10.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

esolutions committees, under <strong>the</strong> auspices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Appeals Tribunal, as an approach t<strong>of</strong>ollow. O<strong>the</strong>r stakeholders advised <strong>the</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> not <strong>to</strong> consider medical resolutionscommittees because such committees add ano<strong>the</strong>r layer <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> workers’compensation system, and because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> operating such committees.Respondents <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Stakeholder Questionnaire thought that medical resolutionscommittees would be a good way <strong>to</strong> resolve conflicting medical opinion. <strong>The</strong>y generallythought such committees should come under <strong>the</strong> auspices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Appeals Tribunal. <strong>The</strong>yalso thought <strong>the</strong> decision <strong>of</strong> such committees should be final.<strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> is concerned about <strong>the</strong> adversarial <strong>to</strong>ne surrounding <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong>conflicting medical opinion. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> is also concerned about adding ano<strong>the</strong>r layer <strong>of</strong>bureaucracy <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> workers’ compensation system. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> did not get <strong>the</strong> sense that<strong>the</strong> presumption in favour <strong>of</strong> an injured worker has been applied by <strong>the</strong> <strong>WCB</strong> whenassessing conflicting medical opinion.<strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> is not recommending <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> medical resolution committees. <strong>The</strong><strong>Panel</strong> does accept that <strong>the</strong>re are serious problems in <strong>the</strong> way conflicting medical opinionis assessed in <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Act</strong>s. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> believes that more workerinvolvement in <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> health care providers <strong>to</strong> conduct medical assessments isrequired. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> also believes that <strong>the</strong> <strong>WCB</strong>, <strong>Review</strong> Committee and AppealsTribunal should be assessing conflicting medical opinions in a manner that reflects apresumption in favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> injured worker and achieving <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Act</strong>s. <strong>The</strong><strong>Review</strong> Committee and Appeals Tribunal should also be assessing conflicting medicalopinions in an objective manner. If independent medical advice is required <strong>to</strong> do this,<strong>the</strong>se appeals bodies must have access <strong>to</strong> independent medical advice.If <strong>the</strong> resolution <strong>of</strong> conflicting medical opinion continues <strong>to</strong> be an issue, future reviewpanels should reconsider <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> medical resolutions committees.<strong>WCB</strong> <strong>Legislative</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Page 40 <strong>of</strong> 128December, 2001

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!