Workers' Compensation

The worker's estate appealed a decision denying entitlement for pancreatic cancer and survivor benefits.

The worker, who had been employed as an underground trammer and scoop tram operator, was diagnosed with bile duct cancer that metastasized.

The estate argued the cancer was caused by workplace exposure to carcinogens.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed medical opinions, including reports from an OHCOW occupational specialist and a WSIB chest consultant, which found no epidemiological evidence linking the cancer to employment exposures.

The appeal was dismissed, as the evidence did not establish that workplace exposure was a significant contributing factor to the disease.

The employer objected to a claims adjudicator's decision extending a worker's labour market re-entry (LMR) plan from May 2007 to October 2007.

The employer argued that the Board failed to consult it before extending the plan.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that while the Act requires consultation for the initial preparation of an LMR plan, it does not require consultation for subsequent amendments.

The failure to consult the employer regarding the extension was deemed an administrative error with no statutory remedy, and there was no evidence that consultation would have changed the outcome.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for a hernia, which he claimed resulted from a January 2008 workplace fall that caused a mid-back strain.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no medical continuity or contemporaneous evidence connecting the hernia, diagnosed in October 2008, to the January incident or any subsequent workplace event.

The worker's objection was denied.

The employer appealed the initial allowance of the worker's claim for an upper back strain, while the worker appealed the discontinuation of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker suffered a compensable upper back strain from heavy lifting, upholding the initial entitlement.

However, the officer also found no objective medical evidence to support continuing impairment or LOE benefits beyond the expected recovery period, noting that the worker's ongoing pain was likely related to non-compensable pre-existing conditions.

Both appeals were denied.

The worker appealed the WSIB Case Manager's decisions regarding the suitability of a labour market re-entry plan, the reduction of loss of earnings benefits, and the denial of entitlement for a right knee medial meniscus tear and surgery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the selected suitable employment or business (SEB) of Community and Social Service Worker was unsuitable given the worker's academic barriers and lack of foundational skills.

The Officer directed that a new SEB be determined and loss of earnings benefits be recalculated.

The Officer also found a causal link between the original workplace injury and the right knee medial meniscus tear, granting entitlement for the condition and associated surgery.

The worker appealed a decision denying him entitlement to health care benefits for noise-induced hearing loss.

The worker was employed as an electrician from 1943 to 1984 and was exposed to hazardous noise levels.

The initial adjudicator calculated his hearing loss at 22.75 dB and 21.50 dB after a presbycusis adjustment, falling short of the 22.5 dB threshold.

The Appeals Resolution Officer recalculated the audiogram results and the presbycusis adjustment based on the worker's correct age at the time of the test.

The recalculated hearing loss was 23.25 dB in each ear, meeting the policy criteria.

The worker's objection was granted, and he was awarded health care benefits for noise-induced hearing loss.

The worker appealed a decision denying loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from March 12 to March 19, 2009, after he declined modified work following a right shoulder injury.

The worker argued his doctor advised him not to return to work until assessed by a specialist.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker's actions reasonable, noting he was right-hand dominant and the modified duties would have been difficult.

The objection was allowed, and the worker was granted LOE benefits for the disputed period.

The worker's estate claimed entitlement for kidney cancer, alleging it was causally related to workplace exposures to asbestos and trichloroethylene (TCE) between 1973 and 1999.

The worker, an electrician at a steel plant, died in 1988.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed occupational hygiene reports, medical literature, and WSIB policy reviews.

The Officer concluded that the worker's asbestos exposure lacked the intensity and duration associated with an increased risk of renal cancer.

Furthermore, the weight of the evidence did not support a causal relationship between TCE exposure and renal cancer.

The objection was denied.

The widow appealed the denial of survivor benefits for the worker's colon cancer, which she claimed was caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos between 1969 and 1982.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker had occasional and intermittent exposure to asbestos as a parts clerk and truck driver, the exposure was not of a continuous and repetitive nature representing the major component of his occupational activity.

The appeal was denied as a causal relationship between the employment and the colon cancer was not established.

The worker objected to a decision denying entitlement for a right knee injury sustained at work.

The worker twisted his knee while carrying a box, aggravating a pre-existing right knee impairment.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the minor work event aggravated the pre-existing condition, leading to continuous swelling and the knee giving out.

The claim was allowed for the acute episode of the aggravation, with loss of earnings benefits granted for the post-surgical recovery period.

