logo
Hepatitis C - Class Actions Settlement
HomeSearchContact UsFrançaisPrivacy

Claimants:
Essential Information
Claimants:
Additional Information
Claimants:
Loss of Income / Loss of Support / Loss of Services
Periodic Re-Assessment by the Courts
Appeals
Documents
Forms
Contacts and Links
Annual Reports
Administrator


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

 

Disclaimer