Firefighter health issues are a GE reality check

Much has been made of presumptive entitlement as the ultimate solution for resolving occupational disease claims for GE workers. This has been modelled on presumptive entitlement legislation developed for Ontario firefighters to make it easier to get disease claims accepted.

If some form of presumptive entitlement is the approach selected for GE workers then it might be prudent for workers to see how this is working for the Hamilton firefighters who led the way. So how have firefighters fared under these provisions?

Based on data from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, CBC journalist Sarah Peterson has raised serious shortcomings on how well firefighters have fared. According to Peterson, “10 years after the legislation was introduced ... there are still hundreds who have to fight to get their illness recognized”. And, the data shows the majority of claims continue to be denied.

The firefighters’ struggle for just compensation began in 1997 in the aftermath of the Plastimet fire in Hamilton. But it wasn’t until 2007 that presumptive legislation was granted for six cancers, two of which (brain and leukemia) they were already winning at a rate of 85 per cent and 83 per cent respectively. The remaining 10 cancers were phased in over a period of another 10 years ending January 2017.

However, their fight for just compensation continues well after that 20 year struggle. According to WSIB data obtained by Peterson, of 116 presumptive cancer claims only 68 per cent have been accepted by the WSIB. And, only 25 per cent of total cancer claims have been accepted.

Importantly, presumptive entitlement won’t cover all cancers. Firefighters have 16 cancers covered but they have to meet specific criteria set by the board to be accepted. Such criteria may include: latency thresholds, years as a firefighter, smoking history, location of the cancer, etc. For example, kidney cancer would not be accepted as work related if a 17 year veteran fails to meet the 20 year service requirement -- or a brain cancer that appeared on the brain stem would not qualify as work related even though brain cancer is presumptive. While colon cancer is considered presumptive, 80 per cent of such cancer claims have not been accepted.

Relying solely on presumptive legislation fails to address the systemic problems with the way occupational disease is handled by the WSIB. These issues have been addressed by several legal and medical scholars whose reports to various Ontario governments have been ignored. These include: onerous burden of proof; legalized thresholds rather than guidelines; dismissing claimant’s doctor’s assessments; over-emphasis on patients’ medical history rather than work exposure factors; lack of resources to enable workers to support their claims.

Experience shows that “presumptive entitlement” is not a cure all. Without addressing these issues we shall be no further ahead for achieving just compensation.

The firefighters’ experience proves that workers will have to continue their fight, and require the resources of agencies such as the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) in preparing their claims. As shown by the firefighters’ experience well developed and documented case assessments are still essential for the success of claims despite presumptive entitlement. What worries the Advisory Committee is word that the government is holding back funding for OHCOW believing that presumptive entitlement will make detailed assessments unnecessary.

In this case GE workers may get dealt a double whammy — a restrictive and limited presumption scheme and a weakened support system to carry their claims forward. This is unacceptable! GE workers deserve better than this.