The worker suffered a workplace injury in 1979 while swinging a sledgehammer, which eventually resulted in permanent disability awards for a low back impairment, thoracic outlet syndrome, and psychotraumatic disability.

In 2007, the worker was diagnosed with a left rotator cuff tear and sought entitlement, claiming it was related to the 1979 accident.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding no medical evidence of a rotator cuff injury in the decades following the accident, concluding the condition developed many years later and did not occur in the course of employment.

The worker appealed the denial of a Non Economic Loss (NEL) assessment for permanent aggravation of stasis dermatitis and the denial of a 100 per cent Future Economic Loss (FEL) award.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the aggravation of the worker's stasis dermatitis caused by the workplace ankle injury was temporary and ended in 1998, with subsequent flare-ups attributable to non-compensable pre-existing conditions.

The Officer also found that the modified welding jobs offered by the employer in 1995/1996 accommodated the worker's low back restrictions, as they allowed for alternating between sitting and standing.

The worker's objections were denied.

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 worker, a community nurse, was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident in March 2006.

She continued working but developed anxiety and a fear of driving.

In July 2007, she was involved in a minor non-work-related motor vehicle accident, after which she stopped working and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the March 2006 work-related accident was a significant contributing factor to the development of her PTSD, as it left her vulnerable to re-traumatization.

The worker's objection was granted, and she was awarded entitlement to benefits for psychotraumatic disability and 100 per cent loss of earnings benefits from August 2007 to September 2009.

The worker suffered a fractured ankle when a heavy steel beam fell on his leg at work.

Following the injury, the worker developed severe psychological symptoms, including nightmares, flashbacks, and depression, and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression.

The case manager denied psychotraumatic entitlement, interpreting a WSIB psychologist's report as finding no entitlement.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence clearly established the worker's psychological condition arose as an indirect result of the physical workplace injury.

The worker's objection was allowed and psychotraumatic entitlement was granted.

The worker appealed the case manager's decisions denying loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for various periods in 2005, a permanent disability/non-economic loss assessment, and an expansion of entitlement to include psychotraumatic disability.

The worker had a history of lower back strains and claimed ongoing disability and psychological impairment due to workplace harassment and his physical condition.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's ongoing physical difficulties were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than a compensable permanent impairment from the workplace accidents.

Furthermore, the worker's psychological condition was found to be non-occupational and related to pre-existing personality issues rather than a compensable psychotraumatic impairment.

The modified duties offered by the employer were deemed suitable.

The worker's appeal was denied.

The worker injured his low back while lifting a heavy roll at work.

Months later, he underwent neck surgery and claimed the neck condition was caused by the same workplace accident.

The claims adjudicator denied entitlement due to a delay in treatment and lack of medical evidence linking the neck condition to the original injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence, which included reports of a subsequent motor vehicle accident, did not support a neck injury at the time of the workplace accident.

The worker's objection was denied.

The worker objected to a decision denying entitlement to a permanent low back impairment and associated health care benefits following a November 2000 workplace injury.

The worker had sustained a low back strain while unloading cases of liquor and subsequently developed chronic mechanical low back pain, alongside other conditions including hypermobility and sacroiliac dysfunction.

The Appeals Resolution Officer granted the objection in part, finding continuity of medical attention for the mechanical low back pain, which was aggravated by the workplace accident.

Entitlement was granted for a permanent impairment related to mechanical low back pain without significant neurological impairment, as well as specific health care benefits including massage therapy and facet joint injections.

Entitlement for other inherent conditions and prolotherapy was denied.

The employer objected to a WSIB audit decision that prorated its common earnings for 2006 and 2007 and classified several contractors as workers, adding their earnings to the employer's insurable earnings.

The employer argued the proration was a 'classification change' limiting retroactive adjustments to the current year, and questioned the contractors' status.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding the proration was a correction of reporting errors rather than a classification change, and that the employer provided insufficient evidence to overturn the auditor's determination regarding the contractors' worker status.

The worker, a food services attendant, appealed decisions denying loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for multiple recurrences of a compensable low back injury and challenging the 7 percent non-economic loss (NEL) award.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part.

The worker was granted full LOE benefits for the March 2007 recurrence and partial LOE benefits for the September 2007 recurrence, as medical evidence supported her inability to work full hours.

The NEL award was ordered to be recalculated using the initial April 2007 assessment's range of motion findings, which accurately reflected her impairment.

Claims for full LOE benefits for the February 2008 and December 2008 recurrences were denied due to a lack of contemporaneous medical authorization.