- Adjournment (additional medical evidence)
- Issue setting
- Procedure (production of documents)
- Strains and sprains (lumbar)
- Time limits
- Notice of accident (by worker)
- Jurisdiction, Tribunal (sequential issue)
This appeal concerned the following issues: a) entitlement to an extension of the section 22 time limit to file a claim for a low back injury on August 1, 2015 or November 29, 2015; and, b) initial entitlement for an injury on May 25, 2017.
The appeal was granted, in part. A time extension under section 22 was granted to file a claim for a low back injury on August 1, 2015 or November 29, 2015. It was noted that OPM Document No. 15-01-03 "Workers' Requirement to Claim and Consent" applied to this appeal. This policy provides that the six-month deadline can be extended in certain circumstances. The Vice-Chair found that the combined factors of the worker's lack of familiarity with the workers' compensation system, lack of English language skills and lack of representation likely contributed to an inability to understand and meet the time limit requirements to file a claim. The worker also testified and told the Board that he reported the injury to his employer on the day it occurred and to his doctor the day after. These constituted exceptional circumstances under the policy.The Vice-Chair also considered the Laski criteria. Based on the worker's testimony, he reported the injury and formed the intent to file a claim within the six-month time limit. Even if the initially reported accident date of August 1, 2015 was correct, the delay in reporting the claim to the Board was approximately four months beyond the expiry of the six-month time limit. A delay of four months had likely not affected the Board's ability to adjudicate the worker's claim or caused prejudice to the employer. The worker also had an arguable case on the merits.The second issue, entitlement for a back injury on May 25, 2017, was to be decided along with the sequential issue of initial entitlement for injury to the worker's low back on August 1, 2015 or November 29, 2015, which was added to the issue agenda. The Vice-Chair determined that the two entitlement issues should be considered together. A holistic approach and the efficient use of the Tribunal's resources weighed in favor of deciding both entitlement issues at the same time. Thus, it was determined that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the sequential or implicit issue of initial entitlement, and it was appropriately included in the issue agenda. This matter was ordered to be reconvened until additional medical documentation is produced.