L. J. Vaccarello

The worker suffered a repetitive strain workplace accident to her left upper extremity in 2001.

After years of accommodated work, she was laid off and participated in a labour market re-entry plan.

During this time, she developed major depression and a pain disorder, which the operating area concluded were not accident-related.

The worker objected.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the objection, finding that the worker's psychological conditions were linked to the lifestyle changes and limitations caused by her upper extremity injuries.

The operating area was directed to recognize the psychotraumatic disability, determine maximum medical recovery, and arrange for a non-economic loss assessment.

The worker appealed a decision denying secondary entitlement for left hip and left knee conditions, which she claimed resulted from an altered gait caused by an accepted 2004 workplace left ankle injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including a report from an orthopaedic specialist, and found no probable causal relationship between the ankle injury and the hip or knee conditions.

The worker's objection was denied, and a non-economic loss assessment for those conditions was deemed inappropriate.

The worker and employer both objected to decisions regarding the worker's entitlement to loss of earnings (LOE) benefits following a workplace head injury.

The employer argued the worker was capable of accommodated work duties and failed to cooperate in early and safe return to work.

The worker argued his post-concussive symptoms precluded any return to work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence, including the family doctor's advice to remain off work due to headaches and dizziness, supported the worker's inability to work.

The employer's objection was denied, the worker's objection was allowed, and the rescinded LOE benefits were reinstated.

The worker suffered lacerations to her right index and middle fingers in a workplace accident.

Her family doctor directed her to remain off work until April 12, 2010, due to pain and sensitivity, but the WSIB operating area concluded she could have attempted accommodated duties as of April 7, 2010.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's appeal, finding it unreasonable to disregard the family doctor's direction and invalidate the worker's pain experience.

The worker was granted full loss of earnings benefits for the disputed period.

The worker appealed a decision of the operating area that granted a 30% permanent impairment rating for his psychotraumatic disability, seeking a higher rating.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including reports from the worker's psychiatrist and psychologist, and found that the worker's symptoms fit within the mid-level of the moderate category of impairment.

The 30% rating was confirmed as appropriate, and the worker's objection was denied.

The issue of whether the worker's condition had deteriorated requiring a redetermination was remitted to the operating area.

The worker suffered a right shoulder injury in 2001 and was provided accommodated work by the employer until the plant shut down in 2009.

The WSIB initially denied further loss of earnings (LOE) benefits and a labour market re-entry (LMR) assessment, concluding the worker could find work as a machine operator in the open market.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's objection, finding that the post-injury job was highly accommodated and the worker's permanent impairment required permanent precautions.

The worker was granted an LMR assessment, a potential LMR plan, and full LOE benefits retroactive to April 10, 2009.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for right-sided plantar fasciitis, which the operating area had concluded was not work-related due to a pre-existing congenital flat feet condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's condition was causally related to a workplace incident on July 15, 2008, when he stepped down onto an uneven surface and felt a stretching sensation in his foot.

The WSIB allowed the worker's objection, reinstating health care benefits and granting full loss of earnings benefits for the period he was off work.

The worker suffered a repetitive strain workplace accident and was approved for a Labour Market Re-entry (LMR) plan for a college training program.

The worker requested an extension of the LMR plan from five to six semesters to accommodate her learning challenges, which was initially denied by the case manager.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's objection, finding that the psycho-vocational evaluation identified learning challenges and the college advisory staff supported the extension.

The worker appealed a decision denying his claim for an umbilical hernia, which he alleged arose from heavy lifting at work in March 2009.

The employer contested the claim due to a delay in reporting and inconsistent accident dates.

The Appeals Resolution Officer accepted the testimony of the worker and a co-worker that the worker experienced stomach pain while handling a heavy container at work.

The Officer concluded that the umbilical hernia arose from the worker's employment duties and allowed the appeal, granting entitlement to health care and loss of earnings benefits.

The worker appealed a decision denying recognition that his recurrent lower back problems of July 21, 2008, were related to a recognized workplace accident from August 22, 2007.

The worker had sustained soft tissue injuries when he fell from a work bucket.

The operating area initially concluded the further lower back problems were not accident-related.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the evidence, including the worker's testimony and chiropractic reports, supported that the recurrent left-sided lower back problems were related to the original workplace accident.

The worker's objection was allowed, and entitlement to associated health care expenses was granted.

The employer objected to several decisions by the operating area regarding a worker's claim for a lower back injury sustained in May 2005.

The employer disputed the payment of loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for recurrences in June and July 2007, the recognition of a permanent impairment, the 16% non-economic loss (NEL) benefit, the provision of labour market re-entry (LMR) services, and the level of Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) cost relief.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the workplace activities significantly aggravated the worker's underlying spondylolysis, resulting in a permanent impairment.

The medical evidence supported the worker's need to leave the workplace during the disputed periods, justifying the LOE benefits.

The 16% NEL rating, LMR services, and 75% SIEF cost relief were all confirmed as appropriate.

The employer's objections were denied.