D. Bowker

The worker and employer both appealed decisions regarding the worker's entitlement to benefits following a right shoulder injury.

The worker sought loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from March 2020 onward and an increased non-economic loss (NEL) quantum for chronic pain.

The employer appealed the granting of psychotraumatic and chronic pain disability entitlements.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker was entitled to full LOE benefits for a closed period and partial LOE benefits thereafter, as the modified duties offered were initially unsuitable.

The 10% NEL rating was maintained as the clinical evidence did not support a higher impairment class.

Finally, the worker's psychological condition was determined to be somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, qualifying for chronic pain disability rather than psychotraumatic disability.

The worker appealed a case manager's decision denying initial entitlement for bilateral shoulder and cervical spine injuries, secondary entitlement to a cervical spine injury, and loss of earnings benefits beyond September 2009.

The worker had an established 2005 claim for a low back injury after jumping from a height.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no proof of accident for the neck or shoulder injuries, noting a lack of reporting or medical attention for these areas until many years after the workplace injury.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed a case manager's decision to adjust their loss of earnings (LOE) benefits based on updated entry-level wages for the suitable occupation of Customer Service Representative.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the updated entry-level wage of $16.55 per hour represented a material change of more than 10% from the previous $14.00 per hour rate.

The worker's objection was denied, and the adjustment of LOE benefits was confirmed.

The worker, a frame assembler for a window and door manufacturer, appealed the denial of initial entitlement for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

The worker claimed the condition developed gradually over five to six years due to repetitive and forceful use of clamps and vibratory tools.

The employer argued the job duties were routine and did not involve awkward postures.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker's testimony credible and detailed, concluding that the repetitive and forceful hand movements required to assemble windows were a significant contributing factor to the development of CTS.

The worker's objection was allowed and initial entitlement to bilateral CTS was granted.

The worker objected to a decision granting a 10% non-economic loss (NEL) permanent impairment rating for sleep apnea resulting from a workplace injury.

The worker sought an increase to 20%, arguing that severe sleep apnea significantly impacted their daily functioning and cognitive abilities.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the worker's limitations were already captured in their psychological impairment rating and there was no clinical evidence requiring supervision for activities of daily living, as required for a 20% rating under the AMA Guides.

The worker objected to a 2007 decision by a claims adjudicator that determined the suitable employment or business categories for their labour market re-entry (LMR) plan were Customer Service in Retail Establishment and Administrative Support Clerk.

The worker argued that non-occupational injuries and conditions were not considered when they were referred for the LMR plan.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the contemporaneous evidence from 2007 did not support that the worker required limitations for their non-occupational conditions or that these conditions rendered them incapable of participating in LMR services.

The LMR plan was deemed suitable and appropriate based on the worker's functional abilities known at the time.

The worker appealed a case manager's decision denying entitlement to traumatic mental stress and chronic mental stress benefits because the claim was filed outside the time limit.

The worker experienced a traumatic workplace incident in March 2016 but did not file a claim until October 2021.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the transitional provisions for mental stress policies required claims to be filed on or before July 1, 2018, and unlike general time limit policies, these transitional provisions do not contain discretionary authority to extend the deadline.

The appeal was denied.