Appeals and Judicial Reviews Argued by Patrick Rippon
Patrick Rippon successfully challenged an earlier WCAT denial of the firefighter’s claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Patrick then secured acceptance of a firefighter’s prostate cancer claim on rehearing despite the worker not meeting the 15-year firefighter cancer presumption. On rehearing, WCAT accepted that the worker’s firefighting exposures contributed to the development of his cancer. The employer’s appeal was denied and the cancer was accepted as work-related
Patrick Rippon secured acceptance of a serious aggravation of a pre-existing low back condition after a workplace fall. WCAT accepted that the worker’s symptoms and function significantly worsened after the accident, even though the case involved pre-existing back problems. This decision confirmed that a worker does not always need a new MRI finding to prove that a workplace injury made a condition worse.
Patrick Rippon secured a worker-favourable decision in a difficult low back claim involving prolonged sitting, poor office ergonomics, and a pre-existing disc condition. WCAT accepted that the worker’s symptoms, work setup, timing of disability, and medical evidence supported a compensable aggravation. The decision showed that even where medical evidence is disputed, the whole picture must be considered, and evenly balanced evidence must be resolved in favour of the worker.
Patrick Rippon secured a major turnaround in a claim that had been denied for years. WCAT accepted that the worker’s physically demanding job duties significantly aggravated his pre-existing degenerative disc disease and made the condition disabling. The Tribunal rejected the view that the worker’s condition was simply natural degeneration and accepted that the work duties had materially worsened the condition.
Patrick also later secured reimbursement of the full cost of the expert medical opinion that helped win the appeal. WCAT accepted that the case was unusually complex, involved a large body of evidence, and justified reimbursement beyond the normal tariff, awarding the worker the full $3,675 cost of the report.
Patrick Rippon secured wage-loss benefits for a worker whose accepted major depressive disorder had not resolved but had not yet become permanent. WCAT found that WorkSafeBC could not accept that the condition continued and stabilized later while refusing to pay wage-loss benefits for the period in between. The worker was awarded more than a year’s worth of wage-loss benefits.
Patrick Rippon secured a rehearing after an earlier WCAT decision denied further wage-loss benefits. The case involved accepted physical and psychological injuries, and WCAT recognized that returning to different employment did not automatically mean the worker had recovered or had no wage loss. The new decision Patrick secured required WorkSafeBC to properly address the worker’s ongoing temporary disability and loss of earnings after October 2009.
Patrick Rippon secured a substantially higher permanent disability rating for a worker with accepted PTSD and major depressive disorder. WCAT recognized that the worker’s psychological injury affected daily functioning, executive functioning, ability to handle stress, and ability to work without major support. The worker’s psychological permanent disability rating was increased to 50% of total disability.
Patrick Rippon secured a substantially higher permanent disability rating for a worker with accepted PTSD and major depressive disorder. WCAT recognized that the worker’s psychological injury affected daily functioning, executive functioning, ability to handle stress, and ability to work without major support. The worker’s psychological permanent disability rating was increased to 50% of total disability.
Patrick Rippon secured acceptance of a right knee ACL tear and medial meniscus tear after WorkSafeBC and the Review Division had denied the claim. WCAT accepted the worker’s evidence, along with supporting evidence from treatment providers, and found that the knee injury arose from the workplace incident. This decision recognized that a claim can still succeed even where the worker continued working, if there were later flare-ups, and the evidence developed over time.
Patrick Rippon secured an additional permanent disability entitlement in a case involving an accepted Achilles tendon rupture and chronic ankle pain. WCAT confirmed parts of the WorkSafeBC assessment but found that WorkSafeBC had failed to include an age adaptability factor. The worker’s claim was returned for that additional factor to be calculated and added to the permanent disability award.
Patrick Rippon secured an extension of 100% loss-of-earnings permanent disability benefits beyond age 70. WCAT accepted that the worker would likely have continued working because of financial obligations, family responsibilities, and a work truck lease that extended past age 70. The worker’s benefits were extended to December 2028.
