Lessons from Simms v. Alzawad (2025 BCCA 346)
Background
John Simms, a hospital transfer driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment. Since the injury happened on the job, WorkSafeBC covered his medical treatment and rehabilitation expenses.
In total, WorkSafeBC paid $56,546.24, which included:
- $36,797.25 for medical and health-care costs (MSP and related expenses), and
- $14,962.36 for vocational rehabilitation, including retraining and related therapy.
Simms sued the at-fault driver, Mohammed Alzawad, to recover his damages. Because WorkSafeBC had already paid some of his expenses, it was entitled to pursue a subrogated claim to recover those payments from the liable party.
At trial, the only issue was how much Simms should receive. The BC Supreme Court accepted most WorkSafeBC payments as recoverable damages, except the retraining and certain occupational therapy costs linked to it, finding those expenses unreasonable and unnecessary.
Simms appealed, arguing that under the Workers Compensation Act (WCA), all WorkSafeBC expenditures — including vocational rehabilitation — must automatically be included in a damages award.
Key Issue
Do vocational rehabilitation costs paid by WorkSafeBC count as mandatory “health care” expenses that must be included in a damages award?
Court of Appeal Decision
The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge’s conclusion.
Justice Riley, writing for the Court, clarified that:
- Health care costs paid by WorkSafeBC must be included in a damages award; courts cannot re-assess their reasonableness.
- However, vocational rehabilitation expenses (like job retraining programs) are not automatically considered “health care.”
- These expenditures fall under section 155 of the WCA, which deals with retraining and other vocational assistance, not health treatment.
- Therefore, courts retain discretion to assess whether such expenses were reasonable and justified under common-law principles of special damages.
In Simms’ case, the retraining program chosen by WorkSafeBC was deemed ill-suited to his interests and background. He had no interest in office administration and ultimately abandoned the course. The Court found it reasonable for the trial judge to exclude those expenses from the damages award.
Why This Matters for Employers
While this case arose from a car accident, it carries important lessons for employers managing return-to-work and rehabilitation programs.
1️⃣ Not every rehabilitation expense counts as “health care.”
WorkSafeBC distinguishes between treatment (e.g., medical services, therapy) and vocational rehabilitation (e.g., retraining or re-employment programs). Only the former is automatically recoverable in damages. Employers should be mindful of how each expense is categorized when coordinating with WorkSafeBC or insurers.
2️⃣ Suitability and justification are key.
Courts look at whether the program funded by WorkSafeBC or an employer is reasonable and suited to the worker’s circumstances. Funding a course or retraining program that doesn’t align with an employee’s skills or interests may later be challenged as unjustified.
3️⃣ Evidence matters.
When defending or administering return-to-work plans, document the rationale for chosen programs; why they fit the worker’s condition, skills, and prospects. Courts defer to evidence-based reasoning over assumptions.
4️⃣ Collaboration reduces disputes.
Engage early with WorkSafeBC case managers, health professionals, and the worker. A coordinated, well-documented rehabilitation plan that reflects the worker’s capabilities and preferences reduces the risk of disputes or non-recoverable costs.
Takeaways for Employers
- Understand what counts as “health care.” Only expenses that directly treat or manage injury-related conditions fall under that protected category.
- Ensure vocational programs make sense. They should reflect the worker’s actual skills, interests, and employability prospects.
- Document everything. Keep detailed notes on the decision-making process for any rehabilitation or retraining expenses.
- Seek advice. When in doubt, consult your HR advisor or legal counsel about WorkSafeBC cost recovery and return-to-work strategies.
Bottom Line
The Simms v. Alzawad decision underscores a subtle but crucial distinction:
Medical care is mandatory; vocational rehabilitation is conditional.
For employers, it’s a reminder that practical, evidence-based return-to-work planning not only supports recovery — it also protects your organization from avoidable costs and disputes.
Citation: Simms v. Alzawad, 2025 BCCA 346 (CanLII)
