WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
Decision number: 20100168
OBJECTION BY: Worker
WORKER: Participating
EMPLOYER: Not Participating
REPRESENTATIVE: Worker
ISSUE
The worker, through her representative, is asking that the time limit to appeal the December 23, 1999 decision and two decisions before that by the Claims Adjudicator, be extended.
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
In a letter dated September 29, 2009 a decision was made in the claim to deny the extension of an appeal time limit. The letter referred to the three decision’s dated December 23, 1999, February 22, 1995 and April 13, 1993 that denied chronic pain disability, neck and back entitlement respectively. Noting the date of the decisions and the applicable legislation, the 6-month time limit to appeal the decisions were established. The worker representative objects to the denial of the extension of the appeal time limit.
AUTHORITY
Section 112(3) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act – Application of Time Limits
Section 119 (1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act – Merits & Justice of Cases
Section 120 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act – Objection to Board Decision
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Appeal System Practice and Procedures Manual Appendix “A”
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS
Due to the nature of this issue it is being reviewed via the 30-day time limit extension appeal.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
I have reviewed the representative’s correspondence in the file dated January 21, 2010 and February 18, 2010 that outline the reasons for requesting an extension of the time limit to appeal. It is suggested that the worker had a previous representative that went out of business and did not submit an objection. It was also outlined that the worker does not speak English (very limited) and has no legal experience. In addition the worker suffered serious health issues, personal problems and continuous pain caused by her depression. It was concluded that she did not know the significance of the time limit requirements.
Circumstances giving rise to an extension of the time limits would include:
the length of the delay – broad discretion to extend the time limit will be applied where appeals are brought within one year of the date of the decision
serious health problems (experienced by the party or the party’s immediate family) or the party leaving the province/country due to the ill health or death of a family member
whether the party had actual notice of the time limit - this acknowledges that post 1998 decisions specifically refer to time limits but pre 1998 decisions do not
whether there are other issues in the appeal which were appealed within the time limits and which are closely related to the issues not appealed within the time limits
the significance of the issue in dispute
whether the party was able to understand the time limit requirements
All decisions to extend time limits will be based on the merits and justice of the case.
The adjudicator’s first two decisions gave the parties (including the worker) information outlining the objection process. The final decision of December 23, 1999 also outlined the time limit deadline to object of June 23, 2000. Subsequent to these decisions, there is no documentation suggesting any effort to consider an objection until well after the time limit expired. There is no supporting evidence which allows me to consider that for the length of time between the decision(s) made and the eventual lodging of the appeal, the worker was incapacitated due to personal or health reasons to the point that she was incapable of submitting a timely appeal. I am also not convinced that she did not have adequate English skills to at least interpret the letters as she did her progress reports that she had submitted in her claim. The evidence suggests that through inattentiveness and lack of responsibility of her situation, her appeal has been significantly delayed and I am therefore not satisfied that the circumstances giving rise to an extension of the time limit to appeal the previous decision on file have been met.
CONCLUSION
The Worker’s objection is denied.
DATED March 10, 2010
M. Kalbfleisch
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch