What is the evidentiary proof required to prove that the accepted injuries in the February 2007 fall were of causative significance?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from WCAT-2009-02112 (Re), 2009 CanLII 76921 (BC WCAT):
There are perhaps three levels of evidentiary proof for showing that the accepted injuries were of causative significance in the February 2007 fall. The first level of evidence would be any evidence of causation, no matter how low, that is to say insignificant, or what is in law sometimes described as de minimis. The next level would be a greater than de minimis level as stated in WCAT-2006-02616. The highest level would be that established by the vice chair in the Schulmeister v. Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal decision, being that significant cause means a more substantial contribution than simply beyond de minimis.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is it sufficient to establish that an accepted injury was the most significant cause or accepted injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove that the injuries to her back and nose were caused by the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
How much evidence will be required by a plaintiff to prove their case on the issue of causation? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a personal injury action for damages for personal injury, is there any case law where there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof required for a plaintiff to prove they have been diagnosed with motor neurone disease? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof required for a plaintiff to prove hypothetical events? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for proving causation in a personal injury action? (British Columbia, Canada)
When there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury in the context of a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, does the claimant have to prove that there is a continuing injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof required for a plaintiff to prove that a hypothetical event occurred at the same time as an actual event? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof required to prove material change in circumstances of the child? (British Columbia, Canada)
