The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is denying it pressured a physician to deliver medical opinions that would allow the agency to refuse benefits to injured workers, or that it had any part to play in her termination.

In a statement of defence filed in the ongoing $3.2-million lawsuit brought by Hamilton-area physician Dr. Brenda Steinnagel, the WSIB says no one at the agency “directed, counseled or otherwise indicated” to Steinnagel’s former employer, Vaughan-based Workplace Health and Cost Solutions, that Steinnagel should be fired.

WHCS was one of several companies contracted by the WSIB to provide external medical opinions on injured workers at the request of WSIB case managers.

“WSIB denies the allegation that WHCS and WSIB conspired to terminate Steinnagel as a reprisal for her refusal to participate in a scheme to falsify medical reports,” says the statement, filed in Superior Court in Toronto.

“The suggestion that WSIB is engaged in a widespread conspiracy involving multiple third-party service providers to deny valid claims by procuring false medical opinions is a fiction spun out of whole cloth.”

Steinnagel’s former job at WHCS is known among workers’ rights groups as a “paper doctor” — consultants who review medical files of claimants without ever actually meeting them.

The WSIB recently defended the controversial practice following an internal review, saying the doctors are being used “appropriately.”

A group of injured workers, labour groups and health professionals have formally requested that Ontario’s ombudsman investigate the WSIB for the use of external consultants and other practices.

The Star has previously reported on allegations that the WSIB has sought to unfairly cut benefit payments to injured workers as it seeks to reduce its unfunded liability, which sat at $12 billion in 2010. That figure now sits at $6.42 billion.

Steinnagel alleged in a statement of claim filed last year that she was terminated in April 2015 after the WSIB repeatedly demanded that her employer change the medical opinion she authored on a hospital worker who was claiming benefits after suffering head injuries while trying to restrain a patient.

She concluded in late 2014 that the worker’s emotional issues could be related to his workplace accident, according to the statement of claim. Within two weeks of delivering her opinion, she alleges, the WSIB requested clarification.

After further review, which included speaking with the worker’s family doctor, Steinnagel says she reached the same result in her medical opinion, but alleges “the WSIB continued to resist her conclusion.”

“In a desperate effort to reduce claims paid out, WSIB and WHCS have been conspiring to deny legitimate claims in a shocking display of arrogance and corruption,” alleges the statement of claim. “They pressured Dr. Steinnagel over a period of months to reverse her medical opinion on a high-cost case. When she refused, she was fired.”

None of the allegations has been proven in court. A Superior Court judge dismissed in April the WSIB’s attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out.

Along with its statement of defence, the WSIB filed a cross-claim against WHCS, alleging that WHCS “negligently” blamed the WSIB for the decision to fire Steinnagel.

“We maintain that there is no truth to Dr. Steinnagel’s allegations, and we deny acting wrongfully in any way,” said a WSIB spokeswoman. A lawyer for WHCS declined to comment other than to repeat previous statements that Steinnagel’s claim has no merit.

The WSIB alleges in its statement of defence that throughout 2014, it was apparent that many of Steinnagel’s medical reviews were “deficient” and that the WSIB had to request a “significant number” of addenda to her reports.

The agency claims Steinnagel’s medical opinions lacked clarity, misapprehended questions put forward by the WSIB case manager and arrived at conclusions that “were contradictory or did not make sense.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Senior directors at the WSIB expressed concern to WHCS over Steinnagel’s work and an overall lack of proper quality control of medical opinions at the company, according to the statement of defence.

In a reply to the statements of defence filed in court, Steinnagel denies that concerns about her work were ever brought to her attention prior to the hospital worker case in 2014.

“To the contrary, Dr. Steinnagel consistently received positive feedback about her performance,” says the reply.

The WSIB alleges that WHCS president Yvonne Chan wrote to Steinnagel on April 2, 2015, stating that “she had no choice but to abide by WSIB’s request and terminate Steinnagel’s employment with WHCS” — something WSIB denies.

“WSIB never requested nor suggested that WHCS terminate Steinnagel’s employment,” says the statement of defence. “At all times, WSIB’s concern was only to ensure that quality control over its reviews was maintained by WHCS.”

In its own statement of defence, WHCS said no one tried to “force or coerce” Steinnagel into signing a medical opinion with which she disagreed. (She disputes this in her reply filed in court.)

After receiving what it says was yet another call from the WSIB about dissatisfaction with one of Steinnagel’s medical reviews in March 2015, WHCS was asked by the WSIB to disclose how many case files Steinnagel was currently reviewing, “and advised that until the issue had been resolved, the WSIB may have to stop allowing WHCS to take on more files,” according to WHCS’s statement of defence.

Several days later, the WSIB clarified the situation, according to WHCS’s statement of defence, telling WHCS’s medical director that “it did not explicitly require that WHCS stop assigning Dr. Steinnagel to WSIB case file reviews” and that it did not require the company to fire her.

WHCS alleges that following that clarification, it “believed it had no practical choice other than to remove Dr. Steinnagel from the WSIB roster. Because case file reviews then represented almost all of her duties, this meant that her employment would terminate unless WHCS could find her another assignment.”

The company alleges it tried to find other positions for Steinnagel at WHCS, but that she did not follow up, and instead launched her lawsuit.

“Dr. Steinnagel never refused to pursue any reasonable, equivalent employment opportunities,” says Steinnagel’s reply to the statements of defence. “Dr. Steinnagel has made extensive efforts to find employment, and has been unable to acquire work in the occupational health field.”