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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eview committees shall conduct “documentary reviews” only and not hearrepresentations from appellants. The Review Committee may confirm, vary, or reversedecisions of the WCB administration.The second step in the appeals process is the Appeals Tribunal. The NWT/NunavutAppeals Tribunal is established in legislation. The Appeals Tribunal has exclusivejurisdiction to hear appeals from the Review Committee. It may confirm, reverse, or varya decision of the Review Committee. The authority to appoint members and thecomposition of the Tribunal are also described in the Acts.3.5.1 Review CommitteeSome stakeholders have suggested to the Panel that the Review Committee be eliminatedand replaced with a dispute resolution process similar to that recommended in the FinalReport of the Review Committee of the Workers’ Compensation Board Appeal Systemschaired by Samuel Friedman, QC (the Friedman Report). This report was completed inNovember 2000. The majority of respondents to the Stakeholder Questionnaire did notthink the Review Committee should be eliminated.All but 2 jurisdictions have some form of internal review process as the first level of theappeal process. In these jurisdictions, the process for review is not always described indetail in legislation.The Acts do not describe the Review Committee per se. Sections 24 and 64 enable aworker, employer, or dependant to appeal a decision to the Review Committee. Section24(1) states that the Review Committee is appointed by the Board (whether WCB Boardof Directors or corporate WCB is unclear), and with the consent of the Board, hearsrepresentations on behalf of the appellant. The Acts state that the Review Committee willonly review decisions related to compensation and assessment.WCB Legislative Review Panel Report Page 37 of 128December, 2001
The WCB Board of Directors made the policy decision not to consent to anyrepresentations to the Review Committee. The Review Committee can only conductdocumentary reviews. The Review Committee will refer any new information providedby an appellant back to the WCB administration to see if it changes the original decisionbefore conducting its review.The various reasons given by stakeholders for eliminating the Review Committeeinclude: Review Committee members do not have the special knowledge required toperform a review function. The Review Committee takes too narrow a view of the issues before them,including the application of WCB Board of Directors’ policy. There is a perception that Review Committee members are biased. Forexample, Review Committee members use the same professional advisors asthe initial decision-maker. The review process takes too long.The Panel accepts that the reasons given have merit. However, the Panel sees most of theconcerns as operational problems that can be addressed, whether by a change in attitude,training, or the hierarchical placement of Review Committee members within the WCBorganization. The length of time a review takes is addressed in Section 3.5.5, TimeLimits in the Appeal Processes.The Panel believes that an internal review of decisions by the WCB makes sense.However, in keeping with the Panel’s earlier observations about transparency, naturaljustice, and an adjudicative as opposed to adversarial approach, the Panel believes theReview Committee must be seen to act fairly and independently from those makingdecisions within the WCB administration.WCB Legislative Review Panel Report Page 38 of 128December, 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: Recommendations: 3.4.2 Workers’ A
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:
Page 121 and 122:
Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Recommendation: 3.7.3 Rewarding Saf
Page 127 and 128:
Recommendation: 3.12.4 Employer Rec
Page 129 and 130:
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 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC HEARI
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
smoke.Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PU
Page 201 and 202:
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?