Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSESc) Do you think the wife, husband or children of injuredworkers should be able to get vocational rehabilitationfrom the WCB?Yes = 38No = 4921. Injured workers may apply for a clothing allowance up to $100 per year to replace or repair clothes damaged by wearing an artificiallimb or appliance (such as a knee brace). There is concern that up to $100 a year is too low. There is also concern that an injured worker’sclothes get damaged from things related to their injury or disability other than artificial limbs and appliances.a) Should the maximum amount of the annual clothingallowance be increased?Yes = 82No = 13b) If yes to (a), increased up to what amount? $200 to $500 = 47c) Who should be able to change the amount of theallowance?d) Should the cause of the damage to clothes be changed toinclude other equipment required as a result of aworkplace injury or disease, such as wheelchairs?$500 to $750 = 16$750 to $1,000 = 10More than $1,000 = 6 2 x Depends on the situation. $200 $300Legislative Assembly = 17Minister = 15WCB Board of Directors = 64 Doctor Labour representativesYes = 80No = 10 Should be Policy22. There are concerns about the amount of money or other compensation that injured workers receive to help them live with their injuryor disability and so that they don’t have to depend too much on others (their quality of life). Examples of quality of life compensation aremoney to make changes to a car or truck so the worker can still drive, or housekeeping services for things an injured worker cannot do.There are also concerns that the Acts do not describe when quality of life compensation is paid and about the amount of compensation forquality of life.a) Do you think the Acts should be changed to describewhat types of quality of life compensation there shouldbe?Yes = 81No = 16Appendix C Page C14 of C33WCB Legislative Review Panel Report December, 2001
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSESb) Who should be able to change the amount ofcompensation paid for quality of life?Legislative Assembly = 21Minister = 17WCB Board of Directors = 59 WCB Board of Directors to recommend to the Minister 2 x Labour representatives23. There is concern that some workplace injuries or diseases are not compensable (in other words, an injured worker cannot getcompensation for them). These injuries or diseases are often hard to describe or discover. It may also be hard to say the injury or illness isa result of a worker’s job.a) Do you think chronic pain should be compensable? Yes = 62No = 29 Depends on case by caseb) Do you think workplace (occupational) stress should becompensable?c) Do you think the effects of workplace harassment shouldbe compensable?d) Do you think the effects of substance abuse (e.g. alcoholabuse) should be compensable?e) If yes to (a), (b), (c) or (d), do you think the waycompensation is calculated for these injuries or diseasesshould be different than for other injuries or diseases? If work relatedYes = 49No = 45 If proven to be a long term disabilityYes = 42No = 52Yes = 24No = 69Yes = 38No = 2924. The Year’s Maximum Insurable Remuneration (YMIR) is described in the Acts. The YMIR is the most the WCB will pay each year toan injured worker even if the worker used to make a higher wage. There is concern about the time it takes to change the YMIR becauseonly the Legislative Assemblies are able to change it. It has been suggested that the current YMIR ($63,350) is too low. It has also beensuggested that the YMIR should automatically change when things like the Consumer Price Index change.a) Do you think the YMIR should be established by theLegislative Assembly and changed only when a change ismade to legislation?Yes = 38No = 57 Tied in the Act to the cost of livingAppendix C Page C15 of C33WCB Legislative Review Panel Report December, 2001
Page 1 and 2:
Accountable…to stakeholdersCompen
Page 3 and 4:
Table Of Contents3.4.3 Employers’
Page 5 and 6:
Table Of Contents5.0 A FINAL WORD 1
Page 7 and 8:
The Legislative Review Directorate
Page 9 and 10:
3.0 Workers’Compensation Acts3.1
Page 11 and 12:
2.0 General ThemesDuring the course
Page 13 and 14:
The Panel has generally adopted the
Page 15 and 16:
The Panel did receive positive comm
Page 17 and 18:
wanted was to return to work and st
Page 19 and 20:
2. Are there workers in specific in
Page 21 and 22:
Panel feels legislation should be p
Page 23 and 24:
3.2 WCB Authority and Accountabilit
Page 25 and 26:
WCB Board of Directors may chose to
Page 27 and 28:
3.2.6 Regular Reviews of the Worker
Page 29 and 30:
Recommendations: 3.2.8 Liability Pr
Page 31 and 32:
Legislation in 2 other jurisdiction
Page 33 and 34:
The legislation in other jurisdicti
Page 35 and 36:
ones held accountable for a decisio
Page 37 and 38:
members may be reappointed to the W
Page 39 and 40:
Some suggested that having a compen
Page 41 and 42:
Recommendations: 3.4.2 Workers’ A
Page 43 and 44:
The WCB Board of Directors made the
Page 45 and 46:
esolutions committees, under the au
Page 47 and 48:
The Appeals Tribunal must give the
Page 49 and 50:
The Panel considered the establishm
Page 51 and 52:
Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 53 and 54:
are not familiar with some of the u
Page 55 and 56:
The Panel was interested in the Ont
Page 57 and 58:
Workers’ compensation payments ar
Page 59 and 60:
3.6.3 Year’s Maximum Insurable Re
Page 61 and 62:
The Acts are very specific in some
Page 63 and 64:
3.6.5 Indexing Compensation by Comm
Page 65 and 66:
2. The legislation should be change
Page 67 and 68:
The Panel considered whether the in
Page 69 and 70:
The Panel heard from some stakehold
Page 71 and 72:
The Acts require any employer, whet
Page 73 and 74:
Respondents to the Stakeholder Ques
Page 75 and 76:
The Panel agrees. We see prior cons
Page 77 and 78:
3.9.3 Authority to Make Investments
Page 79 and 80:
Respondents to the Stakeholder Ques
Page 81 and 82:
The duty to accommodate is not an o
Page 83 and 84:
payments such as income tax or payr
Page 85 and 86:
3.13 Environmental ChangeThe Acts h
Page 87 and 88:
construction permits is a matter of
Page 89 and 90:
date sections, reordering the “pa
Page 91 and 92:
The Panel has recommended changes t
Page 93 and 94:
the WCB when it is contemplating ch
Page 95 and 96:
4. The legislation should be change
Page 97 and 98:
The Panel was asked to consider rec
Page 99 and 100:
No other jurisdictions regulate wor
Page 101 and 102:
4.2.5 Safety InspectionsSome stakeh
Page 103 and 104:
4.4 Employer Responsibilities4.4.1
Page 105 and 106: The Panel feels that the instrument
Page 107 and 108: Recommendation: 4.6.2 Consistency w
Page 109 and 110: others have experience as employers
Page 111 and 112: While the Panel heard positive comm
Page 113 and 114: 5. Operational versus Legislative I
Page 115 and 116: 3. The legislation should be amende
Page 117 and 118: 3. It is suggested that the first r
Page 119 and 120: 2. The legislation should be change
Page 121 and 122: Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 125 and 126: Recommendation: 3.7.3 Rewarding Saf
Page 127 and 128: Recommendation: 3.12.4 Employer Rec
Page 131 and 132: Regulations (see also Recommendatio
Page 133 and 134: 5.0 A Final WordThe Panel has recom
Page 135 and 136: Glossary and DefinitionsAccident Fu
Page 137 and 138: Glossary and DefinitionsNet annualr
Page 139 and 140: WCB Legislative Review Panel Terms
Page 141 and 142: WCB LEGISLATIVE REVIEW PANELTERMS O
Page 143 and 144: STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMA
Page 155: STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMA
Page 177 and 178: SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC HEARI
Page 183 and 184: Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 193 and 194: Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 199 and 200: smoke.Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PU
Page 203 and 204: SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND
Page 205: SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND
show all

Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?