S. Johnson

The worker appealed a decision denying an extension of time to file a claim for a mental stress injury allegedly arising from a work incident in March 2001.

The worker filed the claim 23 years later, in January 2024, alleging paranoia caused by workplace video monitoring.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that the 23-year delay prejudiced the employer and rendered the evidence too stale to adjudicate the claim on its merits.

Furthermore, the contemporaneous medical evidence did not support a work-related cause for the worker's hospitalization, and no exceptional circumstances justified the delay.

The worker, a long-haul truck driver, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome.

The worker argued that prolonged gripping of the steering wheel and vibration exposure were significant contributing factors to the injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's duties did not involve significant, repetitive, frequent, and forceful wrist movements, noting that the worker maintained a predominantly neutral posture while driving and had multiple non-driving periods.

The appeal was denied, as the evidence did not establish that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying entitlement to a psychotraumatic disability, a recurrence of a right shoulder injury, and ongoing loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part, granting initial entitlement to a temporary psychotraumatic disability for Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, finding it was a direct result of the extended disablement from the work-related right shoulder injury.

However, the Officer denied entitlement to a recurrence and ongoing LOE benefits, concluding that the worker remained partially disabled without significant deterioration, and that the modified work duties offered by the employer were suitable and within the worker's functional restrictions.

The worker appealed the denial of initial entitlement for a bilateral shoulder strain, right subclavian deep vein thrombosis, and thoracic outlet syndrome.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's duties, which involved repetitive and awkward shoulder motions while inspecting commercial trucks, were a significant contributing factor to the injuries.

The appeal was allowed, granting initial entitlement, recognition of a recurrence, entitlement to surgery, and Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits for specified periods.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision that concluded they had reached maximum medical recovery for a right elbow biceps tendon insertion strain with no evidence of a permanent impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker did have a permanent impairment, relying on a discharge report that documented permanent functional restrictions despite normal ranges of motion.

The matter was remitted to determine the degree of impairment using the RSI Rating Schedule.

The employer appealed a decision granting the worker full loss of earnings benefits following a left foot sprain.

The employer argued that it had offered suitable sedentary modified work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that although the worker was not totally disabled, the modified work offered was not safe.

The worker required crutches, could not wear proper footwear due to swelling, and would have had to navigate stairs and outdoor winter conditions to access the washroom.

The employer's appeal was dismissed.

The worker objected to a Case Manager's decision that they had reached maximum medical recovery for a lower back strain and disc herniation with no evidence of functional impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including reports from a neurosurgeon and the WSIB Back and Neck Specialty Program, which indicated ongoing functional restrictions and chronic radiculopathy.

The Appeals Resolution Officer concluded that the worker reached maximum medical recovery with evidence of a work-related permanent impairment and directed a referral for a Non-Economic Loss assessment.

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker initial entitlement for a bilateral wrist repetitive strain injury.

The worker developed the injury after a machine malfunctioned, requiring them to manually handle boxes at a significantly increased frequency.

The Appeals Resolution Officer applied the five-point check system under OPM Document No. 11-01-01 and found that the change in job mechanics constituted a personal work-related injury.

The medical evidence supported that the work duties were the significant contributing factor to the injury, rather than pre-existing conditions.

The employer's objection was denied.

The employer objected to the Eligibility Adjudicator's decision allowing the worker entitlement to full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from July 5, 2021 to August 23, 2021.

The worker, a truck driver, sustained a right wrist fracture at work and underwent surgery.

The employer offered modified duties on July 5, 2021, which the worker declined.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence, particularly from the orthopaedic surgeon, supported that the nature and seriousness of the surgically treated injury prevented the worker from returning to any type of work during the disputed period.

The employer's objection was denied, and full LOE benefits were allowed.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision denying entitlement to Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief following a worker's left shoulder injury.

The worker, a registered nurse, sustained a rotator cuff tear while lifting a patient.

The employer argued that the worker's pre-existing degenerative tissue changes and obesity enhanced the disability and prolonged recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the accident was minor in severity but concluded there was no evidence that a pre-existing condition caused or contributed to the injury, nor that it prolonged or enhanced the recovery period.

The employer's objection was denied.

The employer appealed a decision granting the worker full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for five hours of lost time on July 17, 2021.

The worker, a caregiver, suffered a compensable lower back and chest sprain.

