Appeals : Confirmed
Referee Decisions : #14 - July 24th, 2001
D E C I S I O N
1. The Claimant applied for compensation as a primarily-Infected
person pursuant to the Transfused HCV Plan.
2. By letter dated March 19, 2001, the Administrator denied
his claim because he did not provide sufficient evidence that
he received a blood transfusion in Canada between January
1, 1986 and July 1, 1990.
3. The Claimant requested that the Administrator's denial
of his claim be reviewed by an Arbitrator.
4. At the outset of the hearing, the claimant sought clarification
as to my status as an Arbitrator or Referee, indicating that
he had been confused with respect to that issue. Following
clarification of the rights that would flow to him by way
of a potential appeal, depending on whether my status was
that of a Referee or an Arbitrator, and following counsel
for the Administrator's indication that the Administrator
had no difficulty if the Claimant changed his selection from
my sitting as an Arbitrator to sitting as a Referee, the Claimant
and the Administrator agreed that I would sit in the capacity
of Referee.
5. The Claimant indicated that at the time of his application
as a primarily infected person under the HCV Transfused Plan,
he believed that he had received a blood transfusion on 11/12/87
at the Oshawa General Hospital. Following the issuance of
the Administrator's decision in this matter, and the filing
by the Claimant of his request for review of that decision,
the Claimant was able to verify with his physician at the
time of the operation that he did not receive a blood transfusion
during the operation in question, nor did he have a transfusion
during any of the relevant periods that would entitle him
to compensation pursuant to the Plan.
6. Accordingly, the Claimant recognized at the hearing that
the circumstances of his case fell outside of the rules provided
for compensation. The Claimant urged that all persons in his
circumstances should be eligible for compensation, while at
the same time indicating that he understood that under the
provisions of the Plan, as it stood, he was not eligible for
such compensation.
7. Given the Claimant's present understanding that he did
not receive a blood transfusion, and his understanding that
he is not eligible for compensation, there is no basis to
interfere with the Administrator's decision in this matter.
DATED at Toronto this 24th day of July, 2001
_____________________________________
C. Michael Mitchell
Referee
|