F. Bruno

The employer appealed a case manager's decision denying Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) cost relief following a worker's left knee injury.

The employer argued that the worker's popliteus tendonitis, thalassemia, and improper body mechanics constituted pre-existing conditions that delayed recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding no medical evidence that a pre-existing condition prolonged or enhanced the worker's recovery, and noting that the popliteus tendonitis was accepted as part of the compensable injury.

The worker objected to the calculation of her Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award for a psychotraumatic disability, arguing that the 13% rating did not reflect the severity of her condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and WSIB Operational Policy 18-05-11, concluding that the worker's condition met the criteria for the lower range of a Class 3 moderate impairment.

The officer confirmed that the 20% psychotraumatic impairment rating was correctly combined with the worker's existing 33% organic impairment rating using the AMA Guides, resulting in a 46% overall NEL award.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker, a car haul truck driver, objected to a decision denying initial entitlement for a left shoulder injury allegedly sustained while repairing a truck on the side of the road.

The worker continued to work and delayed seeking medical attention for three weeks, believing he had only pulled a muscle.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker credible, noting he reported the incident to the employer immediately and sought medical attention when symptoms persisted.

The objection was allowed, and initial entitlement for a left shoulder strain and possible rotator cuff tear was confirmed.

The worker suffered a workplace injury in 2008 and was granted a permanent impairment award and partial Loss of Earnings benefits.

The worker sought to appeal an October 18, 2010 decision regarding his benefits, but failed to do so within the legislative time limit.

The worker requested an extension of time to appeal, citing depression, confusion, and a lack of medical resources.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the request, finding no compelling personal reasons or exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of the time limit.

The worker objected to a decision basing her partial loss of earnings (LOE) benefits on deemed suitable employment or business (SEB) earnings of $13.00 per hour at 40 hours per week, rather than her actual part-time earnings as a law clerk.

The worker argued she was unable to work full-time due to her compensable shoulder and neck injuries.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the approved labour market re-entry plan indicated the worker was capable of a 40-hour work week.

Because the worker was not working full-time, she was considered underemployed under Board policy, and deemed earnings were correctly applied.

The worker, a self-employed tile-setter, suffered a low back injury and was initially granted benefits based on a personal-coverage rate of $28,000 per year.

The WSIB later adjusted his earnings basis to reflect his actual pre-accident earnings, which were significantly lower, resulting in an overpayment and a finding of no ongoing wage loss for future economic loss (FEL) benefits.

The worker objected to the adjustment of his earnings basis and the denial of ongoing FEL benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objections, finding that the personal-coverage amount did not reflect a bona fide estimate of the worker's actual earnings, and that the worker had been provided with adequate vocational rehabilitation services to restore his earnings capacity.

The worker appealed the denial of psychotraumatic disability entitlement following a 1998 workplace injury to his low back and shoulder.

The worker argued his psychological condition was related to chronic pain and socioeconomic factors stemming from the injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's emotional difficulties and diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder were primarily related to non-compensable factors, specifically a home invasion and criminal charges, rather than the workplace injury.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker objected to a case manager's decision limiting loss of earnings (LOE) benefits to the period of October 17 to 23, 2006, seeking ongoing benefits from December 2, 2006.

The worker had suffered a workplace injury on October 11, 2006, when he stepped in a manhole cover, aggravating a pre-existing low back condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the aggravation from the workplace accident had resolved by November 9, 2006, when the worker self-discharged from a program of care and returned to modified duties.

The sudden onset of back pain on December 2, 2006, was determined to be causally related to the worker's significant pre-existing back condition rather than the October workplace accident.

The worker's objection was denied.