Stephen Crisostomo

The worker, a Personal Support Worker, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for tinnitus and hearing loss allegedly caused by COVID-19 vaccinations received in 2021.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the employer used coercion making the vaccinations a compulsory part of employment, the medical evidence did not establish a causal link between the vaccines and the worker's hearing loss and tinnitus.

Relying on the opinions of Occupational Medicine Consultants, the Officer concluded that on a balance of probabilities, the conditions were not an adverse reaction to the vaccines.

The appeal was denied.

The worker objected to decisions determining that Customer Service Representative was a Suitable Occupation (SO) and that his Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits would be based on the entry-level earnings of that SO ($15.50 per hour).

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the SO was within the worker's functional abilities and transferable skills following a Return-to-Work plan.

The Officer also confirmed that because the worker acquired a new skill set, LOE benefits were correctly based on entry-level wages.

The worker's objections were denied.

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for bilateral hand burns.

The worker sustained the burns when a personal chemical gas bomb, which they had brought to work and placed in their tool pouch, was accidentally ignited by sparks while cutting rebar.

The employer argued that bringing an explosive to work constituted serious and wilful misconduct under section 17 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the injury resulted from a chance event accident in the course of employment.

The Officer concluded there was no evidence the worker deliberately planned to ignite the bomb at work, and therefore the injury was not solely attributable to serious and wilful misconduct.

The employer's objection was denied and initial entitlement was upheld.

The worker, a Trackman Journeyman, suffered a work-related left knee injury and returned to modified duties.

The employer subsequently laid off the worker due to a shortage of work, which constituted a permanent work disruption.

The Case Manager initially denied Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits following the layoff.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's ongoing knee impairment and need for active treatment precluded them from performing their pre-injury duties or securing alternative employment.

The worker's objection was allowed, granting full LOE benefits from the date of the layoff.

The worker, a pipefitter, suffered injuries including hearing loss, tinnitus, and PTSD following a workplace accident where a pipe exploded.

The Case Manager determined that the worker had recovered from their work-related conditions with no ongoing or permanent impairment.

The worker objected, seeking ongoing entitlement and recognition of permanent impairment for their hearing loss, tinnitus, and PTSD.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the objection, finding that the medical evidence supported that the worker had reached maximum medical recovery for both their hearing conditions and PTSD, and that these conditions resulted in permanent impairments entitling the worker to Non-economic Loss determinations.

The worker appealed a decision denying initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for a diagnosed skin condition (dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema) on their hands and wrists, which they alleged was caused by wearing gloves at work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and found no indication from the treating physicians that the condition was caused by workplace exposures.

Applying the five-point check system under Operational Policy 11-01-01, the Officer concluded that the worker failed to establish compatibility between the diagnosis and their employment history.

The appeal was dismissed and entitlement was denied.

The employer objected to an adjudicator's decision granting the worker entitlement for an inhalation injury sustained at work.

The worker claimed they developed respiratory symptoms after washing pots with cleaning chemicals.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's exposure to cleaning products, which safety data sheets indicated could cause respiratory issues if inhaled, significantly contributed to the diagnosed inhalation injury.

The employer's objection was denied and initial entitlement was upheld.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits retroactive to December 2, 2017.

The worker had previously suffered significant injuries from a workplace fall.

However, surveillance and social media evidence showed the worker engaging in intense physical workouts at a gym, contradicting his reported level of impairment.

The worker had also pleaded guilty to making false statements under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the video evidence demonstrated the worker had no limitations or restrictions related to his accepted injuries, and denied the appeal.

The employer objected to an Eligibility Adjudicator's decision granting the worker initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for COVID-19.

The worker, a heavy equipment operator, tested positive for COVID-19 but had no known workplace exposure, worked primarily outdoors, and followed COVID-19 protocols including masking and social distancing.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the nature of the worker's employment did not create a risk of contracting COVID-19 to which the public at large was not normally exposed.

The employer's objection was allowed, and the initial entitlement for COVID-19 was rescinded.

The worker, a paramedic with an allowed claim for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), objected to a decision denying entitlement to medical cannabis.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the request under WSIB Operational Policy 17-01-10, which restricts medical cannabis entitlement to specific designated conditions.

Because PTSD is not a designated condition under the policy, the worker did not meet the mandatory criteria.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement to WSIB benefits for an adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccination.

The worker argued that they believed the vaccination was mandatory because the appointment was scheduled through the employer.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer did not mandate the vaccine or use coercion to require it.

Applying Operational Policy 15-04-10, the Officer concluded that the vaccination was not a compulsory immunization procedure.

The worker's objection was denied and entitlement to benefits was refused.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) allegedly caused by occupational exposure to mineral oil between 1969 and 1973.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker was exposed to mineral oil and BCC is a Schedule 3 occupational disease, the statutory presumption was rebutted.

Medical evidence, including a surgical pathology report and an occupational medical consultant's opinion, established that the worker's significant sun exposure from decades of outdoor construction work was the main cause of the skin cancer.

The appeal was denied.

The employer appealed a decision granting the worker initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for COVID-19.

The worker, a warehouse line worker, tested positive for COVID-19 in May 2020.

The employer argued that the worker wore personal protective equipment and that there was reasonable doubt about workplace transmission, noting the worker's spouse also tested positive and the worker had concurrent employment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that there were at least 15-20 confirmed cases in the facility, creating an elevated risk of contracting the virus compared to the general public.

The officer concluded it was more likely than not that the worker contracted COVID-19 at work.

The employer's objection was denied and initial entitlement was upheld.

The worker appealed decisions denying entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS), Chronic Mental Stress (CMS), and reimbursement for psychiatric medical reports.

The worker developed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a co-worker yelled, swore, and acted aggressively towards them in October 2014.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the TMS claim, finding the events did not involve physical violence or threats of physical violence and were not objectively traumatic.

However, the CMS claim was allowed, as the co-worker's egregious conduct constituted workplace harassment and was a substantial work-related stressor that predominantly caused the worker's PTSD.

The worker was also granted reimbursement for one of the two requested psychiatric reports.

The worker, a carpenter, appealed a Case Manager's decision denying entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) and Chronic Mental Stress (CMS) following a workplace altercation.

The worker alleged he was threatened and shoved by a co-worker and the project manager after raising safety concerns and supporting a unionization attempt.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the incident did not meet the threshold for an objectively traumatic event involving physical violence or a life-threatening situation, denying the TMS claim.

However, the Officer found that the co-worker's aggressive conduct, which included profanities and poking the worker in the chest, amounted to workplace harassment and was the predominant cause of the worker's diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting entitlement for CMS.