F. J. Mackin

The worker, a 75-year-old former crane operator, claimed entitlement for occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) due to exposure to hazardous noise between 1964 and 1974.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker's hearing loss met the clinical requirements, his noise exposure did not meet the WSIB's minimum threshold of 90 dB for 8 hours per day for 5 years or its equivalent.

The worker's objection was denied.

The employer objected to a claims adjudicator's decision extending a worker's labour market re-entry (LMR) plan from May 2007 to October 2007.

The employer argued that the Board failed to consult it before extending the plan.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that while the Act requires consultation for the initial preparation of an LMR plan, it does not require consultation for subsequent amendments.

The failure to consult the employer regarding the extension was deemed an administrative error with no statutory remedy, and there was no evidence that consultation would have changed the outcome.

The worker appealed a claims adjudicator's decision denying initial entitlement for a cervical spine injury.

The worker testified that a co-worker fell through a revolving door frame and landed on his head, while the employer's report stated only a piece of aluminum fell.

The Appeals Resolution Officer accepted the worker's sworn testimony over the employer's hearsay report, noting the co-worker did not deny the fall but merely could not remember it.

The worker's delayed medical attention was reasonably explained by his attempt to continue working using home remedies.

The appeal was allowed, and initial entitlement for the cervical spine injury was granted.

The worker appealed a claims adjudicator's decision denying initial entitlement for a left knee injury.

The claim was initially denied due to a lack of witnesses, no lost time, and delayed reporting.

On appeal, the worker provided a sworn affidavit from the restaurant manager confirming she witnessed the injury and the worker's subsequent complaints of pain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found this constituted sufficient proof of the accident and immediate reporting to the employer.

The appeal was allowed and entitlement for the left knee injury was accepted.

The worker objected to a case manager's decision basing his loss of earnings benefits on projected earnings in a protective service occupation.

The worker agreed the occupation was within his physical abilities but argued he required further training and upgrading.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's extensive prior education, training, and experience in security and police foundations made him well qualified for the occupation without further training.

The objection was denied.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying entitlement for a low back injury flare-up in May 2009.

The worker had previously suffered a herniated disc in 2004 while unloading heavy bags at work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the 2009 incident, which occurred while the worker was simply getting up from a chair, was not a significant new work-related accident.

Instead, based on medical evidence and the worker's ongoing symptoms, the flare-up was clinically compatible with the 2004 injury.

The objection was allowed, and the 2009 flare-up was accepted as a recurrence of the 2004 claim, entitling the worker to loss of earnings benefits and a non-economic loss assessment.

The employer objected to the date of injury established for the worker's gradual onset bilateral elbow injury.

The case manager had set the date as January 18, 2007, when the worker first reported the injury and sought medical attention.

The employer argued for an earlier date based on when symptoms first appeared in December 2006.

The Appeals Resolution Officer applied the operational policy in effect at the time, which defined the date of injury as the date the worker suffers the impairment.

The officer found that the earlier symptoms did not constitute a disabling physical or functional abnormality, and confirmed January 18, 2007 as the correct date of injury.

The employer's objection was denied.