S. Vagadia

The worker suffered a compensable bilateral shoulder injury and requested maintenance treatment after reaching maximum medical recovery.

A Nurse Consultant denied the request, finding it clinically unnecessary.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the objection in part, granting a one-year trial of physiotherapy or chiropractic maintenance treatment to determine if it would reduce the worker's reliance on opioid medication.

Requests for massage therapy and acupuncture were denied.

The worker appealed several WSIB decisions regarding his compensable right shoulder injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the modified duties offered by the employer were not suitable, as they exceeded the worker's restrictions and required him to overcompensate with his left arm.

The worker was granted secondary entitlement for a left shoulder injury and entitlement to a chronic pain disability (CPD).

The officer also restored full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits, finding the worker totally impaired and incapable of participating in the proposed suitable occupation.

Entitlement to a psychotraumatic disability was denied as CPD was granted.

The employer objected to several WSIB decisions granting the worker entitlement for an exacerbation of pre-existing osteoarthritis, a permanent impairment, an 8% non-economic loss (NEL) award, and a return-to-work plan for the suitable occupation of General Office Worker at an entry-level wage.

The Appeals Resolution Officer confirmed the entitlement to the exacerbation, the permanent impairment, and the 8% NEL award, finding that the workplace accident significantly contributed to the deterioration of the worker's pre-existing condition.

The Officer also confirmed the suitable occupation but found that the worker's extensive prior managerial experience meant she was capable of earning a median wage rather than an entry-level wage.

The employer's objection was allowed in part.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision finding her capable of full-time modified work as of October 3, 2022.

The worker, who had compensable left knee and low back impairments, argued she could only work part-time due to increased symptoms from standing and walking.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the modified duties were suitable, the worker was only capable of working 25 hours per week (5 hours per shift, 5 days a week).

The worker's objection was allowed in part, granting partial loss of earnings benefits based on a 25-hour work week.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision terminating re-employment payments effective June 13, 2022, the date the worker secured alternate employment after being terminated by the accident employer.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that securing alternate employment to mitigate wage loss did not sever the employment relationship.

However, the worker explicitly stated on August 8, 2022, that they did not intend to return to the accident employer, which severed the relationship.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting re-employment payments less actual earnings from June 13 to August 8, 2022.

The worker objected to a Claims Adjudicator's decision finding that the employer had offered suitable permanently modified duties following a compensable left shoulder injury.

The worker argued that the Environmental Assistant position offered was not suitable because he lacked the necessary computer skills and training.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the position was physically suitable and within the worker's permanent restrictions.

Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that the worker had the cognitive aptitude for the role and received adequate on-the-job training.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision limiting entitlement to a right shoulder contusion following a workplace slip and fall.

The worker argued the accident exacerbated a pre-existing condition, leading to two shoulder surgeries.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence, noting the worker had a significant pre-existing condition from prior non-work-related accidents and had already been recommended for surgery before the workplace incident.

Finding no evidence that the workplace accident caused a deterioration of the pre-existing condition, the Officer concluded the surgeries were not work-related.

The appeal was dismissed.

The estate of a deceased worker appealed several decisions of a Case Manager regarding a 2014 left knee injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part.

The Officer found that the worker was entitled to a review of loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from May 2015 to April 2016, as the accommodated pre-injury duties did not constitute a suitable occupation.

The worker was also found entitled to full LOE benefits following a compensable left knee surgery in April 2016.

However, the Officer confirmed that the employer did not have a re-employment obligation because the worker did not meet the 'unable to work' threshold, having continued to receive regular pay for accommodated duties.

Finally, the Officer upheld the 4% non-economic loss (NEL) award, finding that the pre-existing asymptomatic arthritis was correctly offset under WSIB policy.

The worker objected to a Case Manager's decisions finding that the employer did not breach its cooperation obligation and denying entitlement to loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from April 21, 2014.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was terminated for reasons unrelated to the compensable injury or claim for benefits, specifically due to breaches of employer policies including theft and attempting side jobs.

Therefore, the employer's cooperation obligation ended on the date of termination.

Furthermore, because the worker was performing suitable work at no wage loss at the time of his unrelated termination, he did not have a loss of earnings resulting from his work-related injury.

The worker's objection was denied.

The employer objected to a Case Manager's decision finding that it breached its re-employment obligation.

The worker, who was performing modified duties following a workplace injury, was terminated within six months of re-employment.

The employer argued the termination was justified due to the worker breaching its workplace violence and harassment policy by yelling at a manager.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer failed to rebut the presumption that the termination was related to the work injury, noting that the altercation stemmed from the worker's complaints about not being provided suitable duties.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a left thumb sprain allegedly sustained when he slipped on ice in a parking lot at work.

The worker delayed seeking medical attention for approximately six weeks and continued to perform his regular duties without complaint.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the significant delay in seeking medical attention and the lack of impact on the worker's job performance meant a temporal relationship between the workplace incident and the diagnosis could not be established.