M. Evans

The worker objected to a case manager's decision discontinuing partial Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits at the final 72-month review.

The worker had suffered a compensable injury for bilateral epicondylitis and was placed in a Suitable Employment or Business (SEB) as a pharmacy assistant.

The worker argued the SEB was unsuitable and aggravated her condition, requesting LOE benefits based on the SEB target wage of $10.15 an hour.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the specific employment obtained may not have been suitable, the approved SEB was appropriate.

The Officer concluded that the projected wage should be based on the worker's actual earnings from employment in the approved SEB, directing the operations division to adjust the final LOE benefit review to process partial LOE based on projected wages of $13.00 an hour.

The objection was allowed in part.

The worker objected to a case manager's decision denying entitlement for fibromyalgia and psycho-traumatic disability, and requested a Non Economic Loss (NEL) assessment for fibromyalgia following a compensable right shoulder injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence indicated the worker's fibromyalgia predated the compensable accident and was likely attributable to other non-compensable factors, including a prior cervical spine condition.

The officer concluded that the compensable right shoulder injury was not a significant contributing factor to the development or progression of the fibromyalgia.

The objection was denied.

The worker appealed multiple decisions denying entitlement for various conditions, including neurotoxicity from ethylene oxide exposure, TMJ impairment, Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome, blastomycosis, and bilateral hip impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical and occupational hygiene evidence and concluded that the worker did not establish that these conditions were significantly contributed to by his employment.

The appeal was denied in its entirety.

The employer appealed a decision granting WSIB benefits to a worker who sustained injuries during an altercation with his foreman.

The employer argued the worker was the aggressor and thus removed himself from the course of employment under WSIB policy 15-03-11.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the initial argument and hat-tipping did not constitute a fight under the policy, as they were not likely to cause injury.

Relying on medical evidence from the day of the incident, the Officer concluded the worker was assaulted and did not retaliate.

The employer's appeal was denied and entitlement to benefits was confirmed.

The worker objected to decisions limiting her entitlement to initial health care benefits and denying ongoing entitlement for migraines, idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI), and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) following a workplace exposure to cleaning agent fumes in April 2000.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker experienced initial symptoms from the exposure, there was insufficient objective medical evidence to establish a causal link between the brief workplace exposure and her ongoing IEI/MCS condition.

The objection was denied.

The worker, who had previously been granted entitlement for noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus, sought coverage for cochlear implant surgery performed in 2008.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the request, finding that the significant deterioration in the worker's hearing after his removal from noise exposure in 1996 was not consistent with the known effects of noise-induced hearing loss.

The evidence indicated it was more probable that the deterioration and subsequent need for surgery resulted from non-compensable factors, such as a possible autoimmune inner ear disease.

The worker appealed a claims adjudicator's decision denying entitlement for whole body vibration and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.

The worker operated a skid steer for the employer from 1996 to 2005 in a modified machine with no suspension over rough terrain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer accepted the worker's testimony regarding the extent of the exposure, finding it significantly exceeded the levels reported in standard vibration monitoring data.

The Officer concluded that the workplace exposure was a significant contributing and causal factor in the development of the lumbar spine condition and directed a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) assessment.

The worker appealed a case manager's decision denying entitlement for psycho-traumatic disability following a 1996 workplace injury to his low back and right calf.

The worker sought recognition for chronic pain, adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depression.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker suffered from anxiety and depression, the condition was significantly impacted by non-compensable factors, including personal stressors and the worker's reaction to the WSIB decision-making process.

The Officer concluded that the psychiatric condition did not arise primarily from the work injury and denied the appeal.

The worker's estate appealed a decision denying entitlement for pancreatic cancer and survivor benefits.

The worker, who had been employed as an underground trammer and scoop tram operator, was diagnosed with bile duct cancer that metastasized.

The estate argued the cancer was caused by workplace exposure to carcinogens.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed medical opinions, including reports from an OHCOW occupational specialist and a WSIB chest consultant, which found no epidemiological evidence linking the cancer to employment exposures.

The appeal was dismissed, as the evidence did not establish that workplace exposure was a significant contributing factor to the disease.

The employer appealed the claims adjudicator's decisions accepting the worker's ongoing entitlement to Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits.

The worker had developed contact dermatitis from coolant exposure and was later laid off.

The employer argued the layoff was for cause and the worker was capable of regular work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the official reason for the layoff was a lack of work, the worker still required accommodation for his compensable condition, and he had cooperated in the return-to-work process.

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

The worker's estate appealed decisions denying entitlement for fibrosing alveolitis (idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) and survivor benefits, and sought an increase in the pension quantum for accepted silicosis and COPD.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence to establish that the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was caused by workplace exposures in the mining industry.

The officer also concluded that the compensable conditions were not a significant contributing factor in the worker's death, denying survivor benefits.

However, the officer allowed the appeal in part by increasing the pension award to 30% based on 1984 pulmonary function test results showing a deterioration in respiratory function.

The worker's estate appealed a decision denying WSIB benefits for the worker's lung cancer, which resulted in his death.

The worker had a 40 pack-year smoking history and 26 years of employment in the rubber industry with probable exposure to nitrosamines, asbestos, and PAHs.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while there was probable exposure, the epidemiological evidence did not establish a sufficient causal association between lung cancer and employment in tire manufacturing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker, a maintenance welder from 1971 to 2000, appealed the denial of WSIB entitlement for prostate cancer, arguing it was caused by occupational exposure to cadmium and other metal fumes.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed medical opinions, including a WSIB medical consultant who found insufficient epidemiological evidence linking prostate cancer to cadmium exposure, and an OHCOW report suggesting a strong association based on laboratory evidence.

The Officer preferred the WSIB consultant's opinion, noting the Bradford Hill criteria were not met to establish a statistically significant increased risk.

The appeal was dismissed, as the evidence did not establish workplace exposure as a significant contributing factor, and the benefit of the doubt did not apply because the evidence was not approximately equal in weight.

The worker objected to a claims adjudicator decision confirming a 7% permanent disability award for moderately severe hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).

The worker's representative argued the award did not adequately recognize the degree of loss, noting differences in medical reporting regarding the severity of the condition in the hands and feet.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker's earnings did not confirm a significant loss of capacity, the specific components of the award (vascular, loss of grip, feet) were not clearly explained.

The objection was allowed in part, directing the operations division to review and reconsider the pension award and to consider possible entitlement for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.