Appeals: Confirmed Referee Decisions : #94 - July 21, 2003

D E C I S I O N

This is an Ontario-based Claimant. Claim ID 8923.

1. The Claimant applied for compensation as a primarily-Infected person pursuant to the Transfused HCV Plan.

2. By letter dated June 27, 2002, the Administrator denied the claim on the basis that the Claimant had not provided evidence to support the claim that he had received blood during the Class Period. Accordingly, the Administrator denied the claim because the Claimant did not meet the conditions of Section 3.01(1)(a) of the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement agreement.

3. An in-person hearing was held in this matter on February 11, 2003. On March 24, following the production of additional medical records, the Claimant attended at a hearing at which counsel for the Administrator and a representative of the Administrator participated by telephone.

4. During the course of the March 24, 2003 hearing, the additional medical records, which had not been previously available, were reviewed page by page. The records related to two procedures concerning the Claimant in 1986. Each document was reviewed orally in the presence of the Claimant, and he had full opportunity to ask questions.

5. At the hearing it was agreed that the Claimant would have two weeks in order to make further submissions concerning the matter. Subsequently, on April 3, 2003, the Claimant requested an extension of time and one was granted to the end of May 2003 to allow the Claimant to make submissions. No further submissions were received as of July 16, and no further request for a further extension was received. Accordingly, I have proceeded to determine the matter.

6. The Claimant's position was candid that he did not know whether he had a blood transfusion or not in the Class Period, but other than a possible blood transfusion, he could not account for the presence of the Hepatitis C virus, which was acknowledged by all parties.

7. In this case, there was simply no record in any of the medical records, including those obtained previous to and subsequent to the first hearing, which indicated that at any point in time, a blood transfusion was provided to the Claimant. Indeed, all of the medical records tend to the conclusion that no blood was made available or prepared or administered to the Claimant.

8. In these circumstances, there is simply nothing before the Administrator upon which the Administrator could find that there had been a blood transfusion during the relevant time frame. While there was additional evidence submitted at the hearing that was not available previously to the Administrator, I am satisfied in reviewing that evidence there was nothing therein which would indicate that a blood transfusion was administered to the Claimant.

9. The Claimant is clearly seriously ill as a result of the Hepatitis C virus and cannot account for its presence, other than through a possible blood transfusion. However, he was candid that he had no knowledge that a blood transfusion had been administered to him at any time. While there is obvious considerable sympathy for the Claimant and his circumstances, from a legal point of view there is simply no basis on which a different decision could be made. In the result, the Administrator's decision is upheld.

DATED at Toronto this 21st day of July 2003

"C. Michael Mitchell"

_____________________________________
C. Michael Mitchell
Referee