• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • joe simms
    November 27, 2011 - 20:57

    The telegram usually runs a story like this once a month, it is an interesting piece but what is the purpose? I am having trouble with the contractor who built my house will the telegram like to do a story on it?

  • Kelly
    November 27, 2011 - 17:27

    Might i suggest seeing a chiropractor, they may be able to offer a long term plan that would be less expensive over the year. A friend of mine has a chronic back problem aggravated by a fall about 6 years ago. She was seeing a physiotherapist who charged $60 an hour. She has not begun to see a chiropractor, the long term plan is1 year and her back issues will be cleared up.

  • Betty Tobin
    November 27, 2011 - 13:42

    I beg to differ with the WHSCC regarding massage therapy not having any positive influence on injured workers' return to work. I, too, spent years fighting with WHSCC regarding issues on chiropractic and massage treatments along with a host of other roadblocks. I would like to mention that I have re-entered the workforce and it is by the grace of God that I can thank chiropractic and massage therapy as both being the key components of keeping me here. I visit the chiropractor at least once every two weeks and continue with an hours massage at least once every three weeks. There have been times where I have made some extra visits depending on the physical aspect of my job. For the most part, things have been very positive. But I do not need any scientific evidence to determine if either is a positive influence on my functional capacity because my ability to stay in the workforce is proof enough for me. Good luck to you Mr. Lawlor and anybody else trying to deal with the commission!

  • We know how you feel
    November 27, 2011 - 10:15

    My fiancee had exactly the same situation, physiotherapy was what workers wanted him to do but massage was the only thing that would make his back feel better. They approved 6 massage therapy sessions and that was it.

  • Don II
    November 27, 2011 - 09:45

    The compensation system run by Government operates on the discriminatory and incorrect assumption that ALL injured workers are lazy, malcontents, malingerers and liars who are just trying to get money for nothing from the Government. As a consequence, injured and permanently disabled people are abused, refused and misused by the system. Once you become injured or permanently disabled you are considered to be a financial drag on the system. You are no longer a contributor to the productivity required to keep the economy moving ahead. The Government thinks that the sooner you can be removed from the compensation system the better. If you can be forced back to work or starved into submission, the system has won. If you die, the system has won. If you take the system to Court, the system will win. If you are a worker you must ensure that you never get sick, injured, disabled or killed on the job because the system is not there to help you or your family, it is there to help the system and the Government that created it. Governments are corrupt and there is no justice for the ordinary person.

  • Chiropractor Rochester NY
    November 26, 2011 - 16:38

    This is a sticky situation for sure. I'm sure there are plenty of cases just like this all across the us where people are injured in their workplace and then have to fight tooth and nail to get their work to cover the costs for their treatments. http://www.chiropractorrochesterny.com

  • Brian Richey
    November 26, 2011 - 08:29

    I can't believe this story. This is treatment that I would expect from an insurance company who are famous for looking for reasons to deny a claim. Why would the WHSCC treat someone in such a manner? When one hears stories like Mr. Lawlor's (who I do not know) it begs the question 'what is the purpose of WCB in the first place'? Should common sense not prevail at some point? For God sake... cover this man's treatment. He deserves it...his injuries occurred 'at work' and not by his own carelessness.