New medical evidence won't necessarily reopen a final workers compensation decision if the evidence itself depends on work that hasn't yet been done. In Decision No. 107/96R, 2008 ONWSIAT 607, an Ontario tribunal considered whether to reconsider an earlier occupational disease decision involving a miner and lung cancer.
The worker's estate, represented by the Office of the Worker Adviser, presented a medical report raising concerns that earlier studies of occupational risk might not have fully accounted for age. But the doctor also recognized that important statistical assumptions needed verification. The estate had tried to obtain a biostatistician's opinion. Two specialists had been unable to prepare one for reasons relating to their availability.
The Tribunal concluded that the new report was too qualified to meet the threshold for reconsideration on its own. It also considered whether the Tribunal could use its own investigatory authority to obtain a medical assessment. The Vice Chair saw no categorical bar to that approach but did not proceed after the employer objected.
The application was denied. Significantly, the Tribunal said the estate could make another reconsideration application if additional supporting evidence became available. The underlying occupational disease entitlement wasn't newly decided in this procedural ruling.
The case illustrates an important difference between evidence that raises an unresolved possibility and evidence strong enough to justify reopening a final determination. Medical opinions sometimes depend on statistical assumptions or specialized validation. If those foundations remain uncertain, an adjudicator may decline to revisit the earlier result, even where the inquiry is serious and the consequences for the worker's family are significant.
Source note: Based on WSIAT's official published counsel summary. The legacy full decision PDF was not accessible.