B. J. Martlin

The employer appealed a decision denying Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief for a worker who developed right lateral epicondylitis and subsequent psychological impairments from repetitive keyboarding and mousing.

The employer argued that the worker had pre-existing non-organic conditions that enhanced her work-related impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no evidence of a pre-existing organic or non-organic condition that enhanced the injury, concluding that the worker's psychological condition developed as a result of the disruption to her pre-injury lifestyle caused by the work-related injury.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker objected to the denial of full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits and chronic pain disability (CPD) following a 2005 workplace injury to her right thumb.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met the policy criteria for CPD, as she experienced persistent pain beyond the usual healing time that was inconsistent with organic findings and impaired her earning capacity.

However, the officer upheld the calculation of LOE benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the worker was totally disabled or unable to pursue the suitable employment identified in her labour market re-entry plan.

The objection was allowed in part.

The employer appealed a decision denying cost relief under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) for a worker's right-wrist injury.

The worker developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and had a history of non-occupational depression.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the incident history was minor and, while the recovery was prolonged, there was no evidence connecting the pre-existing depression to the prolonged recovery from the soft-tissue injury.

The appeal was dismissed and SIEF cost relief was denied.

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker initial entitlement for a low-back injury and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The worker, an agricultural worker, developed a gradual onset of back pain due to repetitive bending while picking eggs.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's impairment arose out of and in the course of his employment as a disablement.

The officer also confirmed the worker was totally disabled for the period in question, justifying the LOE benefits.

The employer's objections were denied.

The worker objected to a decision denying an increase in his permanent disability award for a 1980 bilateral lower leg injury.

The worker argued his left ankle had deteriorated, causing discomfort and instability.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including a recent orthopaedic assessment, and found that the worker's left ankle was not completely immobile, which would be required for a maximum 12 percent award under the Ontario Ratings Schedule.

The officer concluded there was no evidence of additional assessable permanent disability and confirmed the existing 17.5 percent award.

The worker appealed a claims adjudicator's decision denying initial entitlement for a low back injury allegedly sustained when lifting an 80 to 90 pound box at work.

The initial claim was denied due to delayed reporting, lack of witnesses, and the worker's ability to continue working immediately after the incident.

Despite finding the worker to be a poor historian with inconsistent testimony, the Appeals Resolution Officer relied on contemporaneous medical and employer documentation, which consistently supported the worker's account of the injury.

The appeal was allowed, granting the worker initial entitlement and loss of earnings benefits for one day.

The worker objected to a decision limiting his loss of earnings benefits to September 6, 2007, for a right arm strain sustained in August 2006.

The worker argued that his ongoing repetitive employment aggravated his condition and that his impairment continued.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the right arm strain had resolved by September 2007, and that the worker's ongoing complaints were related to an unassociated carpal tunnel syndrome condition.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for a low back injury allegedly sustained while shovelling snow at work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found significant inconsistencies in the worker's evidence regarding the date of injury and the incident history.

Medical records showed a history of degenerative disc disease and spinal stenosis but did not corroborate the worker's account of an acute workplace trauma.

The objection was denied due to insufficient evidence to establish proof of accident.

The worker, a delivery driver, appealed a decision denying entitlement for a right knee injury.

He claimed the injury developed gradually after returning to work following a prolonged absence for a non-compensable condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence that the impairment arose out of and in the course of employment, noting the worker's delay in reporting, the light workload at the time, and the lack of a specific incident.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed the closure of his labour market re-entry (LMR) services and associated loss of earnings benefits.

The WSIB had terminated the services after the worker stopped attending his academic upgrading classes and failed to maintain contact.

The worker argued that his transportation difficulties and lack of a driver's licence prevented his attendance.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker had agreed to the LMR plan despite knowing his transportation limitations and had failed to fulfill his commitments or maintain contact.

The appeal was dismissed, and the closure of LMR services was upheld.