Appeals : Arbitrator
Decisions : #36 - January 3, 2002
D E C I S I O N
In this case, the Claimant was acting as personal representative
following her mother's death on December 20, 1994. In a letter
dated April 28, 2000 addressed to the Plans' Administrator
("the Administrator"), the Claimant applied for
compensation under the Transfused HCV Plan as set out under
the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement Agreement
("Settlement Agreement").
On March 19, 2001, the Administrator denied this claim on
the basis that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish
that the Claimant's mother had received blood within the Class
Period under the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2001, the
Claimant submitted a Request for Review before an arbitrator.
Afterwards, the existing claim's file was forwarded to the
undersigned as the arbitrator.
On October 15, 2001, the Claimant informed the undersigned
that she had no additional documentation to bring forward
and that she did not require a hearing. The Administrator's
legal advisors made the same decision.
I then proceeded with the analysis of the existing claim's
file. In the documentation reviewed, the Claimant states that
her mother would have received blood transfusions at the Fleury
Hospital in 1989 and that all documents on the hospital file
to that effect would have disappeared. In fact, a review of
documents on file lead to the conclusion that there is not
no mention of such transfusions either at the time or at the
place mentioned by the Claimant. On the contrary, at various
dates, representatives of the Fleury Hospital wrote to the
Claimant that her mother had received no blood transfusion
during her hospitalizations at that establishment.
Thus, not only does the file remain silent on the supposedly
blood transfusions, but in addition, the hospital authorities
formally deny on more than one occasion that any such transfusions
took place. The Claimant brought forward no oral or written
evidence to support her allegations to the effect that her
mother's hospital file would have been partially modified.
Consequently, according to the rules of preponderance of
evidence, it appears that she did not assume the burden of
proof required to convince of the inappropriate character
of the Administrator's denial decision of March 19, 2001.
For the reasons mentioned above, this decision is upheld.
Therefore, the Request for Review is denied since no proof
was made of any real blood transfusion incident during the
Class Period of the Settlement Agreement.
Martin Hébert, QC
Referee
|