What agreement must injured workers submit too?

Letter to the Editor
November 2 nd 2009

Mr. Goudreau / Mr. Stelmach;

As you know or should know there are numerous problems with the workers compensation system in Alberta. The problems are not entirely related to claims and benefits that are illegally routinely denied on a regular basis that are specific to medical issues. Medical issues relative to claims is only one part of a corrupt system that thrives in a culture of denial.

First and foremost, any one who signs a contract that was presumably signed by workers and employers is provided with a copy of that contract. In Alberta, I have asked for a copy of the original agreement to determine just exactly what was agreed to. Clearly, the original agreement had to be signed by employers and workers. Who were the employers and who were the workers and were these employers and workers represented by legal counsel? Where in Alberta was this original contract signed? Who witnessed the signing?

It is my understanding from reading the original Meredith Principles that workers gave up their right to sue the employers. In return employers would fund the system and the workers would no longer have to prove their case. In other words, the burden of proof would be shifted from the worker to the "Board" The "Board" thus were given the same broad powers as the Court of Queens Bench that would allow them to investigate and gather all of the evidence both for and against a claim. The "Board" also was provided power under the Public Inquiries Act to enable them further powers of investigation. The worker and employer thus would not have to provide any evidence other than to file a claim. Accordingly, all workers were given presumptive status according to WCB's General Counsel, Douglas Mah.

Somehow, over the years, the burden of proof has been shifted from the "Board" to the worker where it is the worker who now must provide medical evidence to support their claim which is a clear violation of the contractual agreement that no one knows where this document is and any requests to have this historic agreement made public falls on deaf ears.

Mr. Goudreau in a statement to the media stated that if there is new medical evidence for a reconsideration, then claims will be reheard. I ask Mr. Goudreau, who is supposed to gather this medical evidence, the worker who does not have the capability, the "Board" or the Appeals Commission? If it is not the worker and it would be grossly illogical to expect a blue collar worker with a grade school education to keep abreast of new medical studies, then it would have to be the "Board" or the Appeals Commission according to any reasonable person.

It is rather useless to provide new medical evidence to either the "Board" or the Appeals Commission as I have experienced, simply because they do not understand what is relevant and what is not relevant. For example and this is only one of the times I presented new medical evidence which was denied.

The claimant involved was diagnosed as having occult fractures that caused osteonecrosis of the scaphoids. A WCB contract doctor diagnosed the claimant as having idiopathic osteonecrosis of the scaphoids which is an incorrect diagnosis as if fractures are found, the cause of the osteonecrosis is not unknown, the cause is due to the fractures. Duh! I contacted two of the worlds leading experts on the the cause of bone fractures. One was James Ashton Miller and the other was Dr. David Fyhries, both doctors specializing in biomechanics. Both responded to my questions indicating that any bone when subjected to very minor repetitive loading will eventually crack. I submitted their expert medical opinions to the Appeals Commission and these totally ignorant dumb bastards denied the reconsideration because they determined that neither of these doctors were medical doctors, they they were experts in biomechanics and not experts in medicine. Duh! Who do you think medical doctors consult to determine the amount of loading that is required to fracture a bone. You do not accept the medical opinion of a Rheumatologist who couldn't even provide a correct diagnosis which is what these stupid arrogant bastards did.

For any one to wonder why workers resort to violence should not leave a person wondering. The real question is why so many workers do not resort to violence especially when the people who make the decisions have to be some of the stupidest arrogant bastards that clearly have to been found under a rock some place with the Appeals Commission being the worst of the worst.

These dumb bastards unlike some of their counterparts in other parts of Canada and the U.S. never challenge a Statute, Regulation or policy. They simply provide decisions that are based on the Statute, Regulation and Policy even when the Statute, Regulation or Policy is illegal or out of date. It was the WCAT in the Yukon who challenged the "Board" over the difference between an impairment and a disability. It was the WCAT in Nova Scotia that challenged the "Boards" chronic pain policy, it was the WCAT in the U.S. that challenged the AMA Guides as to how impairment ratings were being used by doctors. In Alberta we have these poor stupid bastards (Appeals Commission) that have been given absolute power who in my humble opinion are the root cause of all the problems that plague WCB. As you know, the buck has to stop someplace and even if a claim or benefits have been denied illegally at the Customer Services level and DRDRB level, the Appeals Commission can overturn any decision made by these people.

In closing, I request again that the historic agreement be sent to me. Better yet, I demand that this document be sent as all people in Alberta, the workers, employers and the public have the right to see this document if even this document does exist. I suppose a person could request that the Courts order the document to be produced but I would hope that the Government does not force a person to go this route.

Gerry Miller