summary.pdf

Many believe that this ‘culture of denial’ at the Alberta WCB has been compounded through poorly informed decision-making by the WCB Board over the years. Individuals and groups have raised concerns that the Board has not exercised adequate due diligence to ensure that the Worker’s Compensation Act is properly reflected within WCB policy and procedure.

I speak of this from first-hand experience.

As a case manager I spoke up in 1995 about changes to policy and procedure that I did not believe were congruent with the Workers` Compensation Act. My colleagues and I were encouraged by upper management and the CEO to bring any concerns we had to our supervisor or manager. I did both. Not too shortly thereafter I left the employ of the WCB, disheartened by my experience, to pursue another opportunity.

When I commenced full-time independent advocacy in 1999 I began assisting an injured workers` group which led to the Edmonton Journal contacting me. They asked for my opinion on the culture at the WCB and I obliged. There is a scan of the article below.

Sadly I was not surprised by the most recent report. Many of the 2017 findings speak to the difficulties that injured workers have experienced over decades when there is a lack of empathy, objectivity, and fairness.

I find the landscape has not changed much over the last decade or two. It’s relevant to note that the Millard Task Force report, circa 1992, supported some of the same concerns as the most recent review in 2017. The Millard Task Force report was less than objective with many parties alleging WCB’s over involvement, and a flawed government review process. In short order the review simply gathered dust without effecting any substantive change, as I recall.

However, I am only cautiously optimistic about the new report bringing needed change. The sitting government and the WCB inform us they are actively engaged in review driven change via legislative and policy revision. We have seen some of those changes come into effect very recently.

I want to be optimistic that the 2017 review will lead to lasting change. Change that results in an objective and fair interpretation and application of the Workers Compensation Act through a culture that is less corporate and more caring.

Until then, I will continue to do my best to assist injured workers who have been wrongfully denied benefits and services.

*I went before the MLA review panel in April 2000 and made a presentation with supporting documentation. That submission remains in my possession and I’m happy to share it with anyone who may be interested in a retrospective view on matters. Matters that were of concern to injured worker groups that I was working with at the time, and myself. Many of the same concerns remain today.