Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                     VOL. NO.                                            PAGE

METROPOLITAN ENTERTAINMENT          - and -       ANGELA DURNFORD, THE

GROUP, (Workers Compensation Board                        NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS

Claim No. 1656602)                                                 COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL and THE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA                      

(Appellant)                                                                                                                (Respondents)

 

                                                                             

CA161356                                                Halifax, N.S.                                           Freeman, J.A.

                                                                                                                                                           

 

[Cite as: Metropolitan Entertainment Group v. Durnford, 2000 NSCA 122]

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                 September 25, 2000

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                 October 26, 2000

 

SUBJECT:         Workers’ Compensation, epicondylitis, causation, deference

 

SUMMARY:        The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal found epicondylitis (tennis elbow) aggravated by the repetitive motion of dealing blackjack in a casino to be a compensable workplace injury, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board.   The employer appealed.

 

ISSUE:                Did the Appeals Tribunal owe deference to the hearing officer’s conclusions respecting expert evidence that causation was not established to a scientific standard?

 

RESULT:            The appeal was dismissed.  Section 246 of the Workers’ Compensation Act requires an independent adjudication by the Tribunal, which must defer to the hearing officer only with respect to advantages enjoyed by the hearing officer in the fact-finding process. The Act establishes standards for entitlement to benefit which are not scientific standards of causation.

 

 

This information sheet does not form part of the court’s judgment.  Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet.  The full court judgment consists of 14 pages.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.