Thank you. On the first issue, which was how the medical person is selected, the policy has to deal with that. That is not addressed specifically in the section. Obviously, there may be a number of ways that could be done. As far as the opening words of 27(3) are concerned, I think what that is saying is that the third opinion is binding but it's always possible that there may be new medical evidence. For example, there may be new technology available. So when the third opinion comes out, perhaps in the meantime there is some new technological means that can give a definitive opinion that is otherwise questionable, whether taking it from a question of opinion to something definitive. So that's saying that if there is some such evidence that's available, then that would put precedence over the third opinion.
Mr. Wright on Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on August 21st, 2007. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
August 21st, 2007
Page 485
Wright
See context to find out what was said next.