Appeals : Confirmed Referee Decisions : #10 - July 19th, 2001

D E C I S I O N

1. On March 19, 2001, the Administrator denied the claim for compensation as a Primarily-Infected Person under the Transfused HCV Plan. The claim was denied on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that the Claimant received blood within the Class Period.

2. The Claimant requested that the Administrator's denial of her claim be reviewed by a Referee.

3. Both parties waived a hearing to review the Administrator's denial of the claim.

4. The relevant facts are not in dispute and can be summarized as follows:

(a) The Claimant is infected with Hepatitis C.

(b) The Claimant received blood transfusions in 1960, 1961, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1992.

(c) The Claimant did not receive a blood transfusion in the period January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990.

(d) The Administrator denied the claim on the basis that the Claimant did not receive a blood transfusion during the Class Period.

5. Based on these facts, it is clear that the Administrator's decision must be sustained.

6. The 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement defines "Class Period", as the title implies, as the period "from and including 1 January 1986 to and including 1 July 1990." The Transfused HCV Plan provides the identical definition. The Plan defines as "Primarily-Infected Person", as status a successful Claimant must achieve, as "a person who received a Blood transfusion in Canada during the Class Period…".

7. Pursuant to Article 3.01 of the Plan, a person claiming to be a Primarily-Infected Person is required to produce to the Administrator medical records "demonstrating that the Claimant received a Blood transfusion in Canada during the Class Period."

8. In this case, it is obvious that the Claimant was not able to provide the proof required by the Article because the last two blood transfusions received by the Claimant occurred in the years 1976 and 1992 respectively. Accordingly, the Administrator had no alternative but to deny the claim.

9. The role of the Administrator under the Settlement Agreement is to administer the Plan in accordance with its terms. More specifically, the Administrator has an obligation to review a claim to determine whether the required proof for compensation exists. The language of the Plan is clear and, unfortunately for the Claimant, the Administrator has no discretion to allow a claim where the required proof has not been produced. The Administrator has no authority to alter or ignore the terms of the Plan. Similarly, a referee or arbitrator, called upon to review decisions of the Administrator, is bound by the terms of the Plan and cannot amend it or act contrary to its terms.

10. It is clear from the review of the terms of the Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement that it was specifically intended to cover claims relating to a defined time period, namely January 1, 1986, to July 1, 1990. It is equally clear that it does not apply to persons who received blood transfusions at times other than during this defined time period.

11. In the result, the administrator properly determined that the Claimant was not entitled to compensation under the Plan and the Administrator's decision is hereby upheld.

Dated at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 19th day of July, 2001.

________________________________
John P. Sanderson, Q.C.
Referee