S. Marangoni

The worker appealed the denial of entitlement for a left hip condition and Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits from April 2015 to age 65.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the left hip entitlement, finding the severe osteoarthritis was not causally linked to the worker's job duties or a compensable right hip injury.

However, the Officer granted full LOE benefits from April 2015 to age 65, concluding that the worker's retirement was necessitated by a marked deterioration of his compensable low back condition, rendering him competitively unemployable.

The worker appealed the denial of initial entitlement for a right wrist injury allegedly sustained in a slip and fall at work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer confirmed the denial, finding that the worker failed to establish proof of accident.

The decision noted multiple inconsistencies in the worker's accident history, including discrepancies about the weather, the date of the injury, and the nature of the incident reported to the employer.

Additionally, the worker delayed seeking medical attention and reporting the specific wrist injury for approximately one year without a reasonable explanation.

The worker, a heavy equipment mechanic, twisted his left knee at work but delayed seeking medical attention for nearly a year.

The WSIB initially denied entitlement for a left knee medial meniscal tear.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer granted entitlement, finding that the worker reported the incident immediately, experienced immediate pain, and had a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking medical attention due to his strong work ethic and belief the injury would heal on its own.

The worker suffered a compensable left shoulder injury in 1986, underwent surgery, and received a 10% permanent disability award.

In April 2013, the worker claimed a recurrence of the injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the recurrence claim, finding that the worker's ongoing shoulder problems, including a rotator cuff tear and tendinitis, were attributable to age-related degenerative changes rather than the initial 1986 workplace injury.

A police officer injured his hip while pursuing a suspect but delayed filing a WSIB claim for over a year because he initially believed the injury was minor and his doctor misdiagnosed it as bursitis.

The WSIB initially denied the claim for failing to meet the six-month reporting time limit.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer granted the worker's objection and extended the time limit.

The Officer found that exceptional circumstances existed under Policy 15-01-03 because the worker had reported the accident to his supervisor, co-workers, and a health care professional within the six-month period.

The worker appealed the denial of ongoing entitlement for a claimed recurrence of a low back injury on December 7, 2007, which he attributed to a September 16, 2005 workplace accident where he was caught between a locomotive and a rail car.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no evidence of a back injury at the time of the initial accident, no continuity of complaint, and noted that the acute onset of back pain occurred while the worker was brushing snow off his car at home.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision to deny the recurrence claim was confirmed.

The worker, a paramedic, objected to the denial of entitlement for a low back injury sustained on October 1, 2009, arguing it was a recurrence of a prior March 2009 workplace injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, noting the worker had continued to experience symptoms and receive chiropractic treatment since the initial injury.

Relying on the treating chiropractor's opinion and the continuity of symptoms, the Officer concluded the October 2009 exacerbation was a recurrence of the March 2009 injury.

The worker's objection was granted, and the claims were amalgamated.

The worker appealed the denial of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits for time missed from work to attend physiotherapy between March and June 2009.

The worker had suffered a compensable low back injury in 2001 and had reached the 72-month final review stage in January 2007.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that under the applicable policy, LOE benefits could only be extended beyond the 72-month lock-in date if the worker was in a Labour Market Re-entry plan or had suffered a significant temporary deterioration.

As the medical evidence did not support a significant deterioration in the worker's condition during the period in question, the objection was denied.

The worker appealed the denial of entitlement for a recurrence of a low back injury on May 7, 2009, which he attributed to an initial workplace injury sustained in April 2003.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the initial injury was a minor strain that resolved quickly, and subsequent medical evidence, including x-rays showing disc space narrowing, indicated degeneration rather than a connection to the 2003 incident.

The worker's ongoing symptoms were not causally linked to the initial injury, and the appeal was dismissed.

The worker objected to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's decision to calculate his partial Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits based on a 40-hour work week, arguing he was only capable of working 20 hours per week due to his compensable injuries.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, the worker's permanent impairment awards, and his performance during a Labour Market Re-entry program.

The Officer concluded that while the worker could not sustain full-time employment, he was capable of working 25 hours per week.

The worker's objection was granted in part, and benefits were adjusted accordingly.

The worker, a school teacher, suffered a facial fracture after being hit by a baseball at work.

She subsequently developed depression and chronic pain, and experienced difficulties returning to work due to strained relations with the employer.

The worker appealed the denial of entitlement for psychotraumatic disability, Chronic Pain Disability (CPD), and Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits beyond January 17, 2006.

The Appeals Resolution Officer granted entitlement for psychotraumatic disability on a permanent basis, finding her psychological problems were a reaction to extended disablement and non-medical socioeconomic factors related to the injury.

Entitlement for CPD was denied because her pain was explained by organic causes and her emotional problems were covered under psychotraumatic disability.

The Officer also found that returning to work with the employer was not suitable and directed a Labour Market Re-entry assessment to determine LOE benefits.

The worker objected to the denial of entitlement for a left knee injury and a recurrence in June 2007, following an initial workplace accident in May 2006 where a motorized wheelchair backed over her right foot.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker may have temporarily aggravated a pre-existing left knee condition during the initial accident, the aggravation had resolved by June 2006.

The ongoing left knee problems in May 2007 were attributed to the natural progression of pre-existing osteoarthritis rather than the workplace accident.

The worker's objection was denied.

The employer appealed the allowance of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits to the worker for the period of October 5, 2006 to February 6, 2007.

The worker, a federal employee, had sustained a compensable right knee and hip injury but later developed a non-compensable psychological condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that LOE benefits were properly paid until December 12, 2006, as the worker remained partially impaired physically and no bona fide job offer was available.

However, benefits from December 13, 2006 to February 6, 2007 were rescinded because the worker's inability to participate in return-to-work measures during that period was due solely to the non-compensable psychological condition.

The employer's appeal was granted in part.

The worker objected to the denial of a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) re-determination for her left carpal tunnel syndrome.

She argued that her condition had significantly deteriorated since her initial 5% NEL award in 2003, citing increased pain, weakness, and trigger finger symptoms.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and found no objective clinical findings to support a significant deterioration in the worker's condition.

The worker's objection was denied.