D. Duguay

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying her claim for benefits under the Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) policy.

The worker alleged she developed post-traumatic stress disorder and bilateral shoulder trauma after being grabbed from behind by her supervisor.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker's evidence credible, corroborated by a co-worker and medical reports.

The incident was deemed an unexpected traumatic event arising out of employment.

The appeal was allowed, granting the worker loss of earnings benefits from May 19, 2014, to September 12, 2014, with further entitlement remitted to the operating area.

The worker suffered burns to his hands and forearm in a workplace accident and subsequently returned to modified duties.

He later participated in a Burn Specialty Program, but the Case Manager denied an extension of this treatment and concluded the worker was capable of full-time modified duties, denying further loss of earnings benefits.

The worker appealed.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that the worker's condition had not significantly improved during the initial treatment period, making further treatment unwarranted.

Additionally, the medical evidence supported that the worker was capable of performing the available modified duties on a full-time basis within his precautions.

The worker, a personal support worker, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a left shoulder injury allegedly sustained while transferring a resident.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence to establish proof of an accident, noting that the worker did not report the incident, continued regular duties without complaint, and delayed seeking medical attention for almost three months.

The worker's objection was denied.

The employer objected to a Case Manager's decision denying claim cost relief under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) Policy.

The worker sustained a left knee strain at work while pulling shopping carts.

The employer argued that the worker's pre-existing osteoarthritis and possible meniscus tear caused or contributed to the injury and prolonged recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the accident was of moderate severity and that the worker's recovery was not prolonged by the minor pre-existing condition.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker injured his left leg at work and received loss of earnings benefits.

The Case Manager terminated benefits effective August 12, 2009, concluding the worker was capable of returning to work without restrictions based on a physiotherapist's report.

The worker objected, claiming he was unable to return to regular duties until November 16, 2009.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding insufficient evidence to support the worker's claim of ongoing impairment, as the physiotherapist and a specialist both confirmed he was capable of returning to work without restrictions.

The worker, a meter reader, appealed a Claims Adjudicator's decision denying entitlement to benefits for low back, right hip, and right leg pain.

The worker alleged the injuries resulted from the repetitive walking and driving required by his job.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, which indicated a history of back pain predating the employment and various sports injuries.

Relying on a medical consultant's opinion that the work duties were not a major contributor to the pathology, the Officer concluded there was insufficient evidence of a workplace accident or that the work duties caused or accelerated the injuries.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker objected to a decision denying him loss of earnings (LOE) benefits following a right shoulder injury.

The worker claimed he was unable to perform modified duties because the pain medication he was prescribed prevented him from driving to work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was unfit for work immediately following the accident and granted LOE benefits up to July 11, 2007.

However, the Officer concluded that beyond July 11, 2007, the worker was capable of performing modified duties, was aware they were available, and could have resolved the non-work-related barriers to his return to work.

The objection was allowed in part.

The worker suffered a right knee and ankle injury after falling from a truck.

The employer requested cost relief under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF), arguing that the worker's recovery was prolonged by a pre-existing degenerative condition in the ankle.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the medical evidence, including x-rays taken immediately after the accident, did not demonstrate a pre-existing condition.

The degenerative changes and disuse osteoporosis were found to be consistent with the injuries sustained in the work accident.