|
Thomas Brown
Advocate for injured
workers (Regina) Tom
has his own website!

Congratulations,
Tom. You are providing a much needed service to injured workers!
Hi Sheila:
I hope this message finds you well. I've been meaning to write
you for quite some time now, but unfortunately other issues have
sidetracked me.
I recently built my own website this past July, and I'm
wondering if you would consider posting a link and/or article
regarding it. Basically what I've done is gone public with my
most recent WCB appeal (June 3/05), of which a board decision
is still pending. In addition to posting the actual appeal, I've
included all recent correspondences with various government officials
and agencies, as well as posted their email addresses. I've also
posted links to other articles concerning my WCB case, first
and foremost of which is yours.
Prior to starting my website I had half considered
asking if you'd be willing to post the information
itself on your site, but ultimately I concluded that it
was far too much content/work to ask of you. Subsequently, the
whole site-building experience has been quite the learning
curve for me, and one that has given me a great deal of
satisfaction.
It's my hope that you'll consider posting an article and/or link
such as this. Regardless, please know that you and your website
have been my inspiration to date. Hope to hear from
you soon.
Sincerely, Tom Brown
UPDATE
One of the most important
developments since my story was first posted, is that the injury
I sustained as a teenager, has undeniably been proven to be a
factor in my 1997 work injury. One might think this is pretty
detrimental to my work injury claim, but I can assure you it
isn't, or at least it's not supposed to be. After you read the
following section of the Sask. WCB Act, you'll realise why.
Section 50 states: The board shall not reject the claim of a
worker or a dependant for compensation or reduce the amount of
compensation payable by reason of a pre-existing condition of
the worker if the injury materially aggravates or accelerates
the pre-existing condition to produce a loss of earnings or death.
You would think that armed with this section, my claim would
undoubtedly go forward. Unfortunately this was not the case,
as that would have had to involve some degree of fairness and
integrity on the part of the WCB. As you will eventually learn
in the information that follows, nothing is ever that cut and
dried with the WCB.
My complaint to The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
January 9th, 2004 marked the 11th month of struggling with the
SHRC. My disgust with their assessment can only be rivalled by
that of the WCB's.
Despite proving far beyond a reasonable doubt that the WCB discriminated
against my previous disability, and that this discrimination
was used to deny work injury benefits; the SHRC refused to intervene.
Although my file had crossed the desk of the Chief Commissioner,
and their staff solicitor, the outcome remained the same. They
determined that no discrimination whatsoever had occurred. Their
interpretation was that the board had denied benefits as a result
of factual issues, which the board has exclusive jurisdiction
over.
Ah yes, section 22. This is the section that gives the board
exclusive jurisdiction over factual issues. Factual issues for
most of us, are issues that are accurate or actual, they're sound
issues that are substantiated right? Not for the WCB they're
not. The underlying message I received from the SHRC is that
the board is free to fabricate any information they choose, label
it as fact, and then claim it's within their exclusive jurisdiction.
They are then free to use that fraudulent fact to camouflage
any evidence of wrongdoing, including their discrimination in
my claim. The worst part is, even when you prove this fact is
fraudulent (as I did), the SHRC will still not infringe on the
board's jurisdiction. They will instead respond, "We do
not act as an appeal body to the WCB".
The conclusion I've reached is that the SHRC are fully aware
that "Section 22" is in violation of their Code &
Regulations. I'm convinced I'm not the only individual to conclude
this, and I'm undoubtedly not the first to bring it to their
attention.
As far as the SHRC is concerned, my case is closed. Those acquainted
with me however, know differently. I'll keep you posted.
My recent appeal to the Board Members
Although my recent appeal effort was denied on January 15th,
2004, I definitely feel that some good came out of it.
Pin pointing the exact reasons the board had for previously denying
my claim, was the most difficult part of the appeal process.
When you're bombarded with assumptions, unqualified medical opinion,
and unsubstantiated facts, it's very difficult to even pick a
starting point. However, here's what was ascertained:
1. The board did not accept that an injury occurred, because
I continued to work.
2. No aggravation/acceleration of prior condition, because I
continued to work.
3. There was no evidence of a specific injury, on a specific
date.
4. No evidence supporting my years as a licensed arborist (tree
trimmer).
5. It's impossible to sustain a disc protrusion by flexing the
neck backwards.
My responses were (same order):
1. & 2. - Same response. Simply put, I was able to continue
working because I worked lighter duties. This was discussed orally
at previous appeals (but conveniently not noted), however a written
