This message is displayed because client-side scripting is turned off or not supported in the browser you are currently using.
Please turn on client-side scripting or install a browser that supports client-side scripting.

Ontario Government | Ministry of Labour | Site Map | Accessibility | text resize: A A A

Home | About Us | OWT Library | Forms | Practice Directions | Decision Search | Contact Us | Fran├žais

Established in 1985, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) is the final level of appeal to which workers and employers may bring disputes concerning workplace safety and insurance matters in Ontario. WSIAT has always been separate from and independent of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.



Appeal Process

For Representatives

Finding a Representative

Documents & Publications

Legal/Medical Resources

Popular Topics

Links to Other Agencies

Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

  Decision 2692 15
R. McCutcheon

  • Investigation by Tribunal (whether required)
  • Sarcoidosis

The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for sarcoidosis.
The worker related the condition to various workplace exposures. The Vice-Chair noted that sarcoidosis is a multisystem granulomatous disorder of unknown etiology. The Vice-Chair accepted that the worker was exposed to fumes and dust, but the medical evidence did not establish a causal connection between the exposure and the development of his sarcoidosis. Further, this was consistent with Tribunal case law.
At the hearing, the worker requested that the Tribunal consider obtaining a further medical opinion. The Vice-Chair noted that the decision whether to obtain a report from a Tribunal medical assessor is at the discretion of the vice-chair or panel. The Vice-Chair also noted the considerable expenditure of the Tribunal's limited resources that is involved in obtaining an opinion from an independent health professional. Therefore, in determining whether it is advisable to seek an opinion, the factors to be considered should include: novelty of the issue; the extent to which the condition is novel or controversial; whether there are divergent medical opinions on the record; whether the diagnosis is unclear; the quantity and quality of opinions on file; the likelihood of the assessor being in a better position that health professionals who have already provided opinions; and MLO has reviewed the file and recommended an assessment.
In this case, sarcoidosis is not novel or controversial in Tribunal jurisprudence, the opinions on file were either unsupportive or silent, there was no divergent opinion on diagnosis, existing opinions were of good quality, and MLO had reviewed the file and had not recommended additional investigation. The Vice-Chair concluded that the circumstances of the case did not support undertaking further investigation.
The appeal was dismissed.