CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Hughes Kirsten Kurzuk
Indexed as: (Re) 8504-28459
SECTION 10 REVIEW ORDER
Introduction
1The request for a review is with respect to a single Member’s refusal to issue an award after a variation hearing on September 14, 2016. This review is made pursuant to section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act (the Act), and a hearing was held on February 16, 2017
Previous Decisions
2Prior to the September 14, 2016 Order, the CICB issued five previous Orders (the initial Order followed by four section 25 Orders) for compensation to the Applicant in this case as follows:
- September 26, 1985
o $1,500.00 pursuant to section 7(1)(d) Pain and Suffering
o $43.68 pursuant to Section 7(1)(f) Other Pecuniary Loss
o $779.68 pursuant to Section 22 Costs for legal fees or disbursements
- August 20, 1986
o $495.00 pursuant to Section 7(1)(a) for actual expenses incurred for a hearing aid
- January 16, 2002
o $3,363.00 pursuant to Section 7(1)(a) for actual expense incurred for additional hearing aids
o $158.00 pursuant to Section 22 for legal fees and disbursements
- March 1, 2006
o $5,118.50 pursuant to Section 7(1)(a) for actual expenses incurred for additional hearing aids
- September 21, 2010
o $5,298.00 pursuant to Section 7(1)(a) for actual expenses incurred for additional hearing aids
- Total Awards to date: $15,976.18
Summary of Single Member Decision
3The Order issued on September 14, 2016 was with respect to the Applicant’s request for an additional $5,958.00 in hearing aid equipment. During the hearing, the Applicant stated that she was under the impression that the CICB would provide funding for hearing aids for her lifetime.
4In the September 14, 2016 Order, the CICB referred to the original September 26, 1985 Order, which stated that
(…) medical evidence indicates the Applicant has a hearing deficit in the left ear but cannot prove to what extent a previous hearing problem was worsened by the assault as no pre-injury tests exist.
Ultimately, at that time, the CICB “… granted the Applicant the ‘benefit of the doubt’ awarding $500.00 for a hearing aid.” The Member also noted that the CICB does not make awards in perpetuity or the duration of an Applicant's lifetime nor does it believe that the payment of further compensation for hearing aids is reasonable within the context of the Act. This was determined as there had been a significant allocation of public funds made to the Applicant's expenses and the fact that there is no medical evidence verifying the assault exacerbated a pre-existing auditory deficiency. Accordingly, the Applicant's request for funding of hearing aids and batteries was denied.
5The previous Order, dated September 21, 2010, approved funding for the Applicant’s request for $5,298.00 in hearing aid equipment and it also went on to say that considering the total amount of money which the CICB spent to date on this case, this would be the last request that the CICB would consider on this file. Also, this decision was referenced in the September 14, 2016 Section 25 Order.
Issue
6The Applicant seeks a review of the September 14, 2016 denial as she claimed she was still suffering the mental effects and hearing loss from her [date] 1984 assault and that since then, she has been dependent on hearing aids and that she had thought she would be given a lifetime coverage for her hearing aids. In addition, the Applicant stated the CICB should re-evaluate the denial, which was based on medical evidence which said that the amount of the hearing loss attributed to the assault was inconclusive.
7In sworn testimony at the February 16, 2017 section 10 Review Hearing, the Applicant said that since her hearing will only get worse over time, she will always need hearing aids which need to be updated every few years. Furthermore, the Applicant claimed that there was nothing wrong with her hearing before the [date] 1984 incident and she did not have any accommodation for hearing loss before then.
8During the Review Hearing, the Panel read from the Applicant’s Audiological Evaluation report from the Department of Pathology and Audiology at the [Name] General Hospital, dated [date], 1985, which stated:
[the Applicant] reports that she has had a hearing loss most of her life. The hearing loss as a child resulted in preferential seating and difficulty in classroom. She reports that in July of 1984, she was hit on and about the left ear which immediately worsened the hearing loss for that ear…. [there is] pure tone audiometry indicates a mild sensori-neuro hearing loss bilaterally.
This is clearly in contrast with the Applicant’s assertion that she did not have any hearing issues prior to [date] 1984. Nevertheless, the Applicant disagreed with the Audiology Report’s finding of her pre-existing hearing loss. She also said that she has a poor memory and that it was difficult for her to recall what was said to her when she was [age].
Decision
9In a section 10 review, the Panel will not disturb the original decision unless it would perpetuate an error. Consequently, the Panel will only disturb the original decision if there are compelling reasons for doing so.
10The Panel carefully considered all of the evidence available in this case, including the Applicant’s testimony and submissions during the review hearing.
11Granting variations or additional compensation pursuant to the Act is discretionary. The refusal to order further compensation was reasonable having taken into account that the CICB did not previously order that the hearing aids would be funded in perpetuity and the total amount already issued for compensation. Further noting that the original order was based on inconclusive medical evidence, it was appropriate not to issue further compensation. Therefore, there is no error and the Panel concurs with the September 16, 2016 decision and finds no reason to disturb the findings made therein.
12The CICB recognizes that no amount of money can adequately compensate victims for the injustice they have suffered but also finds this decision to be reasonable within the context of the Act.
Dated at Toronto on this 20^th^ day of March, 2017
_________________________
Jo-Anne Hughes, Member
_________________________
Kirsten Kurzuk, Member