statement from my employer verifying this was also provided.
In addition to this, I was taking narcotic pain medication (Demerol)
on a regular basis, which also helped me to persevere in these
duties.
3. There is no legislated requirement for there to be a specific
injury, however my employer and I had pin pointed the exact date
of my injury. The fact that it was not diagnosed immediately
does not mean it didn't occur. I had only worked 2 additional
days before seeking medical attention, at which time it was diagnosed.
4. Evidence substantiating 13 of my 15+ year's experience was
provided. This evidence consisted of Revenue Canada statements,
SaskPower documentation, Arborist certification (renewed annually),
and WCB account information for every tree company I worked for
(including one I had a minor WCB claim with in 1986).
5. Although we requested medical information substantiating this
so-called fact from the board, none was provided. On the other
hand, my neurosurgeon once again provided a painfully detailed
explanation on how this type of injury can occur in this
manner. Given that he is also a Clinical Professor of Neurosurgery,
he is certainly more qualified than the general practitioner
the board has consulted throughout my claim.
The board has not changed their position on my claim whatsoever,
nor have they cited any new reasons for denying it. So what good
could have possibly come from this apparent exercise in futility
you may ask? The answer in a word is, "Proof". Proof
that the only reason my claim was denied is because the board
is empowered with "The legal right to be wrong", and
there is presumably no one to stop these criminals.
Following the board's 1999 appeal denial, and the surgery that
disabled me, I felt I had no option than to file a malpractice
suit against my neurosurgeon. This decision was not made easily,
as I felt the board was initially responsible for my work injury,
as well as the subsequent treatment of it. The truth is, I am
still appalled that the board had placed my neurosurgeon and
I in this position. It is important to note there is legislature
that prevents WCB claimants from suing their physicians. That
is to say had the board accepted my claim, my malpractice suit
would automatically become null and void. It was for this reason
that I had postponed litigation, and continued to fight for WCB
benefits. The fact that the board is fully aware of my lawsuit,
and they continue to wrongfully deny benefits, is clear indication
that they have no problem shifting responsibility. It is also
a clear indication that they have no concern for other casualties
of their corruption, even if they're 1 of very few neurosurgeons
this province has.
I now have no choice but to move forward with the malpractice
suit, but I will proceed knowing that I've done everything I
could to avoid it. Although this litigation will be my main focus,
I will find additional means to inform the public of WCB, and
SHRC practices. I welcome any comments readers may have, and
I am willing to offer help and advice to those in similar situations.
Armed with a WCB Policy Manual and 6 years experience with their
antics, it's my hope that I can help prevent this from happening
to others. Please feel free to use the email link provided. My
thanks again to Marilyn Bird of the Worker's Advocate Office
for her continued help and support, and especially to Injusticebusters.
Without this website, this type of injustice could very well
go unnoticed.
Previous
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
Truth suppress'd, whether
by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. Sheila Steele, injusticebusters.com
If you hold the mouth
of Truth, It will burst out its rib-cage. Somali proverb
Publisher : Sheila
Steele
Got something
to say about this or any other stories on this site? Go to injusticebustersblog Participate!
- injusticebusters
court advice :
- How to walk yourself through the justice system
-
- Why you should dump your preliminary hearing (written July 1998 and still valid)
-
- Sermonette:
The
Naked Truth -- (You
will find links to many more sermonettes in the sidebar on this
page
Another target
of Dueck's malice: : Wilf Hathway
Our activism
contributed greatly to the good vibes which happened around the
civil trial.
Index
to the stories on this website
This is not
regularly updated so if you are looking for a particular story
and you have a name or keyword, please use the site search engine(at
the bottom of the page) which IS regularly updated
Index to Saskatoon Police stories
This is a pretty good scrapbook
for the 1998-2002 period.

Inquiry into the malicious prosecution of David
Milgaard untanling 36 years of Saskatchewan police and Crown
misconduct: : Opening day 1 | 2
| 3 | 4
| 5 | 6
| 7 |
- Stephen Williams:
Canadian writer subject to Stasi-like treatment by Canadian police
- Terry
Arnold: : Snitch a
suicide?
- RCMP
scenario stings: Brian
Hutchinson starts digging
- Gary
wells: Faulty eye-witness
testimony
- Tulia,
Texas
- Gilmer,
Texas
- Willie
Upshaw
- Wrongfully convicted in Canada
- Foster Parent false accusations
- Martensville
- Don
Smith obscenity trial: an obscene conviction
- James
Lockyer
- Hurricane
Carter
- Johnny Cochran speaks up for
Bill Sampson
- Vopnis
- Abdulai
Mohamed

The Terrible Story behind the Atif Rafay and
Sebastian Burns convictions

Trial
set for June 15
We
know part of this disclosure is a forged statement and perjured
affidavit from a Winnipeg cop
-
-
-
|