K. Hille

The worker suffered a left hand injury at work, resulting in a permanent impairment.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board awarded a 4% non-economic loss (NEL) rating based on the American Medical Association Guides.

The worker appealed, arguing the quantum should be greater due to ongoing problems with her whole hand and arm.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding the 4% rating was correctly calculated based on the accepted area of injury (the left small finger) and the objective medical evidence.

The worker objected to the denial of a non-economic loss (NEL) redetermination for a 1995 low back injury.

The worker had previously been awarded a 30% NEL for the impairment.

The worker argued that his condition had deteriorated over the past two years, citing increased pain, altered medication, and reduced functional abilities.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and found an absence of objective clinical findings to support a permanent significant deterioration in the work-related impairment.

The objection was denied.

The worker objected to the closure of labour market re-entry (LMR) services and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits following a left shoulder injury.

The Case Manager terminated the services because the worker failed two courses and demonstrated non-cooperation through frequent absences and failure to complete assignments.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was provided ample opportunity to succeed but failed to fulfill his obligations to fully participate in the LMR program.

The objection was denied, and no further LOE benefits were awarded.

The worker objected to a decision denying an extension of the time limit to appeal a 2004 decision that denied entitlement to a psychotraumatic impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that a letter submitted by the worker in June 2004, titled 'Appeal' and referencing the denial of anti-depressant medication, implied an intent to appeal the psychotraumatic impairment decision.

As this letter was received within the six-month statutory time limit, the worker met the time limit to appeal, and an extension was not required.

The objection was allowed.

The worker, an auto mechanic, suffered a right wrist sprain at work and sought loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for a period off work.

The adjudicator denied the benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence of an impairment preventing work.

The worker objected.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the initial medical report indicated no task limitations, and subsequent reports from the worker's GP did not provide objective medical evidence to support an inability to work.

The objection was denied.

The employer objected to a decision denying entitlement to cost relief under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) for a worker's compensable left knee injury.

The employer argued that the worker's weight and pre-existing degenerative knee condition contributed to the accident and prolonged recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker recovered within the expected timeframe following surgery, and that the acute meniscus tear was caused by a twisting incident at work, not the worker's weight or pre-existing degenerative changes.

The objection was denied.