D. Giannobile

The worker, a former police officer and dive team member, appealed a Case Manager's decision denying him entitlement to benefits for Chronic Mental Stress (CMS).

The worker claimed his psychological conditions, including anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence, resulted from cumulative exposure to traumatic events, such as recovering dead bodies, during his time as a police diver from 1986 to 1998.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal, placing significant weight on a comprehensive psychological assessment from CAMH which concluded the worker's conditions were directly attributable to his workplace trauma.

The Officer found that the worker's duties involved a high degree of routine stress and extremely dangerous circumstances, satisfying the criteria under the WSIB's CMS policy.

The worker appealed the denial of entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) and Chronic Mental Stress (CMS) following an incident where a co-worker slammed a mail tray near her, and alleged ongoing workplace harassment and bullying.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the tray-slamming incident was not objectively traumatic under the TMS policy.

Furthermore, the ongoing conflicts with co-workers, management, and the union were characterized as typical interpersonal conflicts and employment disputes, which do not meet the standard for CMS entitlement.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker, a former Child Protection Worker, appealed the denial of her claims for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) and Chronic Mental Stress (CMS) benefits.

She alleged that learning of the sudden death of an infant on her caseload and receiving a letter from her employer requiring her to participate in a 'Best Practice Review' meeting caused her severe stress and anxiety.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer's letter was not harsh or threatening, but rather a standard requirement following such events.

Furthermore, the officer concluded that hearing about the child's death remotely did not constitute an objectively traumatic event for TMS, nor a substantial work-related stressor for CMS.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker, a former Personal Support Worker, appealed the denial of Chronic Pain Disability (CPD) entitlement following a 2009 workplace injury to her left shoulder.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and found that the worker met all five criteria under WSIB policy 15-04-03.

The evidence demonstrated that the work injury caused the chronic pain, the pain lasted more than six months beyond the usual healing time, the degree of pain was inconsistent with organic findings, and the chronic pain impaired her earning capacity.

The worker's appeal was allowed.

The worker, who suffered traumatic amputations and is in receipt of a 100% permanent disability pension, appealed a decision denying payment for a home propane generator.

The worker argued the generator was necessary to maintain essential home systems, including an elevator and climate control, during power outages in his rural community.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal, finding that the generator qualifies as an independent living device and a home modification under WSIB policies, as it restores the worker's ability to communicate, be mobile, and prevent future health complications.

The worker appealed the denial of Chronic Pain Disability (CPD) entitlement following a 2005 right shoulder injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met all five criteria under Operational Policy 15-04-03, noting that the worker's chronic pain, diagnosed as fibromyalgia, was caused by the initial work injury and was inconsistent with organic findings.

The appeal was allowed and CPD entitlement was granted.

The worker, an administrator at a provincial youth correctional facility, appealed the denial of her claim for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS).

She claimed TMS resulted from the cumulative effect of four traumatic workplace incidents between 1998 and 2011, including a riot, a staff strike, threats from a dismissed employee, and perceived threats from youth inmates.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal, finding that the incidents met the threshold for TMS entitlement related to exposure to multiple sudden and traumatic events, and that the worker's PTSD and major depressive disorder diagnoses were causally related to these workplace exposures.

The worker, a building maintenance mechanic, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for bilateral knee injuries allegedly sustained at work.

The worker claimed the injuries resulted from increased kneeling and crouching while assembling warehouse racks.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient proof of an accident or a compatible diagnosis, noting the medical evidence indicated non-occupational arthritic degeneration rather than a work-related injury.

The appeal was denied.

The worker, a seasonal landscaper, suffered a left elbow repetitive strain injury and was cleared for modified work avoiding the use of his left arm.

The employer offered suitable modified work, but only on a part-time basis.

The worker refused the modified work, citing concerns about further injury, and sought full Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer met its obligation to offer suitable modified work, but because the work was not available full-time, the worker was entitled to partial LOE benefits.

The objection was allowed in part, granting full LOE benefits until the start date of the modified work offer, and partial LOE benefits thereafter until the end of the worker's contract.

The worker and employer both objected to decisions of the WSIB.

The employer objected to the initial entitlement for a left shoulder injury, while the worker objected to the reduction of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer confirmed initial entitlement, finding that the worker suffered a workplace injury that was immediately reported and medically treated.

The Officer also confirmed the reduction of LOE benefits, finding that the worker failed to cooperate in the early and safe return to work process by not attending modified duties.

The worker suffered a serious eye injury on his first day of work as a carpenter's helper at age 17.

He sought to have his pre-injury earnings recalculated based on apprentice or student status, or using a minor's rate, and also claimed entitlement for a psychotraumatic impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the requests, finding no evidence the worker was formally registered as an apprentice or student at the time of the accident.

The minor's rate did not apply because the claim was never reopened.

The psychotraumatic impairment claim was denied due to insufficient medical evidence establishing a diagnosis and its relationship to the workplace accident.

The worker appealed the denial of his claim for a lower back injury sustained while installing a kitchen cabinet.

The initial denial was based on a delay in reporting the accident to the employer and seeking medical attention.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker provided a reasonable explanation for the delays, noting that the employer repeatedly refused to acknowledge the injury or complete an accident report.

The evidence, including medical reports confirming an L5-S1 disc herniation, supported the worker's account.

The appeal was allowed, granting initial entitlement and full loss of earnings benefits.

The employer objected to the denial of Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) cost relief regarding a worker's claim for a right inguinal hernia.

The worker developed the hernia after lifting heavy castings at work.

The employer argued that the worker's pre-existing conditions, including a prior groin strain, prostate cancer, and other medical issues, contributed to the hernia or prolonged recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence that any pre-existing condition contributed to the onset of the hernia or prolonged its recovery, noting the heavy lifting at work was sufficient to be the primary cause.

The employer's request for SIEF relief was denied.