C. Anzil

The worker suffered a workplace injury resulting in the amputation of soft tissues distal to the left fifth distal phalanx.

The WSIB determined the worker had achieved maximum medical recovery (MMR) with a permanent impairment but no ongoing physical restrictions.

The worker objected, arguing they continued to require modified work restrictions.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding no medical evidence to support ongoing permanent physical limitations beyond the MMR date, as the worker had returned to work at no wage loss and was progressing to full duties.

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker full Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits for a three-day period following a workplace low back injury.

The employer argued that it had offered modified work on the date of injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the initial offer of modified work was made prior to a medical assessment and was outside the scope of the worker's physical limitations as determined by the treating physician.

The modified work was therefore not suitable.

The allowance of full LOE benefits was confirmed and the employer's objection was denied.

The worker objected to the denial of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefit payments from May 24, 2001, following a prior workplace injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker had returned to modified work and essentially restored his pre-injury earnings prior to a subsequent injury on May 24, 2001.

Because the worker was not experiencing a loss of earnings from the prior injury at the time the second injury occurred, the objection was denied and the denial of LOE benefits was confirmed.

The worker suffered a compensable left shoulder injury and later sought entitlement for secondary injuries to her neck and right shoulder, as well as for regional pain syndrome.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no causal link between the secondary areas of injury and the work-related left shoulder injury.

The medical evidence did not support the diagnosis of regional pain syndrome as being compatible with the work injury.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed decisions regarding the time limit to appeal a 1996 decision, the denial of Section 147(4) supplementary benefits for a period in 1995, and the denial of coverage for a duragesic (fentanyl) patch.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the extension of the time limit to appeal, finding exceptional circumstances.

The Officer also allowed the appeal for Section 147(4) benefits, finding it reasonable that the worker was totally disabled due to both compensable and non-compensable conditions during the period in question.

However, the Officer denied the request for duragesic patch coverage, finding no medical evidence of a significant deterioration warranting the change in medication or that it would improve the worker's level of function.

The worker appealed the denial of initial entitlement for a low back injury allegedly sustained while filling drill holes with emulsion at a quarry.

The worker claimed a specific accident occurred when pulling a jammed hose, but the Appeals Resolution Officer found inconsistencies in the worker's reporting and a lack of medical evidence corroborating a work-related accident history.

The worker had a pre-existing history of back pain and failed to report the injury to the employer or seek immediate medical attention.

The objection was denied, and the denial of initial entitlement was upheld.

The worker objected to the suitability of the Suitable and Available Employment or Business (SEB) of Private Investigator and the earnings used to calculate his Future Economic Loss (FEL) benefits at the first and final reviews.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the SEB was appropriate and within the worker's physical restrictions, which remained unchanged despite an increase in his Non-Economic Loss (NEL) quantum.

The Officer also determined that the earnings used to calculate the FEL benefits were appropriate and in accordance with applicable policies, noting the worker's failure to mitigate his wage loss after relocating.

The worker's objections were denied.

The employer objected to the allowance of initial entitlement for a low back injury and the payment of full Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits from December 24, 2008, due to a recurrence.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker suffered a compensable unaccustomed strain to the low back due to delivering mail in snowy conditions.

The Officer also upheld the recurrence, finding that the worker was totally disabled and unable to perform the modified work offered by the employer after December 24, 2008.

The employer's objection was denied, and LOE benefits were upheld up to May 5, 2009, when a non-compensable heart condition arose.