logo
Hepatitis C - Class Actions Settlement
HomeSearchContact UsFrançaisPrivacy

Claimants:
Essential Information
Claimants:
Additional Information
Claimants:
Loss of Income / Loss of Support / Loss of Services
Periodic Re-Assessment by the Courts
Appeals
Documents
Forms
Contacts and Links
Annual Reports
Administrator


Appeals : Confirmed Referee Decisions : #34 - December 28, 2001

D E C I S I O N

In this case, the Claimant applied for compensation as a Primarily-Infected Person on January 30, 2001. The Plans' Administrator ("the Administrator") denied her claim on March 19, 2001. The basis for the denial was the definition of the word "blood" under the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement").

On March 26, 2001, the Claimant challenged this denial and submitted a Request for Review before a referee. The hearing took place on October 29, 2001 during which the Claimant and her two witnesses testified as well as the Administrator's representatives. At the hearing, it was admitted that the Claimant was infected with the Hepatitis C virus and that, according to documentation on file, she had received transfusions during the Class Period. However, the product thus transfused (IVIG - Intravenous immune globulin) is the Immunoglobuline expressly excluded from the blood definition under the Settlement Agreement reviewed in this arbitration case.

When this situation was explained to the Claimant, she requested an adjournment of the hearing to undertake additional research in order to bring additional evidence to this case as applicable. She was therefore granted a stay of action until December 15, 2001 to do the required research.

However, by letter dated December 11, 2001, the Claimant's brother, duly elected by her sister, informed the undersigned that : " We have nothing new to bring forward that is not already on the claim's file" .

In view of the above information, no additional evidence was brought forward by one or the other of the parties.

Consequently, I conclude that the Administrator had no other choice but to deny the Claimant's compensation application based on the definition of the word "blood" under the Settlement Agreement. I therefore uphold the Administrator's decision of January 30, 2001.

Martin Hébert, QC
Referee

 

Disclaimer