M. St-Hilaire

The worker, a painter, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for right carpal tunnel syndrome.

The worker argued that his job duties, which involved holding and carrying ladders, painting, and using rollers, caused the condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's job did not entail sufficient employment risk factors for the development of carpal tunnel syndrome in his non-dominant right wrist.

The Officer concluded that the worker's non-work-related risk factors, including diabetes, gout, and obesity, were more significant factors in triggering the impairment.

The appeal was denied.

The worker objected to the denial of entitlement to Chronic Pain Disability (CPD) following a 2007 workplace injury involving an acute lumbar strain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the compensable low back strain had resolved without permanent impairment and that the worker's ongoing symptoms were related to non-compensable degenerative conditions.

The appeal was dismissed and entitlement to CPD was denied.

The worker, a saw filer, appealed the denial of entitlement to a recurrence of a left shoulder repetitive strain injury, reimbursement for chiropractic treatments, and a permanent impairment assessment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's regular work activities significantly aggravated his compensable condition, establishing continuity of medical attention and credible ongoing pain.

The appeal was allowed, granting the recurrence, 12 weeks of chiropractic treatment, and expanding entitlement to include the thoracic/parascapular region and left arm, with a finding of permanent impairment.

The worker appealed a decision denying Labour Market Re-entry (LMR) services and secondary entitlement for a right ankle condition following a compensable left knee injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker had been working beyond his medical restrictions prior to his termination and subsequent total knee replacement.

The Officer granted entitlement to an LMR assessment and Section 147(2) supplementary benefits.

Additionally, the Officer accepted the right ankle condition as a secondary entitlement, finding it was probably caused by years of altered gait resulting from the compensable left knee injury.

The worker suffered a compensable low back injury and was awarded a 20 percent Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefit.

The worker later requested a redetermination, arguing their condition had deteriorated.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no significant deterioration based on the medical evidence.

However, the Officer noted an error in the original NEL rating report regarding the worker's range of motion.

The worker's objection was granted to the extent that a recalculation of the original NEL award was ordered using the correct range of motion findings.

The worker appealed a decision denying a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) redetermination for a low back injury and denying entitlement to physiotherapy treatments.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's request for physiotherapy in 2006 was related to a non-compensable home incident (a fractured hip) and denied that entitlement.

However, the Officer granted the request for a NEL redetermination, finding that the development of degenerative disc disease at the site of the compensable injury constituted a significant deterioration of the worker's condition.

The worker, a rock truck driver, suffered a compensable right knee injury (traumatic tendonitis) after striking his knee on the steering column.

Ten months later, he requested entitlement to the medications Celebrex and Synvisc.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the compensable tendonitis had resolved and that the requested medications were prescribed for bilateral osteoarthritis, a non-compensable degenerative condition.

The worker's objection was denied and entitlement to the medications was refused.

The employer objected to the initial allowance of the worker's claim for a back injury sustained after falling from a truck, as well as the worker's entitlement to Loss of Earning (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer upheld the initial entitlement and LOE benefits, finding that the worker met the criteria for proof of accident despite a slight delay in reporting.

The Officer also increased the employer's Second Injury Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief from 25% to 50% due to the moderate nature of the worker's pre-existing condition.