P. Prummel

The employer appealed a WSIB case manager's determination that it breached its re-employment obligation to the worker and the resulting $20,179.54 penalty.

The worker, a welder, suffered a compensable ankle injury and was terminated within six months of his re-employment.

The employer argued the termination was for just cause due to the worker allegedly stealing company tools.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the items in question were mostly disposable or of negligible value, rejecting the theft allegation.

The employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 41(10) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act that the termination was related to the worker's injury.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed for chronic pain disability (CPD) entitlement, psychotraumatic entitlement, and loss of earnings benefits following his termination from employment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's chronic pain was compatible with his organic injury, precluding CPD entitlement.

The worker's psychological condition was found to be unrelated to his compensable injury and did not meet the criteria for traumatic mental stress.

Finally, the worker's loss of earnings after his termination for abusive behaviour was found to be unrelated to his compensable injury.

The appeals were denied.

The employer appealed a decision finding it breached its re-employment obligations under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and levying a penalty.

The worker, a tool and die-maker, suffered a workplace injury and was re-employed, but was laid off within six months due to company restructuring.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while there were economic reasons for layoffs, the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the termination breached its re-employment obligations.

The employer did not properly evaluate the worker for alternative positions compared to less senior employees who were retained.

The appeal was denied and the penalty of $27,182.95 was upheld.

The worker appealed for further future economic loss (FEL) benefits, arguing she was incapable of her accepted suitable employment or business (SEB) as a teacher due to her compensable conditions.

Previous WSIAT decisions had already determined that her psychotraumatic and right upper extremity conditions did not prevent her from working in her SEB.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the only remaining issue was whether her cervical condition prevented a return to work.

The ARO concluded that the physical barriers posed by the cervical condition could be easily addressed with workplace accommodations, and therefore denied the appeal for further FEL benefits.

The worker, a head caretaker, appealed the denial of her claims for a physical condition, psychotraumatic disability, and traumatic mental stress allegedly resulting from workplace exposure to chemicals, pesticides, mould, and filthy conditions.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found insufficient medical evidence linking her physical symptoms to workplace exposures.

Consequently, the claim for psychotraumatic disability was denied as there was no accepted workplace-related injury.

The claim for traumatic mental stress was also denied because the worker's exposure to cleaning issues was not considered a sudden and unexpected traumatic event in the normal course of her employment.

The appeals were denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying him psychotraumatic entitlement following a 2004 workplace injury to his forearms.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found little evidence to support the WSIB psychological consultant's conclusion that the worker had a significant pre-existing psychological condition.

Accepting the opinions of the worker's psychiatrist and family doctor, the Officer concluded that the compensable injury was the most significant contributing factor to the worker's psychological condition.

The appeal was allowed, granting entitlement for a major depressive disorder from January 2007 onwards.

The worker appealed to the Appeals Resolution Officer seeking continuing entitlement for a left-shoulder condition, initial entitlement for a right-shoulder condition, loss of earnings benefits, back-dating of pension arrears, permanent aggravation of a low-back condition, and psychotraumatic disability entitlement.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the physical entitlement and benefits claims, finding the left-shoulder injury had resolved, the right-shoulder condition lacked a causal relationship to the workplace, and the wage loss was unrelated to the compensable injuries.

The request for psychotraumatic disability entitlement was partially allowed, with a direction to review updated psychological reporting.