Patrick Rippon secured continued payment of specific housing costs for a severely disabled worker. WCAT accepted that stable independent housing continued to help address the effects of the worker’s compensable injuries and formed part of the worker’s broader care and rehabilitation needs. The appeal was allowed, and WorkSafeBC was required to continue paying the housing costs as a health care benefit.
Patrick Rippon secured a major result for the family of a long-haul truck driver who died in a highway crash from a heart attack while working. Patrick argued that the worker’s long-haul trucking career materially contributed to his coronary artery disease through years of prolonged sitting, disrupted sleep, job strain, poor access to healthy food, isolation, and barriers to medical care. He also argued that because the fatal crash occurred in the course of employment, WorkSafeBC could not deny the claim unless it properly rebutted the statutory accident presumption. The denial was overturned, and the matter was returned to WCAT for further review.
Patrick Rippon successfully challenged WorkSafeBC’s refusal to increase an injured worker’s Personal Care Allowance after the worker suffered serious toxic brain injury, neurocognitive disorder, fatigue, balance problems, falls, and loss of independence following workplace exposure to toxic rodenticides. WorkSafeBC had kept the worker at a lower personal care category despite evidence that his parents were providing daily assistance with activities such as grooming, hygiene, food preparation, laundry, transportation, supervision, and step-by-step cueing for tasks. Patrick argued that the Board was taking too narrow a view of personal care by treating “prompting” as something less than real assistance, even though the worker’s brain injury made sequencing, planning, stamina, and safety major barriers to daily living. The Review Officer accepted that the evidence raised serious concerns about the worker’s function, including whether he needed daily supervision, cueing, and hands-on support because of his compensable conditions. The Review Division sent the decision back to WorkSafeBC for further investigation, including a proper Personal Care Allowance assessment, updated medical evidence, and a new decision.
Appeals and Judicial Reviews Argued by Vahan Ishkanian:
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Mr. Edwards on judicial review of a WCAT decision involving a serious worsening of his low back condition after a workplace fall on ice. The key issue was whether WCAT had taken too narrow a view of “aggravation” by focusing only on whether there was objective radiological change to Mr. Edwards’ pre-existing spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease, instead of considering whether the accident aggravated his broader chronic back pain condition. Vahan successfully argued that WCAT’s analysis imposed an impossibly high standard and failed to properly apply the policy on pre-existing conditions. The Court agreed that WCAT’s decision on aggravation was patently unreasonable and remitted the matter to WCAT for reconsideration.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Mr. Kostiuk in a judicial review involving whether a workplace accident aggravated his significant pre-existing low back condition. WCAT had upheld an earlier denial of compensation despite a Board-commissioned medical report from Dr. Leith that was highly favourable to the worker. Vahan successfully argued that WCAT misapprehended critical medical evidence, rejected the independent medical opinion without a rational basis, and focused on facts that were not determinative of the actual aggravation issue. The Court agreed that WCAT’s reconsideration decision was patently unreasonable and remitted the aggravation issue back to WCAT for reconsideration.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Mr. Rutter on judicial review after WCAT denied his claim for a work-related left shoulder condition. Mr. Rutter had previously suffered a compensable right shoulder injury and argued that his left shoulder problems developed because he had to overuse and rely on his left arm at work. Vahan successfully challenged WCAT’s preference for the Board medical advisor’s opinion over the opinion of an orthopaedic specialist, and also challenged WCAT’s failure to properly address the request for an independent health professional. The Court found WCAT’s reasoning process was manifestly flawed, set aside the decision, and remitted the matter back to WCAT for reconsideration.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented a group of injured workers in the Court of Appeal after a serious motor vehicle accident connected to their work at an egg farm. The main question was whether the workers were barred from suing because of the Workers Compensation Act. The defendants argued that the driver was acting in the course of her employment, which would have meant the injured workers had to deal with the matter through WorkSafeBC instead of the courts. WCAT rejected that argument and found that the driver was not acting in the course of her employment at the time of the accident. Vahan successfully defended that result at the Court of Appeal, meaning the injured workers’ civil claims were preserved and could continue.