Case Law Update on the Reliance of Medical Experts: J.T. v British Columbia (Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2024 BCSC 994

Key Takeaway

The British Columbia (“BC”) Supreme Court set aside a decision by the BC Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that denied a claimant benefits for a mental disorder (as that term is used in the applicable jurisdiction), finding that the Tribunal unreasonably relied on an expert opinion and, as a result, failed to ensure procedural fairness. 

Employers should ensure that experts are given all relevant facts in order for their opinion to be useful, appropriate and accepted.

Background

The worker was employed as a security guard at a remote mining camp for approximately five (5) months before his employment was terminated without cause. The worker alleged that throughout the course of his employment, he was subjected to numerous instances of workplace harassment, bullying, and threats to his safety, all of which had a damaging impact on his mental health. The worker applied to the BC Workers’ Compensation Board (the “Board”) claiming that the workplace incidents caused him to develop a mental disorder.

The Board requested a psychological assessment of the worker and referred the matter to a psychologist. In this referral, the Board Officer summarized 11 incidents of workplace harassment and bullying. The Board relied on the psychologist’s report to find that the worker did not meet all the mandatory elements for a compensable mental disorder. The Board confirmed that although the worker had been exposed to incidents of harassment and bullying at work, the expert opinion did not support a finding that the work-related stressors were the predominant cause of the mental disorder. The worker subsequently provided the Board and psychologist with a list of 89 incidents and sought a review of the decision. The decision was upheld on review on the basis that the expert opinion assessed that the predominant cause of the worker’s mental disorder was the employer’s failure to pay back pay to the worker and not the incidents of workplace harassment.

The decision to deny benefits was ultimately appealed to and upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted that the worker met the required diagnostic criteria and that he had been subjected to significant work-related stressors. However, the Tribunal accepted the psychologist’s opinion on causation, finding that the psychologist had sufficient information on the 11 most severe incidents to form a valid opinion on the cause of the worker’s mental disorder. Accordingly, the Tribunal denied the worker benefits on the basis that causation had not been established.

The worker brought an application for judicial review to the BC Supreme Court requesting that the Tribunal’s decision be set aside as patently unreasonable and due to an alleged breach of procedural fairness.