Workers' Compensation and SIEF Policy

The Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WISB) has the mandate of providing workers with compensation for injuries and medical expenses.

Does the SIEF policy apply to schedule 1 employers?

SIEF policy applies to schedule 1 employers

Does the SIEF policy applies to schedule 1 employers?

SIEF policy does not apply to schedule 2 employers.

Does Fred's medical history meet the definition of a ""Pre-accident disability""? Provide a brief rationale to support your answer.

According to WISB, a pre-accident disability refers to a condition which has produced periods of disabilities in the past which required medical attention and disrupted the time of employment. Fred’s situation qualifies to be a pre-accident disability. In the case study, Fred experienced his accident about 7 years ago which brought about problems in his knee. Fred is open about his knee problem and is aware that the injury he got seven years ago brought about disabilities which were aggravated by the soccer injury.

Is the employer large enough to be subject to the re-employment obligations? Explain (5 points)

Fred’s employer is large enough to re-employ him. This is because he employs 105 people in the department store. Moreover, Fred was medically fit to perform the essential duties after pre-injury employment which means that his employer has the obligation of re-employing him.

Has Fred been employed at the company long enough to be covered by the re-employment obligations? Explain.

Fred has not been in the company for long to be covered by the re-employment obligations. This is because the re-employment obligations cover people who have worked in a company for more than one year. Moreover, these people need to have been continuously serving in an organization with the injury one year before the date of an injury.
If the employer wanted to terminate Fred after he had returned to his pre-accident condition, could the termination be considered discrimination under the Human Rights Code? Provide a brief rationale to support your answer.

Terminating Fred from his duties will be considered a violation of human rights. The Human rights code shows that it is a prejudicial practise to directly or indirectly decline to employ or continually employ any person or in the course of employment to discriminate adversely an employee on the prohibited grounds of discrimination such as sickness. Moreover, the code shows that it is discriminatory for the organization to exclude or expel an individual from the full membership of their organization. Termination of Fred will mean that he will be deprived of employment opportunities which may affect his status as an individual and his well-being.

Secondary Injury Enhancement Fund (SIEF) Policy

A prior disability can contribute to a compensable accident if the period that results from an accident is prolonged due to the condition. Part or all the compensation costs may be transferred from the accident employer in the schedule 1 employer according to the SIEF policy. The policy includes both physical and psychological disabilities that an employee experiences when they are working.

Objective information on the pre-existing disability classifying the accident as major

From the case study, Fred suffered an injury seven years ago that resulted in him having two surgeries on his knee. Moreover, Fred got injured in soccer which aggravated his knee problem. As shown above, Fred was open about his knee problem, and everybody in the department store knew that Fred had a bad knee. Before his pain in the department store, Fred was doing his work well. Lifting the 5 kg box might have aggravated the situation. It can be noted that the accident that Fred suffered brought about a sharp pain in his knee which made him limp severely. The assessment from the doctor showed that his ligament getting torn. Moreover, the doctor gave Fred a form that showed that he would be off work as he awaits his surgery which classifies this situation as major.

Objective information on the pre-existing disability classifying the accident as minor

From the case study, Fred has always known that his knee was bad after he was involved in an accident seven years ago. Additionally, he was working normally before he experienced the sharp pains in his knee. Fred confirmed that he did not fall, slip or trip while working. Anyone did not strike him, and he did not bend his knee. The situation is from his past and is not related to his work in any way. Instead, the torn ligament might have resulted from his soccer injury which happened when he was off-duty. Fred will also be able to recover from his surgery which shows that his injury will not render him incapacitated. The information indicates that his accident falls into the minor category.

Closing Remarks

Fred is a good employee of the department store. Despite his injury, has never missed work except on the ground of seeking medical help. He has managed to create a good rapport with his workmates and employer which makes him be an invaluable worker for the department store. Fred should be given a compensation award that falls between 90-100% because of the severity of his injury and the possibility that his employer might terminate his job.