Auditor General's report targets WSIB

The Auditor General's report has drawn controversy  from both worker and employer groups.  The report on one hand recommends that premuim rates for employers be increased  and coverage be provided to the entire workfore but on the other hand makes recommendations to reduce the number of new claims and criticizes increased worker benefits.  The current financial woes of the WSIB are multifaceted and while premium rates, expanded coverage, and accident prevention are steps to eliminating the current unfunded liability they are not the only avenues in this writer's view.  Good, informed, and fair decision-making from intial entitlement to LMR are also key to financial recovery and a better system.

72 Month Lock in Decision

I was recently told that an appeal of a 72 month lock in decision did not include a review of the suitability and availability of the Suitable Employment or Business chosen. The worker did not appeal the goal initially but after completing the 3 year course and months of job search it does not appear to be available in the local job market. The worker was also granted psycho traumatic benefits following completion of her bookkeeping program but goal was never reviewed in light of this. If the final review is to review the sufficiency or insufficiency of the Loss of Earnings paid to a worker how can this be done in isolation without again considering the availability of work? In my view a final review must look at both the availability and suitability of the goal chosen at the time of the review. Otherwise what is it's purpose?