- Second Injury and Enhancement Fund {SIEF} (severity of preexisting condition)
- Medical report (objective analysis)
- Evidence (weight) (medical report)
- Second Injury and Enhancement Fund {SIEF} (prolonged recovery)
- Preexisting condition (wrist condition)
- Preexisting condition (lupus)
The employer sought entitlement to relief from the costs of a claim under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF).
The appeal was denied. The medical evidence did not support that the worker's lupus and diminutive ECU tendon sub-sheath were significant causes in the onset of her right wrist difficulties or significant impediments to her recovery from her injury.The Vice-Chair noted that the opinions contained in the medical report provided should not be regarded as reliable or relied upon in this decision. Tribunal decisions have emphasized that the Ferreira decision should not be interpreted as indicating that uncontradicted medical opinion evidence must always be accepted. The Vice-Chair noted that it is necessary for decision-makers at the Tribunal to retain the ability to reject opinions provided in uncontradicted medical reports where the reliability of the opinion that has been provided has not been established. In the case of two party appeals, it is often the case that there may be large discrepancies in the ability of the parties to present medical opinion evidence for the purposes of litigation. As such, a medical report obtained for the purposes of litigation should contain a detailed and sound basis for the opinion that is expressed. It was noted that an expert's explicit attestation or testimony recognizing and accepting the duty to be fair, objective and non-partisan was indicated to be of significance in the SCC decision of White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co.However, the Vice-Chair did accept that the medical report was provided by a qualified orthopaedic surgeon who was knowledgeable about the matters he provided an opinion on. The report was therefore considered on its own merits, with particular attention paid to whether the report demonstrated a detailed and sound basis for any opinion expressed in the report. The Vice-Chair determined that the statement that lupus is often associated with tendinitis, and that it may be a factor in prolonging recovery, was unsupported by reference to any reliable scientific/medical source. It did not meet the legal standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, and was not accompanied by a detailed and sound basis or direct assessment of the worker. The Vice-Chair concluded that the report did not provide evidence that could be relied upon to establish the presence of pre-existing conditions that met the requirements for entitlement to SIEF relief as described in OPM Document No. 14-05-03.