Appeals : Confirmed Referee Decisions : #50 - June 10, 2002

D E C I S I O N

The Claimant submitted a claim for compensation as a family member of a deceased person who was HCV infected at the time of death. This claim was rejected by the Administrator of the Class Actions Settlement (the Administrator) on August 30, 2001 and the Claimant submitted a request for review before a referee on September 14, 2001. The undersigned has been designated to act as referee in this review process. Following an exchange with the two parties, no request for a hearing was submitted by either one of them. The review of the case was then based on the file as provided as well as on an additional letter submitted to the undersigned by the Claimant on November 11, a copy of which was forwarded to the Administrator's legal Counsel.

Following an analysis of the file, I note that the patient in this case died in November 1998. It is agreed also that at the time of his death, the patient was in fact HCV infected and that he had received blood transfusions during the Hepatitis C January 1 1986-July 1 1990 Class Actions Settlement period (Settlement Agreement). Also, following a traceback conducted by Héma-Québec, it was established that one of the blood donors tested positive on the HCV antibody test.

From the above, it appears quite plausible that the patient could have been infected during a blood transfusion received in 1989.

This having been said, the evidence on file does not allow us to conclude that the Claimant has sufficiently demonstrated her right to a compensation, according to the terms and conditions of the applicable Compensation Plan. In fact, in the file that she personally submitted to the Administrator, the medical evidence is to the effect that the patient died of a myocardial infarction and, to the question presented as follows: " If the HCV infected person died, did his HCV infection contribute substantially to his death?", the medical answer is negative. The undersigned cannot ignore this answer provided by Dr. Nolin, since it constitutes the only available evidence regarding this specific point, which constitutes a criteria to determine eligibility to the Compensation Program. While taking note of the additional information provided by the Claimant in relation to the fact that Dr. Nolin had not been her husband's attending physician for the last 11 years, but only for the last year and half, I must nevertheless conclude that it does not change in anyway the evidence submitted and the conclusions that must ensue.

Based on the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement concluded in the context of the class actions and on the burden of proof required to establish the right to a compensation, I must conclude that the decision made by the Administrator was well founded in this case and that the Claimant's request for review must be denied.



Montreal, June 10, 2002,


___________________
Martin Hébert, Referee