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Ms. Whetung in the Court of Appeal after WorkSafeBC attempted to terminate her permanent disability pension and health care benefits following a separate civil judgment. The Board argued that it could rely on subrogation principles to end her WCB pension, but Vahan successfully argued that the Board could not undo its earlier final compensation decision by adopting a different factual basis from the one on which the pension had been awarded. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Board’s appeal, confirmed that the Board’s decision was reviewable and unjustified, and awarded Ms. Whetung her appeal costs against the Board.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Ms. Young in a judicial review concerning the calculation of her loss of earnings pension. WCAT had accepted a vocational rehabilitation consultant’s conclusion that Ms. Young could work part-time from home as a bookkeeper, which reduced her pension entitlement, but Vahan challenged the fairness of relying on that untested vocational opinion without allowing cross-examination. The Court agreed that cross-examination was necessary because the VRC’s employability assumptions, statistical research, and conclusions were central to the pension calculation. WCAT’s decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Mr. Djakovic in a judicial review of three separate WCAT decisions concerning a low back injury allegedly suffered during rehabilitation, upper extremity entitlement, and a loss of earnings assessment. Vahan advanced multiple procedural and legal challenges, including that WCAT had denied a fair hearing by refusing cross-examination, made unreasonable findings, and relied on a report that applied the wrong legal standard. The Court accepted the application, set aside all three WCAT decisions, and ordered each matter returned to WCAT for rehearing.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented Mr. Kerton in a judicial review challenging WCAT’s refusal to extend the time for him to appeal a Review Division wage-rate decision. WCAT had accepted that the statutory requirements of “special circumstances” and “injustice” were met, but still refused the extension based on what it considered to be a residual discretion. Vahan successfully argued that once those two statutory requirements were satisfied, WCAT had no further discretion to deny the extension in a way that would knowingly cause an injustice. The Supreme Court of British Columbia agreed, found WCAT’s interpretation of section 243(3) incorrect, quashed both the extension-of-time decision and the reconsideration decision, and remitted the matter back to WCAT for reconsideration.
Vahan Ishkanian appeared in part for K-Lor, which achieved substantial success against the plaintiff subcontractor, Mr. Wager. The court accepted K-Lor’s core position that Wager had failed to dispose of demolition material in a legal manner at an approved off-site disposal area, causing significant remedial work in Whatcom County. Wager’s claims for “extras” were dismissed, his builders lien was found invalid, and K-Lor succeeded on much of its counterclaim for remediation costs and related legal costs, subject to some reductions. The successful argument was that the illegal dumping problem was caused by Wager’s breach of the subcontract, not by K-Lor, and that K-Lor’s remedial steps were generally reasonable in the circumstances.
Vahan Ishkanian successfully represented the plaintiff companies in a negligence and breach of contract claim against an engineering firm arising from the construction of a millworking facility in New Westminster. The central dispute concerned a transformer pad that settled unevenly and became a safety hazard after being installed without pilings on difficult soil conditions. Vahan advanced the case that the engineering firm failed to properly warn the plaintiffs about the effect of additional fill near the transformer pad and failed to meet the required standard of care. The Court accepted the plaintiffs’ main claim, rejected the defendant’s contributory negligence argument, and awarded damages of $77,303.48 plus costs.
Vahan Ishkanian appeared for the plaintiff, who successfully applied to add Concord Security Corporation as a defendant after the limitation period had expired. The plaintiff argued that although Concord’s security role was known earlier, its potential maintenance-related responsibilities were not discovered until later, including duties to identify and report spills or debris in the mall. The court accepted that the governing test was whether adding the party was “just and convenient,” and found that Concord had not shown actual prejudice sufficient to defeat the application. The successful result was that Concord was added as a defendant and the trial was adjourned, preserving the plaintiff’s ability to have all potentially liable parties before the court..