Appeals : Confirmed
Referee Decisions : #11 - July 16th, 2001
D E C I S I O N
BACKGROUND
1. On March 19, 2001, the Administrator denied the Claimant's
request for compensation as a Primarily-Infected Person under
the Transfused HCV Plan on the basis that the Claimant had
not provided sufficient evidence that he had received a blood
transfusion within the Class Period.
2. The Claimant requested that the Administrator's denial
of his claim be reviewed by a referee.
3. Both parties waived their entitlement to an oral hearing.
4. The Claimant did not file submissions but requested that
the referee review all the material in his claim file from
The 86-90 Hepatitis C Claims Centre.
5. Fund counsel, on behalf of the Administrator, filed written
submissions on June 25, 2001 with copies of previously rendered
decisions. The written hearing concluded on July 9, 2001 when
the Claimant did not file any written submissions in reply.
FACTS
6. The Claimant is infected with Hepatitis C.
7. The Claimant certifies, in the General Claimant Information
Form, that the following is true and correct:
(i) He believes that he was infected with the Hepatitis
C virus through a blood transfusion received in Canada on
March 14, 1991.
(ii) He has never received blood transfusions in Canada
during the period between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990.
8. The Claimant's Blood Transfusion History Form completed
by the treating physician on June 17, 2000 states that, in
March 1991, the Claimant received four units of blood while
being treated for post-operative hemorrhage.
9. The Treating Physician Form, which was signed by another
treating physician on May 17, 2000, states that the Claimant
received a blood transfusion during the period between January
1, 1986 to July 1, 1990. The treating physician has not provided
an explanation despite three requests by a nurse in the Fund
Administrator's office.
ANALYSIS
10. The Claimant seeks compensation as a Primarily-Infected
Person under the Transfused HCV Plan. The Transfused HCV Plan
defines "Primarily-Infected Person", in part, as
meaning "a person who received a Blood transfusion in
Canada during the Class Period ...".
11. The 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement defines
"Class Period" as meaning "the period from
and including 1 January 1986 to and including 1 July 1990".
"Class Period" is defined identically in the Transfused
HCV Plan.
12. Article 3.01 of the Transfused HCV Plan requires that
a person claiming to be a Primarily-Infected Person must deliver
to the Administrator an application form together with, among
other things, medical "records demonstrating that the
Claimant received a Blood transfusion in Canada during the
Class Period".
13. I find that it is reasonable to infer that the Treating
Physician Form, which was signed on May 17, 2000, and indicated
that the Claimant received a blood transfusion during the
Class Period, was completed in error. According to the Claimant,
he never received a blood transfusion in Canada during the
Class Period, which is corroborated by the Blood Transfusion
History Form.
14. I find that the Claimant did not provide the proof required
by Article 3.01 to establish that he was infected as a result
of a blood transfusion during the Class Period. Based on the
General Claimant Information Form and the Blood Transfusion
History Form, the Claimant's only blood transfusion was in
March 1991, outside the Class Period. Therefore, the Claimant
does not qualify as a Primarily-Infected Person and is not
entitled to compensation under the terms of the Transfused
HCV Plan.
15. The Administrator under the Settlement Agreement is required
to administer the Transfused HCV Plan in accordance with its
terms. The Administrator does not have authority to vary the
terms of the Plan nor does an arbitrator or a referee when
asked to review the Administrator's decision.
CONCLUSION
16. I uphold the Administrator's denial of the Claimant's
request for compensation.
DATE: July 16, 2001
JUDITH KILLORAN
Referee
|