What is the test for determining whether an incident at work was responsible for a worker’s left knee injury?

However, just because the worker remembered experiencing left knee pain is not sufficient to conclude the incident at work was of causative significance in producing an injury. Such a circumstance relies on making a connection in hindsight. In other words, as nothing apparent post-injury seemed to have occurred to cause the left knee injury then it must have been the work incident. Courts have cautioned against over-reliance on the nature of this unpersuasive reasoning as seen in White v. Stonestreet, 2006 BCSC 801: The inference from a temporal sequence to a causal connection, however, is not always reliable. In fact, this form of reasoning so often results in false conclusions that logicians have given it a Latin name. It is sometimes referred to as the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc: “after this therefore because of this.”