L. Diaz

The worker suffered a workplace injury after falling from scaffolding, sustaining bilateral wrist fractures and a concussion.

The Case Manager determined the worker reached Maximum Medical Recovery (MMR) for the concussion without a permanent impairment.

The worker objected to this decision.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including assessments from the Neurology Specialty Program, and found that the worker's ongoing symptoms were predominantly psychological and related to an accepted psychological condition for which they were already receiving benefits.

The appeal was denied, confirming the worker reached MMR for the concussion without a permanent impairment.

The worker, a police officer, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a right chest injury (breast cellulitis) attributed to wearing a police vest.

The worker had a pre-existing condition due to a prior lumpectomy.

The Appeals Resolution Officer applied the five-point check system and the thin skull doctrine, finding that the worker sustained a personal work-related injury and that the accident history was compatible with the diagnosis.

The worker's objection was allowed, granting entitlement for right breast cellulitis, with the issue of loss of earnings benefits deferred to the operating area.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for bladder cancer and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The worker argued the bladder cancer was caused by occupational exposures in the petrochemical industry or by radiation treatment for a previously accepted follicular lymphoma claim.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that occupational exposures or the limited radiation treatment significantly contributed to the bladder cancer, noting the worker's smoking history as a major risk factor.

The claim for LOE benefits was also denied as the worker retired without functional limitations from the accepted lymphoma, and the bladder cancer was deemed non-compensable.

The worker, a front-line police officer, appealed a decision denying entitlement for an adverse reaction (EGPA) stemming from an employer-arranged COVID-19 vaccination.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that although the vaccine was not strictly mandatory at the time, the employer strongly encouraged it, arranged the clinic during work hours, and imposed negative consequences for non-compliance.

The tribunal concluded the vaccination was an activity incidental to employment and granted initial entitlement for the adverse reaction.

The employer objected to an adjudicator's decisions finding that the worker met the six-month deadline to claim for benefits and granting initial entitlement for bilateral hand irritant contact dermatitis.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the employer's objection.

The Officer found that for a disablement claim, the six-month time limit begins when the worker learns the condition is work-related, which occurred in March 2019, making the May 2019 claim timely.

Furthermore, relying on specialist medical opinions, the Officer concluded that the worker's occupational exposures to grease, oil, and rosewater significantly contributed to the development of the dermatitis.

The worker, a sales development representative, suffered facial scarring and psychological impairments (PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder) after being bitten by a dog at work.

They returned to modified duties but were permanently laid off in February 2020.

The Case Manager denied ongoing loss of earnings (LOE) benefits, concluding the wage loss was due to the lay-off rather than the injury.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker remained partially impaired from a psychological perspective at the time of the lay-off, which affected their ability to fully restore their pre-injury earnings.

The worker's objection was allowed in part, granting ongoing partial LOE benefits from the date of the lay-off until they secured new employment in November 2020.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for colon cancer, alleging it resulted from occupational exposures to chemicals and asbestos while employed in the rubber industry from 1954 to 1989.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed medical and occupational hygiene evidence, including opinions from Occupational Medical Consultants and OHCOW.

The ARO found that the epidemiological evidence did not establish a significant association between rubber industry work and colon cancer.

The appeal was dismissed, as it was not shown that the worker's occupational exposures significantly contributed to the development of the disease.

The worker appealed an adjudicator's decision denying initial entitlement for a vertebral artery dissection leading to a stroke, which the worker alleged was caused by bumping their head and neck while repairing a radiator in a tight workspace.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker likely experienced minor bumps, the medical evidence and the delay in symptom onset did not support that the workplace activities were a significant contributing factor to the dissection.

Given the worker's significant pre-existing risk factors for stroke, the appeal was dismissed.

The worker's Estate appealed a decision denying entitlement to Survivor benefits.

The worker had a combined 100% permanent disability benefit across two separate claims for workplace injuries sustained in 1970 and 1977.

The worker passed away in 2019 from causes unrelated to the compensable injuries.

The Estate argued for entitlement based on a prior WSIAT decision.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that under the applicable Operational Policy Manual policy (20-03-16), a survivor is only entitled to benefits if the worker had a 100% permanent disability benefit in a single claim.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement to benefits for a basal ganglia haemorrhagic stroke following a fall at work.

The worker alleged the stroke was caused by striking their head on the floor during the fall.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed medical evidence, including opinions from treating specialists and an external neurological consultant, which concluded the stroke was caused by pre-existing hypertension and anticoagulant therapy, and that the fall was a result of the stroke, not the cause.

