The Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board has been told again it must reinstate the benefits of an injured worker who was cut off from help three years ago.

The injury happened in 1995 when the man, now 54, was working as a hunting guide and was kicked on the hand by a horse. His name is not being released.

In June 2009, the man's benefits were cut off after an investigation by the board which included video surveillance.

Three years later, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal overturned that decision, ruling that the board investigator was overstepping his authority by beginning surveillance two years after his claim was closed.

But the board asked the committee to review the case again. It claimed it did not consider all the evidence from the investigation and did not provide adequate reasons for its ruling.

But in its latest decision, released this week, the appeals tribunal comes to the same conclusion it did the first time.

It ruled the man, who now lives on a remote farm in northern Alberta, did not knowingly provide false information to the board, that he continues to suffer from a loss of earnings capacity, and that he is entitled to compensation back to 2009.

The 50-page document makes no reference to exactly how much the man is owed.

Representatives for the workers' compensation board insisted the tribunal did not take into account all of the evidence before making its decision.

They point to activities like using a pitch fork, opening doors, caring for horses and carrying wood as signs the man would be able to return to the type of work he did before his injury.

The tribunal disagrees.

It ruled that the evidence "does not offer proof to us, on the balance of probabilities, the worker can return to his pre-accident employment as a hunting guide,” the decision says.

"The video surveillance does not provide evidence the worker undertook any activities for a sustained length of time.”

The tribunal notes that the heaviest item the man is shown using is a 40-lb. box liner, which he drags, not lifts, for only a few seconds before having to put it down.

The board also argued that the original appeal tribunal showed "potential bias against the investigators.”

In the original decision, appeal committee did not give any weight to the investigator's statements.

They found that "the investigator did not follow the board's policy and conduct himself in a professional manner. His report is rife with conjecture, personal opinions and incorrect reporting,” they said at the time.

In the latest decision, the committee admits it could have worded things differently, but says it is within its right to analyze the investigator's reporting and conclusions.