S. Bennett

The worker, who previously received a 17% non-economic loss award for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome resulting from her pre-injury employment, appealed the denial of Chronic Pain Disability (CPD) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical and vocational evidence, finding that the worker's chronic pain and fibromyalgia were directly related to her compensable injury and subsequent surgeries.

The officer concluded that the worker met the criteria for CPD benefits, as her pain was continuous, consistent, and resulted in marked life disruption inconsistent with organic findings.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a non-economic loss assessment for CPD.

The worker, a construction electrician with 35 years of exposure to vibratory tools, appealed a case manager's decision denying entitlement for hand/arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).

The WSIB had accepted the worker's occupational exposure but denied the claim based on a WSIB medical consultant's opinion that there was no objective evidence of Raynaud's phenomenon.

The Appeals Resolution Officer preferred the opinion of the specialist who personally examined the worker and confirmed the diagnosis of secondary Raynaud's phenomenon.

The appeal was allowed, and entitlement for HAVS was granted.

The worker suffered a right shoulder and neck strain while lifting a heavy pot at work.

After initially returning to modified work, the worker went off work again due to pain and claimed full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for the period of May 24 to May 31, 2010.

The case manager denied the claim, but the Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's objection, finding that medical evidence supported the worker's total disability during that period.

The employer objected to the WSIB's decision to grant loss of earnings (LOE) benefits to a retired firefighter who was diagnosed with work-related kidney cancer years after retiring.

The employer argued that because the worker was already retired and had no earnings at the time of the injury, no LOE benefits should be payable, citing recent WSIAT decisions and a change in WSIB practice.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the employer's objection, finding that the WSIB's practice at the time of the original decision allowed for LOE benefits based on the average wage of the occupation, and the new practice effective December 7, 2009, was not to be applied retroactively to recalculate or terminate benefits already in effect.

The employer appealed a decision levying a penalty for breaching its re-employment obligations under section 41 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer had terminated the worker after obtaining video surveillance of the worker shoveling snow, which the employer believed contradicted his medical restrictions for a workplace elbow injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the employer's decision to terminate was rash and misguided, it was not done in bad faith or with malicious intent to thwart the Act.

The penalty was rescinded.

The worker objected to the WSIB's denial of full reimbursement for a specialist's medical report.

The worker's representative paid $300 for the report, which was used by an Appeals Resolution Officer to allow secondary entitlement for the worker's right knee.

The WSIB initially reimbursed only $23.54.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the specialist's fee was reasonable based on the time required to review records and prepare the complex report.

The worker's objection was allowed, and the WSIB was ordered to reimburse the remaining balance of $276.46 to the worker's representative.

The worker appealed a case manager's decision denying entitlement to hydrotherapy, a commutation of $80,000 of his pension award, and a lump sum advance to purchase a new home.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal.

The worker conceded that hydrotherapy was not suitable.

The request for a pension commutation was denied because it would not reduce the effects of the disability or lead to employment.

The request for a lump sum advance to purchase a new home was denied as there is no legislative or policy authority to provide cash advances for home purchases, though the WSIB may consider modifications to a new home if the worker purchases one at his own expense.

The worker suffered a fractured ankle when a heavy steel beam fell on his leg at work.

Following the injury, the worker developed severe psychological symptoms, including nightmares, flashbacks, and depression, and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression.

The case manager denied psychotraumatic entitlement, interpreting a WSIB psychologist's report as finding no entitlement.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence clearly established the worker's psychological condition arose as an indirect result of the physical workplace injury.

The worker's objection was allowed and psychotraumatic entitlement was granted.

The worker objected to a decision setting the arrears date for his increased permanent disability award to September 12, 2007.

The worker had originally suffered a low back injury in 1970 and received a 10% permanent disability award.

Following a reassessment, his award was increased to 20%.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and found that a specialist report from September 18, 2006, demonstrated a significant permanent deterioration in the worker's condition.

Applying WSIB policy, the officer allowed the objection and adjusted the arrears date to June 18, 2006, three months prior to the specialist report.

The employer objected to an adjudicator's decision granting the worker entitlement to benefits for occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).

The worker, an Industrial Arts Teacher from 1968 to 1997, claimed progressive hearing loss due to exposure to woodworking machinery.

The employer argued that noise level studies from 1999 to 2004 showed insufficient exposure.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the employer's objection, finding that the worker was exposed to hazardous noise for nearly 30 years, especially considering the lack of sound barrier protection on older equipment, and that the hearing loss pattern was consistent with NIHL.