L. Diaz

The worker suffered a right hand injury resulting in finger amputations and subsequently developed major depressive disorder.

After being referred for Work Transition services, a Suitable Occupation (SO) of Light Delivery Driver was selected.

The worker objected, arguing he was totally unemployable and fearful of driving.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the SO was within the worker's physical and psychological precautions, and that the worker had demonstrated the ability to drive by commuting to therapy.

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker entitlement for a medial meniscus tear, rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament, and related surgery following a workplace injury.

The employer argued the worker's reporting of the accident history was inconsistent and incompatible with the diagnoses.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker's reporting was consistent and, relying on medical opinions, concluded the mechanism of injury was compatible with the diagnoses.

The employer's objection was denied and entitlement was upheld.

The worker appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a right shoulder injury, specifically a rotator cuff tear and AC joint arthritis.

The worker argued the injury resulted from 30 years of operating an excavator and performing other manual duties.

The Appeals Resolution Officer applied the five-point check system and found the diagnosis was not compatible with the accident history.

Relying on an Occupational Medical Consultant's opinion, the ARO concluded the condition was consistent with natural degenerative processes and the worker's duties did not involve the constant overhead activity required to cause the injury.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker appealed a decision that permanently restricted her from exposure to all epoxies following an accepted claim for allergic contact dermatitis.

The worker and employer contended the restriction should only apply to epoxy L-5105, as she had not reacted to other epoxies.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that the medical evidence confirmed an allergy to epoxy resin in general and did not distinguish between specific types of epoxy.

The restriction avoiding all epoxy exposure was upheld.

The worker's spouse objected to a recoverable overpayment created when her eldest child retroactively received Survivors' benefits for attending post-secondary education.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer found that the total benefits payable to all survivors cannot exceed 85% of the worker's net average earnings.

Because the spouse had already received the maximum 85% during the retroactive period, diverting 10% to the child correctly resulted in a corresponding overpayment debt for the spouse.

The objection was denied.

The worker, a dietary aid, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a low back injury sustained while pushing a heavy rack of dishes through a dishwasher.

The initial decision denied the claim on the basis that the worker was not performing an unusual or awkward movement.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the evidence, including an MSD Hazard Identification Worksheet and confirmation from the employer's Occupational Health Co-ordinator, which supported that the task was heavy and required an awkward posture.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met the five-point check system criteria for an allowable claim under WSIB policy and granted initial entitlement for a low back strain, directing the operating area to determine entitlement to loss of earnings benefits.

The worker suffered a compensable low back injury in 1979.

In 2009, he fractured his left heel, claiming his left leg gave out due to his back condition, causing him to fall.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied entitlement for the left calcaneus fracture as a secondary condition, finding no causal link between the back impairment and the heel fracture, noting inconsistencies in the accident history and the lack of an accepted left leg condition or spinal stenosis.

The worker appealed the denial of entitlement for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) related to his employment as a production trainee from 1975 to 1978.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's occupational exposures were not a significant contributing factor to his hearing loss.

The decision was based on a 30-year gap between the worker's last exposure and his seeking medical attention, as well as the worker's admission that his hearing was still adequate in 1995.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for occupationally-related noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).

The worker had been employed as a pillow machine operator for 13 years.

While an audiogram supported NIHL, a noise survey indicated the ambient noise and machine operating noise levels were 47.8 dB and 73.2 dB, respectively.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's noise exposure did not meet the minimum policy criteria of 84 dB over 40 years.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker objected to decisions denying entitlement to loss of earnings (LOE) benefits following a permanent lay-off and denying a permanent impairment for his back condition.

The worker had suffered a back strain at work in February 2006 but had a history of multiple motor vehicle accidents causing back and neck pain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's work-related back impairment had resolved by August 2006, and any ongoing impairment was due to pre-existing and subsequent non-compensable injuries.

The worker was found to have reached Maximum Medical Recovery without a permanent work-related impairment, and the objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision awarding him a zero per cent Non-Economic Loss (NEL) permanent impairment award for occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL).

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the file and found that the initial NEL assessment incorrectly calculated the worker's age as 85 instead of 75, resulting in an excessive deduction for presbycusis (aging).

After correcting the age and applying the AMA Guides, the worker's binaural hearing impairment was calculated at 3.8%, which translates to a one per cent whole person impairment.

The appeal was allowed, and the worker was granted a one per cent NEL award.

The worker suffered a lower back strain at work and received health care and loss of earnings benefits.

After completing a work hardening program, the WSIB determined he could return to regular duties and denied his claim for a permanent impairment and a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, noting inconsistent complaints of pain and relatively insignificant findings on imaging, and concluded the worker did not have a permanent impairment related to the workplace injury.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying her a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award for Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL).

Although her claim for NIHL was accepted for health care benefits, the adjudicator determined she did not meet the policy criteria for a permanent impairment award.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the worker's audiogram results and found that her hearing loss did not meet the minimum threshold of 26.25 dB bilaterally or 25/32.5 dB in the better/worse ear required by WSIB policy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker objected to an 11% Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award for Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL), arguing it did not reflect the degree of his impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the audiogram evidence and confirmed the 11% calculation for NIHL was correct under the AMA Guides.

However, medical evidence also supported that the worker suffered from tinnitus.

Applying Board policy, the worker was granted an additional 2% impairment for tinnitus, resulting in a combined whole person impairment award of 13%.

The objection was allowed in part.

The worker suffered a lower back injury in 2003 and was subsequently awarded a 35% Non-Economic Loss award for Chronic Pain Disability.

After completing Labour Market Re-entry (LMR) services in 2008, her full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits were reduced to partial LOE benefits based on her ability to secure entry-level wages in her Suitable Employment or Business (SEB).

The worker objected, arguing she was competitively unemployable due to her physical restrictions and pain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the medical evidence and the worker's testimony did not support an inability to engage in light work within her SEB.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement to partial wage loss benefits beyond January 15, 2001, and objecting to a 25 per cent Non-Economic Loss (NEL) quantum for psychotraumatic disability.

The worker, who suffered a lower back strain in 1997, argued she could only work partial hours and that her psychological impairment warranted a higher NEL award.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that medical and ergonomic evidence supported the worker's ability to work full hours provided she adhered to her permanent physical precautions.

Furthermore, the worker's psychological impairment aligned with the lower range of a Class 3 impairment, making the 25 per cent NEL quantum appropriate.

The appeal was denied.

The worker, a housekeeper, suffered a neck injury while making a bed.

The WSIB initially allowed the claim but later overturned entitlement, concluding that her disc herniations were incompatible with her work duties and would have become symptomatic regardless.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's objection, finding that the accident history was compatible with the diagnosis and that the work incident likely worsened or ruptured the previously asymptomatic disc herniations.

The issue of ongoing loss of earnings benefits was remitted for further determination.

The worker suffered a lower back strain and was granted a 19% Non-Economic Loss award.

After completing Labour Market Re-entry (LMR) services and securing a job, his full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits were ceased.

He was subsequently laid off and requested reinstatement of full LOE benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's post-injury salary was less than his pre-injury escalated rate of pay, entitling him to partial LOE benefits.

Additionally, because he lost his job shortly after LMR services concluded, he was entitled to complete the Job Search Training Program portion of his LMR plan, during which he would receive full LOE benefits.