WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number: 20150078
DECISION DATE: April 7, 2015
OBJECTING PARTY: Worker
REPRESENTED by: Worker Representative
RESPONDENT: Employer (not participating)
HEARING: Hearing in Writing
HEARD by: M. Kimevski, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUE
The worker objects to the decision that denied an extension for the time limit to appeal.
BACKGROUND
The claim was established when in November 1996 while working as a general labourer processing chicken the worker developed problems with the right wrist. Entitlement was granted for right carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and a permanent impairment was recognized and the worker was granted a non-economic loss (NEL) benefit of 7 per cent in August 2000.
The employer objected to the date of injury and the worker objected to the suitability of the work offered and the denial of benefits from November 23, 1999. An Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) decision dated July 31, 2000 concluded:
- The date of injury was changed to November 15, 1996;
- The liver sorting job was not suitable;
- The worker was entitled to a Labour Market Re-entry (LMR) assessment;
- The worker was to receive full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from the date of the ARO decision forward;
- The worker was entitled to full LOE benefits from November 23, 1999 up to and including April 30, 2000; and
- Entitlement from May 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000 was to be determined by the operating area once a suitable employment or business (SEB) achievable without training was identified.
The SEB now referred to as suitable occupation (SO) of a Cashier was identified and a future economic loss (FEL) benefit was processed effective January 1, 2001. A letter was issued dated November 9, 2000 with respect to the initial FEL determination. The FEL benefit was reviewed and a letter dated April 5, 2003 advised that the FEL benefit would be processed using the median earnings for the SO.
The decision at the final FEL benefit review was communicated in a letter dated January 10, 2006. The earnings of a fully experienced worker in the same SO were used. The decision was effective January 1, 2006 to April 1, 2028, when the worker turns 65. The current worker’s representative submitted an Intent to Object form dated January 7, 2015 objecting to the January 10, 2006 decision and requested an extension to the appeal time limit. The operating area considered the request and communicated in a letter dated January 21, 2015 that the time limit to appeal had not been met.
An appeal of a time limit issue requires that the ARO provide a ruling within 30 days. The decision was completed based on the information contained in the claim file and an additional submission from the worker’s representative dated February 16, 2015.
AUTHORITY
Section 120 of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, 1997, (Act)
Appeals Services Division Practice and Procedures – Practice Guideline: Time Limit to Object
ANALYSIS
The time limits to object to Board decisions are established under Section 120 (1) of the Act, which states,
A worker, survivor employer, parent or other person acting in the role of a parent under subsection 48 (20) or beneficiary designated by the worker under subsection 45 (9) who objects to a decision of the Board shall file a notice of objection with the Board,
(a) in the case of a decision concerning return to work or a labour market re-entry plan,
within 30 days after the decision is made or within such longer period as the Board may
permit; and
(b) in any other case, within six months after the decision is made or within such longer period as the Board may permit.
The Appeals Services Division Practice and Procedures outlines the criteria for extending the time limit to object, which states the following,
The criteria to be considered for objections beyond the statutory time limit include:
- Whether there was actual notice of the time limit. This acknowledges that as of January 1, 1998, decisions specifically refer to the time limits but prior to that date, they do not;
- 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;
- An organic or non-organic condition that prevents the worker from understanding the time limit and/or meeting the time limit;
- Whether there are other issues in the appeal that were appealed within the time limit which are so intertwined that the issue being objected to within the time limit cannot reasonably be addressed without waiving the time limit to appeal on the closely related issue.
All decisions to extend the time limits will be based on the merits and justice of the case.
As stated previously, the decision letter in question is dated January 10, 2006. I have reviewed the file record and the arguments presented and I find that the criteria for extending the time limit to object have not been met. I have outlined my observations and rationale for reaching this conclusion.
The worker’s representative submitted that the worker’s first representative never explained to the worker or helped the worker with her appeal. Further, the worker’s second representative tried to ask for an extension to appeal and this was never reviewed.
I note the worker has actually appointed four representatives throughout the life of this claim and in my view the worker is not unfamiliar with the process surrounding objections. As outlined earlier, the worker was involved in an appeal and was represented at the hearing of that appeal.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of the worker’s subsequent representative requesting an extension of the time limit to appeal the January 10, 2006 decision. I do not consider the January 26, 2007 letter to be a request for an extension to appeal. The letter simply provided a blanket statement surrounding appealing any decision.
In this case, the worker was given actual notice of the time limit to appeal in the January 10, 2006 letter, which specifically outlined that notification was required in writing by July 11, 2006.
I also note there is no evidence of a serious health problem; nor evidence of any condition preventing the worker from understanding the time limit.
Finally, there are no other issues in the appeal that were appealed within the time limit which are so intertwined that the issue being objected to within the time limit cannot reasonably be addressed without waiving the time limit to appeal on the closely related issue. In this case, I make particular note of the fact that there were two previous FEL decisions, which were also not objected to.
In conclusion, the criteria for extending the time limit to object have not been satisfied and the time limit extension to appeal the decision letter dated January 10, 2006 is denied.
CONCLUSION
The time limit extension to appeal is denied.
The worker’s objection is denied.
DATED April 7, 2015
M. Kimevski
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division