- Loss of earnings {LOE} (calculation) (Canada Pension Plan)
- Loss of earnings {LOE} (lump sum)
The worker appealed the following issues: a) whether the worker was entitled to a commutation of his Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits; and, b) what was the appropriate quantum of the CPP-D offset from the worker's LOE benefits at the final LOE review, effective August 2022?
The Panel allowed the appeal, in part.OPM Document No. 18-03-05, "Loss of Earnings (LOE) (Accidents from 1998)" provides for a commutation of LOE benefits in the following circumstances: "A loss of earnings (LOE) benefit can be commuted if it is 10% or less of the worker's full LOE benefit, and the 72 month post-injury review period has expired." In short, a commutation of LOE benefits is available under the policy, if the worker is receiving partial LOE benefits that amount to 10% or less of full LOE benefits. In this case, the final LOE review had occurred in August of 2022, and the worker was receiving full LOE benefits less the 50% CPP-D offset. The worker was therefore not entitled to a commutation of his LOE benefits under the terms of this policy. Further, the worker's LOE benefits are offset by the percentage of the CPP-D benefits paid in respect of the work-related injury. In the Panel's view, it was a combination of the worker's illiteracy/learning disability and injuries to both shoulders, where the left shoulder was work-related and the right shoulder was not, that resulted in the worker's inability to perform gainful work. The Panel determined that the CPP-D offset should be reduced from 50% to 33%. Each medical condition had approximately equal medical significance, and therefore the Panel found that the worker's LOE benefits from the final review should be offset by 33% of his CPP-D offset benefits.The worker's learning disability and illiteracy were listed as conditions that were barriers to retraining. The Panel accepted Dr. Butler's medical opinion that the worker's learning disability was a barrier to the worker retraining for a new type of occupation. This condition had a medical significance of 33%, based on the impact on the worker's ability to retrain for alternative occupations that were not physical in nature. The Panel found that the worker's functional illiteracy was a personal characteristic rather than a condition, which was taken into account in the determination of the medical significance of the learning disability. The medical significance of the worker's non-compensable right shoulder condition was also 33% based on similar restrictions associated with the right arm as those with the left.