G. Matthew

The worker objected to a decision denying entitlement for a right knee injury sustained at work.

The worker twisted his knee while carrying a box, aggravating a pre-existing right knee impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the minor work event aggravated the pre-existing condition, leading to continuous swelling and the knee giving out.

The claim was allowed for the acute episode of the aggravation, with loss of earnings benefits granted for the post-surgical recovery period.

The worker suffered a gradual onset of bilateral wrist tendonitis from typing and using a computer mouse at work.

She continued to work with accommodations but her condition worsened.

Her treating practitioners recommended a two-week absence from work to rest and allow the inflamed tendons to heal.

The WSIB initially denied full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for this period, concluding she could have continued on modified duties.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's objection, finding that rest was an acceptable and necessary form of treatment given the circumstances, and granted full LOE benefits for the two-week period.

The employer objected to the initial allowance of a worker's claim for a back injury sustained on April 20, 2007, arguing there was insufficient proof of accident due to delayed reporting and medical attention.

The worker, a construction worker, injured his back while lifting steel joists but did not report it until April 26, 2007, and sought medical attention on April 30, 2007.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker's explanation for the delay reasonable, noting the injury was initially thought to be a minor strain that worsened with continued work.

The officer concluded that proof of accident was established and denied the employer's objection, confirming the initial allowance of the claim.

The worker sought a non-economic loss (NEL) benefit for a right elbow injury originally sustained in 1999.

The worker underwent right ulnar nerve transposition surgery in 2001, which was accepted as related to the original injury.

However, subsequent medical testing, including an EMG and MRI, revealed that the worker's ongoing symptoms were caused by a non-work-related degenerative condition in the cervical spine.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no evidence of a continued work-related permanent impairment of the right elbow and denied the worker's objection.

The worker objected to the wage rate used to calculate his final Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefit following a workplace injury.

The WSIB had used the high-end wage rate for a security guard in Peterborough.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the objection in part, finding that while the worker's final LOE benefit was correctly adjusted to the earnings of an experienced worker, the use of the maximum wage rate was inappropriate given his lack of experience and education.

The Officer directed that the final LOE benefit be based on updated mid-range wages for a security guard in the Quinte area, which more closely matched the worker's vocational profile and geographic location.