S. McKinnon

The worker objected to a decision denying entitlement to a permanent impairment determination for a low back injury sustained in 2006.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, which showed that the worker had recovered following conservative treatment and had no ongoing medical attention after June 2007.

The officer concluded that there was no assessable permanent impairment resulting from the work injury and denied the objection.

The worker appealed decisions regarding the quantum of Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefits for a coccyx fracture and psychological impairment, as well as a reduction to partial Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the modified work offered by the employer as a traffic controller was not suitable given the worker's physical and psychological restrictions, including the use of assistive devices for ambulation.

Consequently, full LOE benefits were restored from November 9, 2012.

However, the appeals regarding the NEL quantums were dismissed, as the 5 percent rating for the coccyx fracture was the maximum allowable under the AMA Guides, and the 25 percent rating for psychological impairment appropriately reflected a moderate level of impairment.

The employer objected to the allowance of initial entitlement for a worker who reported injuring his back after jumping over a pothole and falling at work.

The employer argued that inconsistencies in the worker's account and a pre-existing diagnosis of sciatica raised doubts about the accident.

The Appeals Resolution Officer upheld the initial entitlement, finding that the worker established the 'four immediates' of a chance event accident: immediate onset of pain, immediate reporting, immediate medical attention, and immediate time off work.

The physical findings were compatible with the reported fall.

The worker suffered a right fifth metatarsal fracture when a forklift wheel rolled over his foot.

He objected to a zero percent Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefit assessment, arguing for at least a 3 percent award based on ongoing pain and impact on daily living.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding no objective medical evidence or diagnosis to explain the ongoing pain complaints, and noting that the range of motion for the right fifth toe was normal at the NEL assessment.