The case stemmed from injuries that the worker suffered after being head-butted by a client
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has rejected a worker’s appeal challenging the denial of her wage-loss benefits beyond October 2019, citing inconsistencies in her claims of continued symptoms and rejecting her procedural unfairness arguments.
The case stemmed from a workplace injury in May 2019, when the appellant suffered a concussion after being head-butted by a client. While the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) initially accepted her claim for the concussion, it later denied wage-loss benefits for the period after October 2019, prompting the appellant to seek a review. She argued that she was entitled to wage-loss benefits and provided a written statement and letters from her family physician in support of her position.
The appellant had received wage-loss benefits for June to October 2019 after a review officer determined her concussion symptoms temporarily disabled her during that period. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) later rejected her appeal for further compensation, finding inconsistencies in her statements about recovery. The appellant had previously told her doctor and the review officer that her symptoms had resolved by October 2019, but later claimed she continued to experience post-concussive symptoms and was forced back to work for financial reasons.
The BC Court of Appeal upheld WCAT’s decision, concluding that the appellant’s claims were inconsistent and lacked credibility. The court noted that WCAT had carefully reviewed the evidence, including medical records and written submissions, and determined that her symptoms after October 2019 were not related to the workplace injury.
The court also rejected the appellant’s claims of procedural unfairness, stating that the appellant had elected to proceed with a written appeal rather than requesting an oral hearing.
The appellant also sought an extension of time to file the appeal, a waiver of filing fees, and a permanent sealing order for the entire appeal file. The court granted a partial sealing order for her medical records but dismissed the other requests, concluding that the appeal had no merit and was bound to fail.
