N. Kissoore

The employer objected to the WSIB's initial decision allowing the worker's claim for Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease, which had been attributed to moderate workplace exposure to N-Hexane and welding fumes containing manganese over 20 years.

At the hearing, expert medical and toxicological evidence demonstrated that the worker's exposures were low and below threshold limit values.

Furthermore, the scientific literature links such exposures to Parkinsonism and Manganism, not Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease.

The Appeals Resolution Officer concluded there was no causal relationship between the workplace exposures and the worker's condition, granted the employer's objection, and overturned the allowance of the claim.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) claimed to be causally related to his employment exposure to benzene between 1980 and 2007.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the worker's exposure history and medical evidence, including WSIB policy and recent tribunal decisions.

The officer found that the worker's exposure to benzene was generally below the threshold limit value and that current medical and scientific evidence does not establish a causal relationship between benzene exposure and NHL.

The worker's objection was denied, as the evidence did not support that workplace exposures were a significant contributing factor to the development of the disease.

The worker objected to the denial of a non-economic loss (NEL) award for her left knee following a slip and fall at work.

The WSIB had allowed the claim for an aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis but concluded the aggravation ceased by 2001.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and agreed that the worker had returned to her pre-accident state by November 2001, and that later symptoms were due to the natural progression of her underlying osteoarthritis.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker suffered a compensable injury resulting in the amputation of his left index finger and subsequent complications.

The WSIB allowed loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The employer objected to ongoing LOE benefits from March 30, 2010, arguing that the worker had retired effective June 30, 2009, and therefore did not suffer a wage loss due to the injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker, aged 54 with 25 years of experience, retired early solely because of his compensable injury and lack of recovery progress.

Consequently, the worker's loss of earnings was a result of his injury, not his retirement, entitling him to ongoing LOE benefits under section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker suffered a low back injury while packing parts and immediately reported it to the employer and sought medical attention.

The claim was initially allowed by the WSIB without objection from the employer.

After terminating the worker and being found in breach of re-employment obligations, the employer objected to the initial allowance, alleging the worker was untruthful.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the employer's objection and confirmed the initial allowance, finding the worker's reporting was consistent and timely.

The worker suffered a compensable low back injury in 1992 and was accommodated with modified work by the employer.

In September 2008, due to cutbacks, the worker was bumped into a position that exceeded his physical limitations and was sent home.

The worker subsequently underwent non-compensable back surgery in July 2009.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was unable to continue working as of September 2008 due to a lack of suitable modified work and was entitled to full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits until the date of his surgery.

The worker was also found entitled to LOE benefits and labour market re-entry services from the date of the hearing onwards.

The worker suffered a compensable left forearm tendonitis injury and subsequently claimed entitlement for psychotraumatic disability, alleging that he developed depression and anxiety as a result of the injury.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that the worker's psychological conditions were not an indirect result of the compensable injury.

The decision noted that the physical injury was relatively minor, treated conservatively, and that there were significant non-compensable stressors, including a motor vehicle accident and a pre-existing learning disability, which broke any chain of causation.

The worker's estate claimed entitlement for kidney cancer, alleging it was causally related to workplace exposures to asbestos and trichloroethylene (TCE) between 1973 and 1999.

The worker, an electrician at a steel plant, died in 1988.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed occupational hygiene reports, medical literature, and WSIB policy reviews.

The Officer concluded that the worker's asbestos exposure lacked the intensity and duration associated with an increased risk of renal cancer.

Furthermore, the weight of the evidence did not support a causal relationship between TCE exposure and renal cancer.

The objection was denied.

The widow appealed the denial of survivor benefits for the worker's colon cancer, which she claimed was caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos between 1969 and 1982.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker had occasional and intermittent exposure to asbestos as a parts clerk and truck driver, the exposure was not of a continuous and repetitive nature representing the major component of his occupational activity.

The appeal was denied as a causal relationship between the employment and the colon cancer was not established.

The worker's widow appealed a decision denying her request for reimbursement of airfare for her daughter, son-in-law, and two grandchildren to travel from the USA to Ontario for the worker's funeral.

The worker had passed away from compensable mesothelioma.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not provide for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by individuals other than the worker or spouse.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) allegedly caused by workplace exposure to fumes and chemicals.

The worker initially claimed the exposure aggravated his pre-existing Hepatitis C, but later claimed it caused MCS.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's symptoms resolved when he was removed from the exposure and that he refused the employer's offers of accommodation, including a self-contained breathing apparatus and a new position with no fume exposure.

Medical evidence did not support a causal relationship between the workplace and the claimed MCS.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying him full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits and entitlement for psychotraumatic disability following a 2002 workplace injury to his left shoulder and right hip.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's physical restrictions did not render him totally unemployable, as he had successfully completed truck driving training and was capable of light delivery work.

Regarding the psychotraumatic disability claim, the Officer concluded that the workplace injury was only a minor contributing factor to the worker's depression, which was primarily driven by multiple non-compensable psychosocial stressors.

The appeal was dismissed.