N. J. Shruiff

The worker, an underground miner, appealed a case manager's decision denying additional full or partial loss of earnings (LOE) benefits under two claims for right elbow epicondylitis and bilateral elbow conditions.

The worker was already receiving 100 per cent future economic loss (FEL) benefits under a separate claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence that the worker experienced a wage loss directly attributable to the elbow conditions, as he had continued his regular employment after those injuries.

The appeal was denied, and the denial of additional LOE benefits was confirmed.

The worker appealed the case manager's decisions concluding that he was entitled to partial loss of earnings benefits based on a labour market re-entry (LMR) plan and suitable employment or business (SEB) target.

The worker suffered a lower back injury and received a 15 per cent non-economic loss award.

He argued he was unable to complete the LMR plan due to his back pain and inability to sit for prolonged periods.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's ability to pace his activities at home for woodworking demonstrated he could have engaged in similar pacing to complete his LMR upgrading.

The appeal was denied, and the reduction to partial loss of earnings benefits was confirmed.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying loss of earnings benefits beyond February 1, 2003, following the completion of a labour market re-entry (LMR) program.

The worker, who suffered a compensable neck and bilateral shoulder injury, argued she was competitively unemployable due to her compensable and non-compensable conditions.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker could not return to her pre-injury employment, she was capable of returning to work in the identified suitable employment business (SEB) as a customer service representative at minimum wage.

The appeal was granted in part, and the WSIB was directed to pay partial loss of earnings benefits based on the difference between her pre-injury earnings and her post-LMR earning potential.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying partial loss of earnings (LOE) benefits and concluding he was capable of returning to suitable employment as a dispatcher.

The worker, who suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar neuropathy, argued that the dispatcher position was unsuitable because he was not bondable.

The Appeals Resolution Officer agreed, finding the dispatcher target unsuitable due to the bondability issue.

The SEB target was altered to an elemental service position at minimum wage, and partial LOE benefits were restored effective May 21, 2009.

The worker's request for an older worker's no-review option was also granted.

The worker appealed the case manager's decisions denying loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for various periods in 2005, a permanent disability/non-economic loss assessment, and an expansion of entitlement to include psychotraumatic disability.

The worker had a history of lower back strains and claimed ongoing disability and psychological impairment due to workplace harassment and his physical condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's ongoing physical difficulties were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than a compensable permanent impairment from the workplace accidents.

Furthermore, the worker's psychological condition was found to be non-occupational and related to pre-existing personality issues rather than a compensable psychotraumatic impairment.

The modified duties offered by the employer were deemed suitable.

The worker's appeal was denied.

The employer appealed a case manager's decision classifying an injured EMS worker as a volunteer, which had resulted in her earnings being set at the statutory maximum.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that despite the 'volunteer' label used by the employer to comply with the Ambulance Act, the true nature of the employment relationship under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act was that of a part-time casual on-call employee.

The worker was required to be on-site for 24-hour shifts rather than responding from home.

Consequently, the worker's loss of earnings rate was ordered to be recalculated based on actual earnings, with the resulting overpayment deemed non-recoverable.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision granting the worker initial entitlement for a bilateral upper arm condition.

The worker, a letter carrier, developed tendinopathy and osteoarthritis after repetitive sorting duties.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the repetitive nature of the duties likely caused the onset of the condition, aggravating a pre-existing condition.

The employer's appeal was denied, and initial entitlement was upheld on an aggravation basis.

The worker appealed the claims adjudicator's decisions reducing her loss of earnings benefits based on her capability to return to modified employment for five hours per day, and denying continued Botox injections.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including a Functional Restoration Program assessment and the WSIB medical advisor's opinion.

The ARO concluded that the worker was capable of part-time modified employment and that the Botox injections were for maintenance purposes rather than recovery.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a claims adjudicator's decision denying initial entitlement for a left hip and lower back condition, diagnosed as avascular necrosis.

The worker alleged the condition was caused or aggravated by repetitive twisting and turning on an assembly line.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence to relate the condition to the worker's employment duties, noting the ergonomic assessment did not identify significant risk factors and the onset of pain could have occurred outside of employment.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying his request for recurrent benefits and an expansion of entitlement to include a neck impairment.

The worker claimed he was injured when a co-worker jumped on his back, which he characterized as an assault.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker had initiated the interaction by kicking the co-worker and was engaged in horseplay, thereby removing himself from the course of his employment.

The ARO also found insufficient evidence of a serious impairment that would excuse the horseplay.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed a claims adjudicator's decision denying initial entitlement for a right shoulder, neck, and hand condition.

The worker, a tool setter, claimed a gradual onset of pain related to his job duties and the cold climate in his work area.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient evidence to support a work-related injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, either from a specific incident or as a disablement.

The appeal was denied.