C. da Cunha

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker initial entitlement for a work-related COVID-19 infection.

The worker had interacted indoors with a COVID-19 positive co-worker on three occasions.

The employer argued that transmission was more likely community-acquired due to stringent workplace safety measures.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the workplace exposure was more likely than not the source of the infection, noting the absence of non-occupational exposure.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker appealed the denial of initial entitlement for a right foot tendon tear sustained while carrying a heavy parcel during an understaffed shift.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the injury was a disablement resulting from an unexpected increase in physical demands.

Relying on a WSIB Medical Consultant's opinion that the injury was compatible with the accident history despite underlying degenerative changes, the Officer allowed the appeal and granted initial entitlement.

The worker appealed decisions denying entitlement to a psychotraumatic disability and funding for Bandito masks related to two separate workplace accidents: a smoke inhalation injury (claim A) and a right wrist crush injury (claim B).

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder manifested within five years of the wrist injury and were directly related to the extended disablement and socioeconomic impacts of the work-related injuries.

Consequently, entitlement to a psychotraumatic disability was granted under claim B and denied under claim A. The Officer also granted funding for two Bandito masks under claim A, finding them to be necessary and appropriate health care equipment that improved the worker's independent living.

The worker appealed the denial of her claim for chronic mental stress (CMS) and traumatic mental stress (TMS) arising from a five to seven-year history of sexual harassment by her Production Manager, culminating in a threat of rape.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and major depressive disorder, and that the harassment constituted a substantial work-related stressor under the CMS policy.

The employer's investigation was found to be flawed and the worker's delay in reporting was reasonably explained by fear and vulnerability.

The appeal was allowed for CMS, but denied for TMS as the events prior to the threat were not precisely identifiable and the worker did not subjectively perceive the threat as objectively traumatic.

The worker appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a C7-T1 disc herniation and subsequent surgery, which he claimed resulted from a 2010 workplace fall from an ambulance roof.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker had a significant pre-existing cervical spine condition and had not reported neck symptoms or sought medical attention for his neck for over a year following the accident.

Given the lack of continuity of complaint and a significant intervening event at a new job, the tribunal concluded the disc herniation was not related to the 2010 workplace accident.

The appeal was dismissed.

The employer objected to a WSIB account specialist's decision classifying its business under the mandatory construction rate group for Construction Project Management, rather than the by-application rate group for Miscellaneous Business Services (interior design).

The employer argued it provided only interior design services and did not manage construction projects.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the employer's website and statements, finding that its services extended beyond design to include tendering, site coordination, and construction administration.

The appeal was denied, and the classification as Construction Project Management was upheld.

The employer objected to a field auditor's decision denying an extension of time to appeal earlier classification decisions from 2008 and 2012.

The employer argued that it did not receive actual notice of the time limits and that the WSIB made an egregious error in classifying its business activities, resulting in significant premium overcharges.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer was provided with clear notice of the six-month appeal time limits in the original decision letters.

The Officer concluded that the circumstances were not exceptional and denied the request for an extension of time.

The objecting party, a company that hired a general contractor for a furnace rebuild, appealed a decision transferring 100% of the claim costs for a worker's injury to its account.

The worker, employed by a subcontractor, was injured when wrong-sized J-hooks caused a furnace roof to sag.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the objecting party and the general contractor did not owe a duty of care to the worker.

Furthermore, the subcontractor who installed the J-hooks did not breach its duty of care because the employer was contractually responsible for inspecting the equipment.

The objection was allowed, and the employer was held responsible for 100% of the claim costs.

The worker, a caseworker, appealed a decision denying her initial entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) after a former client yelled profanities at her from a passing taxicab while she was walking to work.

The worker claimed the client uttered a death threat, which caused her to develop post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker was in the course of employment during the incident, the event was not a sudden and unexpected traumatic event under the TMS policy.

The evidence did not support that a death threat was made, and verbal abuse was an inherent risk in the worker's job.

The appeal was dismissed.

The employer appealed the reconciliation debt interest (RDI), premium not reported (PNR), and period reconciliation not reported (PRNR) charges levied by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014.

The employer argued it was unaware of its registration obligations prior to being contacted by the Board.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part, rescinding the PRNR penalty based on a prior assurance from the Board, and reducing the PNR penalty to 10% of the annual actual premium assessment as the original amount was deemed unreasonable.

The RDI charges were upheld as the employer was compulsorily covered and premiums were due but unpaid, with no valid policy grounds for revocation.

The employer, TUV, sought to transfer 100% of the costs of a workplace accident claim to the respondent, Company XYZ.

The worker was injured when pressurized oil shot out of a flange he was loosening on a machine assembled by TUV but designed and overseen by XYZ.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's actions and TUV's failure to secure detailed written instructions or properly identify hazards were the proximal causes of the accident.

The respondent was found not to have breached its duty of care, and the request for a transfer of costs was denied.

The worker, a police officer, fractured his right ankle while playing in a recreational ice hockey league during an approved, extended 90-minute lunch break.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer denied initial entitlement to benefits, finding that while the time and place criteria were met due to the supervisor's approval, the activity itself was not work-related.

The hockey game was a personal, recreational pursuit that constituted a significant departure from the worker's essential duties, and the employer derived no direct benefit from it.

The worker's objection was denied.

The employer objected to decisions granting the worker a 4% NEL award for a left shoulder permanent impairment, psychotraumatic disability entitlement, and related psychological treatment, as well as a decision granting the employer only 25% SIEF cost relief.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker suffered a permanent impairment to her left shoulder as a direct result of the workplace accident and that her pre-existing psychological impairment was temporarily aggravated by the injury.

The officer confirmed the NEL award and psychotraumatic entitlement.

However, the officer increased the SIEF cost relief to 75%, finding that the combination of the worker's pre-existing psychological condition and extensive pre-existing degenerative changes in her shoulder constituted a major-severity pre-existing condition combined with a moderate-severity accident.