The employer could not accommodate the worker's restrictions on the scheduled shift but offered 30 minutes of modified administrative duties at an alternate worksite after regular shifts the following week.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the alternate work unsuitable, as it required an unreasonable 45-minute one-way commute for only 30 minutes of work.

The worker was therefore entitled to full LOE benefits for the missed shift.

The employer's objection was denied.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision denying entitlement to Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief following a worker's right wrist injury.

The worker sustained a minor accident when lifting a heavy detergent bottle, resulting in de Quervain's tenosynovitis and subluxation of the extensor carpi ulnaris tendon requiring surgery.

The employer argued that the worker's age and untreated Lupus prolonged recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding no medical evidence that a pre-existing condition caused or contributed to the accident, or prolonged the worker's recovery.

The worker suffered a left leg crush injury at work in 2012, resulting in compartment syndrome and a 5% Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award.

The worker subsequently developed severe, intractable neuropathic and somatic pain, leading to a request for Chronic Pain Disability (CPD) entitlement.

The Case Manager initially denied CPD, finding the worker did not meet all policy criteria.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's continuous and genuine pain was inconsistent with the minor organic findings and significantly impaired his earning capacity.

The appeal was allowed, granting the worker entitlement to CPD and a permanent impairment assessment.

The worker appealed decisions regarding her loss of earnings (LOE) benefits, the suitability of a Labour Market Re-Entry (LMR) plan for a Retail Sales Clerk, and the denial of Chronic Pain Disability (CPD) entitlement following a 2003 bilateral elbow fracture injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the CPD entitlement, finding the pain was consistent with the organic injury (bilateral lateral epicondylitis).

The ARO also found the worker was partially disabled and that the Retail Sales Clerk role was suitable.

However, the ARO allowed the appeal in part regarding the LOE benefits, finding that the benefits should be based on entry-level wages ($9.50 per hour) rather than the wages of an experienced worker, given the worker's personal and vocational characteristics and the short time between the LMR plan closure and the final review.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement to full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for two shifts missed after sustaining a head injury at work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the attending emergency physician had medically cleared the worker to return to full regular duties immediately following the incident.

As there was no clinical authorization supporting the need for time off work during the claimed period, the worker did not meet the policy requirements for LOE benefits.

The appeal was denied.

The worker objected to a Case Manager's decision that her loss of earnings (LOE) benefits should be based on her ability to earn minimum wage in the suitable occupation (SO) of a Cashier.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the SO of a Cashier was unsuitable given the worker's permanent functional restrictions from a work-related lower back injury, her limited education, and the lack of available employment opportunities in her local labour market.

The worker's objection was allowed, and she was granted full LOE benefits from the deferred final review date to age 65.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision granting 50 per cent Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief for a worker's right medial epicondylitis injury.

The employer argued that the accident severity was minor and the pre-existing condition was major.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the accident history was minor, as the worker's clerical duties would only be expected to cause a non-disabling or minor disabling injury.

The Officer also found that the worker's pre-existing condition (scar tissue from previous surgeries) was moderate in medical significance, as it prevented her from being a surgical candidate for her work-related injury and prolonged her recovery.

Consequently, the employer's objection was allowed, and 75 per cent SIEF relief was granted.

The employer appealed a decision denying Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief regarding a worker's lower back strain injury.

The worker had tripped over a box at work, which the Appeals Resolution Officer classified as a minor accident.

The employer argued that the worker's pre-existing lumbar spine condition prolonged her recovery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker recovered within the standard six to eight weeks for a lower back strain and that the pre-existing condition did not enhance or prolong the recovery period.

The employer's appeal was dismissed and the denial of SIEF relief was confirmed.

The worker appealed the Case Manager's decisions denying entitlement to a psychotraumatic disability and a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) redetermination for a work-related lower back injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's psychological condition did not manifest within the required five-year period and was not significantly contributed to by the work accident.

The Officer also found no significant deterioration in the worker's lower back condition to warrant a NEL redetermination.

The worker's objections were denied.

The worker, a security guard, suffered a left shoulder sprain while restraining a patient.

The Case Manager determined that the worker had reached maximum medical recovery (MMR) by October 7, 2014, and denied further health care benefits.

The worker appealed, arguing she had not fully recovered and required ongoing modified duties.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, including reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and a medical consultant, which indicated the work-related sprain had resolved and ongoing symptoms were due to pre-existing degenerative changes.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the worker had fully recovered from the compensable injury with no permanent impairment and was not entitled to further benefits.