B.C. tribunal rejects injured worker’s claim for $20K rifle under health benefits

A file photo of a hunter carrying a rifle. (Shutterstock)

A British Columbia tribunal has rejected an injured logger’s bid to claim tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-end hunting gear – including a $20,000 rifle and a pair of $3,900 binoculars – as part of his physical rehabilitation following a workplace accident.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal says the decision marks the culmination of a “lengthy procedural history” of reviews and appeals at various levels within the province’s workplace safety and compensation agency, known as WorkSafeBC, involving the health benefits claim.

The forestry worker, who is not named in the decision, was injured on the job in 2016, sustaining a “litany of permanent physical injuries,” including a fractured spine, hearing loss and an amputated forearm.

A part of his rehabilitation, the agency already bought the avid outdoorsman an all-terrain vehicle, valued at $40,000, as well as a trailer and a specialized hoist for his garage to lift his dog carrier on and off the vehicle.

“These items were provided to him so that he could go out into the woods to exercise his dogs and train them in cougar tracking,” the tribunal noted in its decision last month, summarizing the observations of an officer who reviewed the case.

The injured worker was similarly furnished with a pair of motors for his fishing boat – equipped with specialized electric starters and tilt functions to easily raise and lower them into the water – along with a “special fishing rod, chest harness and two electric fishing reels.”

But when the claimant told his occupational therapist that he was ready to start hunting again, he compiled another list of equipment he intended to expense under his health benefits.

‘Semi-custom’ rifle sought

Prior to his injury, the claimant would hunt animals on foot, shooting them with a rifle at close range, he said. However, due to physical limitations in the wake of the accident, his new plan was to hunt from “a stand overlooking a large area, and shoot animals from a stable position, from ranges out to and exceeding 1,000 yards,” the appeal tribunal heard.

To accomplish the task, the claimant would need an “extremely lightweight” rifle and scope, chambered for a preferred type of ammunition that costs $180 per box, the tribunal heard.

“He was aware of a particular (rifle) brand which he liked, anticipating that the total cost of his rifle and scope would be in excess of $20,000,” tribunal vice-chair Anand Banerjee wrote in the decision.

“In particular, the worker requested that the board provide him with a semi-custom rifle manufactured by a small American firm called Gunwerks, in a model called the ‘ClymR.’”

The worker explained that he would be shooting at animals from a range of 800 to 1,700 yards, according to the tribunal, and “this is why he needed a rifle and scope combination which would be accurate at such extreme distances.”

Swarovski binoculars, accessories

The claimant would also require a brand-new pair of Swarovski binoculars valued at $3,900. “The worker expressed the view that lesser brands than Swarovski would cause him to experience eye strain over long hours of use, and this is why he wanted the premium binoculars,” Banerjee wrote.

The hunter went on to provide a more detailed wish list in November 2021, explaining that, if the Gunwerks rifle was not available, a titanium rifle built by arms maker Proof Research would be “an acceptable alternative” at $16,000, the tribunal heard.

“In addition to the Swarovski binoculars, the worker requested a Swarovski-branded forehead rest ($175), a Swarovski-branded universal tripod adapter ($154), a brand-new shooting tripod made by Gunwerks ($650), a Hog Saddle clamping rifle rest for the new tripod ($429) and a brand-new rangefinder which offered ballistic compensation (approximately $1,800),” Banerjee wrote.

Prior claims, dismissals

When WorkSafeBC rejected the man’s itemized request in August 2022, the board noted he had already been provided a rifle through a separate worker’s compensation claim in 2013, when he was working as a hunting guide.

“Although you have been provided with a firearm previously, I must consider your current request on its individual merits and circumstances, which means that because you were provided a firearm in the past does not mean that you are currently entitled to another firearm,” the board wrote in its 2022 decision.

The board also placed “significant weight” on the fact that WorkSafeBC could not ensure that a new gun “will be used in a lawful and safe manner,” it said, denying the request for the gun and the associated hunting gear.

The man appealed the decision to WorkSafeBC’s review division, which, in February 2023, affirmed the board’s dismissal of his request. “Since the board had already provided the worker with significant recreational items associated with his interest in hunting, (it) was satisfied that nothing further was reasonably necessary,” Banerjee summarized.

The man exhausted his last appeal by pleading his case to the tribunal, where Banerjee spent “several months” and “obtained a number of books and articles on the various topics relating to long-range shooting, hunting, accuracy, optics, ammunition, ethics, and the price/availability of rifles, optics, and ammunition,” he said.

Much of that reading material was provided to the worker at the beginning of this year. “I made it clear to him that I wished to learn about his experience and knowledge in hunting and long-range shooting, and I was interested in hearing whether he agreed or disagreed with any of the materials provided to him,” Banerjee wrote.

Hunter lacks ‘skill and experience’

Over the course of the appeal hearing, the tribunal vice-chair and the claimant discussed in fine detail the mechanics of different rifles, optics and ammunition, as well as the importance of hunting in the man’s life.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Banerjee cited three grounds for denying the appeal.

First among them was the vice-chair’s finding that the claimant “does not possess the level of skill and experience – or even the desire to master the necessary level of skill and experience” to participate in long-range hunting in any “meaningful extent.”

“I question whether the proposed long-range hunting even meets the minimal threshold of being something for which the worker has sufficient interest or passion in order to be considered as a health-care benefit,” he wrote.

‘Life-or-death decision’

Banerjee also expressed concern that the claimant was diagnosed with bouts of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and post-traumatic stress as a result of his injury, with one doctor observing that he had a “short fuse” and was at risk of self-harm.

The same doctor also assessed that the worker was prone to difficulty completing tasks without error “due to waning attention/fatigue,” adding he “is able to complete tasks where accuracy is not a critical job requirement.”

Banerjee stressed that long-range rifle hunting “is literally defined by the concept of ‘accuracy,’ both mental and physical” and that such hunters are “required to make a literal life-or-death decision” based on several simultaneous factors.

He also emphasized that providing the gear as part of the worker’s health-care benefits would signal an “implied endorsement” of both the hunter’s skill and hunting ethics, as well as an endorsement of the equipment sought, which Banerjee assessed as not likely to result in ethical hunts at such great distances in the hands of the worker.

Finally, the tribunal vice-chair explained that the claimant already owns “a battery of rifles” with high-end scopes, although “he considers every single one of these rifles to be unsuitable for his new chosen hunting pursuit.”

“If this is the case, then he should be expected to sell or trade in these unsuitable rifles in order to maximize his returns and use the funds to purchase equipment that he prefers,” Banerjee concluded.

“This is a final reason why the worker should not be provided with the requested hunting equipment as a health-care benefit under this claim.”