Appeals : Confirmed Referee Decisions : #38 - January 3, 2002

D E C I S I O N

The undersigned examined this claim's file following submission of a Request for Review by the Claimant on April 4, 2001 to challenge the claim's denial decision of the Plans' Administrator ("the Administrator"). The Administrator made the decision on March 19, 2001 following the Claimant's original application submitted on May 30, 2000. The Claimant had applied for compensation as a Primarily-Infected Person pursuant to the Transfused HCV Plan.

Following exchanges between the two parties, the Claimant informed the undersigned, through a legal representative, that he had no additional arguments to produce and that he had no intention to attend the hearing nor to call any witnesses. As for the Administrator's legal advisors, they also decided to rely on the claim's file evidence.

Further to my examination of the claim's file, I must recognize that the Claimant was unsuccessful in putting forward evidence that he had received one or more blood transfusion during the Class Period as set out under the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions' Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement). Indeed, in his claim, the Claimant refers to various services received at the Amos Hospital Centre, at the Sacré-Coeur Hospital in Montreal as well as at that the Rouyn-Noranda Hospital without, however, providing specific dates to that effect.

Also, in a letter addressed to him on July 13, 2000, Héma-Québec informed the Claimant that an investigation at those three hospitals allowed to conclude that, according to the available information: "You received no blood transfusion during your hospitalizations. In addition, in the form submitted by the Claimant, the section reserved for the attending physician was filled in by a physician who indicates, on the one hand, that he is not the Claimant's attending physician and, on the other, that he does not know if the Claimant received a blood transfusion during the Class Period.

One must therefore conclude that, in this case, the Claimant has not provided the burden of proof required to demonstrate his eligibility as a Primarily-Infected Person as set out in the applicable terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, since no proof of blood transfusion was presented.

In those circumstances and based on the overall evidence already on the claim's file, the only conclusion is that the present Request for Review is unfounded. The Administrator's decision of March 19, 2001 is therefore upheld.

Martin Hébert, QC
Referee