The appeal was dismissed as the diagnosis was not compatible with the accident history.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement to bilateral adhesive otitis media as a recurrence of a 1983 workplace injury (right ear barotrauma).

The worker argued the condition was caused by repeated barotrauma exposures from mine cage descents.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the bilateral condition was not medically compatible with the original unilateral injury.

Relying on contemporaneous medical reports indicating the worker had bilateral ear problems since childhood, the Officer concluded the condition was unrelated to the compensable event and dismissed the appeal.

The worker appealed decisions regarding entitlement to Psychotraumatic Disability on a permanent basis and full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for two periods.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal.

Entitlement to permanent Psychotraumatic Disability was deferred because the worker failed to provide requested pre-injury medical records, which were necessary given evidence of a pre-existing psychological condition.

Full LOE benefits were denied for both periods because the medical evidence established that the worker was only partially impaired and remained capable of performing suitable work within their physical restrictions.

The employer objected to the Eligibility Adjudicator's decision granting the worker, a registered nurse, initial entitlement for COVID-19.

The employer argued that the worker's non-occupational exposure to their COVID-19 positive daughter was the more probable cause of infection.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker had significant occupational exposure to COVID-19 patients within the incubation period and that the nature of the employment created an elevated risk of contracting the disease.

The Officer concluded that it was more probable than not that the circumstances of the worker's employment significantly contributed to the development of COVID-19, and denied the employer's objection.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision granting the worker entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) benefits.

The worker, a driver, was verbally assaulted and threatened by a temporary co-worker while on a paid coffee break outside the employer's premises.

The employer argued the worker had removed themselves from the course of employment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that the worker was required to leave the premises for their duties and was on a paid break, thus remaining in the course of employment.

The event was objectively traumatic, satisfying the criteria for TMS.

The employer objected to an Eligibility Adjudicator's decision granting the worker entitlement for a COVID-19 infection.

The worker, a senior electrician, tested positive for COVID-19 following an outbreak among maintenance staff at the workplace.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the nature of the worker's employment created a greater risk of contracting the illness compared to the general community, and that the infection was more likely than not acquired at work.

The employer's objection was denied and the worker's entitlement to benefits was upheld.

The worker appealed a decision denying their claim for benefits for a lower back injury on the basis that it was not reported within the six-month time limit.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that because the injury was a gradual onset disablement, the six-month deadline began from the date the worker reported the disablement as work-related.

The worker first reported the injury to the WSIB on October 29, 2018, which was within the requisite timeframe.

The worker's objection was allowed, and the time limit was met.

The worker, a police officer, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a heart condition (myocardial infarction) allegedly caused by acute emotional stress from an internal investigation.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the stress did not meet the policy criteria for 'acute emotional stress' because the investigation was ongoing and not a sudden, unexpected event.

Furthermore, medical evidence showed the worker had experienced similar cardiac symptoms weeks prior to the specific meeting in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

The employer objected to the Eligibility Adjudicator's decision granting the worker initial entitlement for COVID-19.

The worker, a warehouse package handler and driver, tested positive for COVID-19.

The employer argued the worker's exposure was not higher than the general public's and noted a lack of medical documentation.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that multiple COVID-19 cases at the worksite and the worker's limited community exposure made it more probable than not that the infection was work-related.

The lack of formal medical evidence was deemed acceptable given public health guidance at the time.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a right shoulder injury.

The worker claimed he sustained a new tear to his right shoulder while pulling chains at work, following a return to modified duties after a non-compensable shoulder surgery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's testimony regarding the specific incident was inconsistent and not supported by medical reporting.

The medical evidence indicated the worker's ongoing shoulder problems were likely a continuation of his pre-existing condition due to non-compliance with post-operative restrictions.

The appeal was denied as the worker failed to establish proof of accident and compatibility of diagnosis.

The worker suffered a compensable back injury and was later offered modified indoor work at the employer's shop.

After attempting the commute for three days, the worker stopped working, citing the lengthy drive home which exacerbated his back condition.

The Case Manager determined the work was suitable and denied further loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the duties themselves were suitable, the commute home took up to two hours and violated the worker's permanent medical precaution against prolonged sitting.

The modified work was therefore deemed unsuitable, and the worker was granted full LOE benefits from January 7, 2017, until his retirement in May 2017.