M. Flaherty

The employer objected to the denial of Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief following a workplace injury where the worker sustained a ligamentous strain to his left thumb.

The employer argued that the worker's recovery duration exceeded the maximum recommended duration for such an injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that under WSIB Policy 14-05-03, SIEF relief requires the presence of a pre-existing condition that prolonged recovery or enhanced the injury.

As medical reports showed no evidence of a pre-existing condition, the employer's objection was denied.

The worker objected to a decision denying payment of full Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits for the period of July 1, 2008, to August 21, 2008, following a workplace knee injury.

The employer had offered modified clerical duties, but the worker's doctor advised him to remain off work due to concerns about driving long distances while attending treatment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was not capable of driving the distance to perform the modified duties and that he returned to work once he was medically cleared to drive.

The worker's objection was allowed, and he was granted LOE benefits for the disputed period.

The worker, a truck driver, suffered a left shoulder injury and was placed on modified duties.

He subsequently missed work from January 9 to 22, 2008, on his doctor's advice, and was later terminated on April 1, 2008, due to absenteeism and tardiness.

The worker objected to the WSIB's denial of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits for both periods.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part, granting LOE benefits for the January period because the worker was following medical advice and had not been warned about non-cooperation.

However, LOE benefits after April 1, 2008, were denied because the termination was justified by the worker's failure to adhere to attendance and reporting requirements, making it an employment issue unrelated to the injury.

The worker, who injured her back in a 1983 slip and fall, sought a time limit extension to appeal a 1988 decision that denied her entitlement for Chronic Pain Disability and psychotraumatic disability.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the claim history and noted that the worker had been represented by various advocates over the years and had been advised multiple times that she could appeal the 1988 decision.

Finding no valid reason for the extended delay and noting the worker's prior representation and notice of time limits, the Officer denied the request for a time limit extension.