Additionally, when considering the actual test of “significant cause” under policy, “significant cause” does not mean sole cause (Chima v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2009 BCSC 1574) nor the dominant cause of a worker’s injury or disease (Schulmeister v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2007 BCSC 1580). Only in cases where personal or non-employment-related factors are so dominant or exclusive such that the compensable injury is not a significant causal factor, (i.e. a de minimis factor: Albert v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2006 BCSC 838), would compensation be denied.
"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.