Dorothy Zaffino

The worker, a personal support worker, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a lower back injury sustained while preventing a 280-pound patient from falling.

The eligibility adjudicator had denied the claim due to delayed reporting and medical attention.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal, finding that the worker's testimony regarding the incident and the delays—attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and a belief that the pain was a flare-up of a pre-existing condition—was credible.

The Officer concluded the worker sustained a personal work-related injury that exacerbated a pre-existing lower back condition.

The worker's estate appealed the denial of loss of earnings (LOE) benefits following a temporary and subsequent permanent work disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The worker had previously been accommodated with modified office duties after a compensable hand injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied LOE benefits for the temporary disruption, finding the worker's inability to earn was due to the pandemic, not the injury.

However, for the permanent disruption, the Officer found the accommodated work was highly specific and did not exist in the general labour market.

Partial LOE benefits were granted based on the difference between pre-injury earnings and minimum wage.

The worker, a 911 communicator, appealed a case manager's decision denying entitlement for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The case manager had concluded the PTSD was caused by an assault on the worker's spouse rather than workplace exposures.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met the criteria for the first responder presumption under WSIB policy 15-03-13.

While the spousal assault contributed to the condition, the worker's exposure to traumatic calls significantly contributed to the PTSD diagnosis.

The presumption was not rebutted, and the worker's appeal was allowed.

The worker, who sustained severe injuries including a leg amputation following a work-related motor vehicle accident, objected to a decision denying entitlement to an all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

The worker requested the ATV to safely access and care for animals on their 26-acre farm, as other mobility devices were unsuitable for the uneven and wet terrain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the objection, finding that the ATV met the criteria for an independent living device under WSIB policy, as it would restore the worker's mobility and independence, and the anticipated benefits outweighed the costs and speculative safety concerns.