Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying entitlement to benefits for Traumatic Mental Stress and Chronic Mental Stress.

The worker claimed she developed mental stress after her parents, who also worked for the employer, were subjected to workplace harassment and she was forced to work with the accused individual.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the events were not objectively traumatic and did not constitute a substantial work-related stressor.

Furthermore, there was no medical evidence on file to support a diagnosed mental stress injury.

The worker appealed a case manager's decision denying ongoing entitlement and treatment for a right knee injury beyond April 21, 2015.

The worker had suffered a work-related medial meniscal tear and subsequently developed persistent symptoms, including an exacerbated Baker's cyst, on a background of pre-existing osteoarthritis.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the pre-existing condition had not overwhelmed the work-related injury, which continued to be a significant contributing factor to the ongoing impairment.

The worker's appeal was allowed, granting continuing entitlement and treatment, including a Synvisc injection.

The worker appealed a decision denying ongoing entitlement for a right shoulder rotator cuff strain and secondary entitlement for a SLAP tear and subsequent surgery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the accepted strain had fully resolved and that ongoing symptoms were related to pre-existing osteoarthritis and tendinosis.

The Officer also concluded that the SLAP tear was not causally linked to the workplace injury, as the mechanism of injury was not compatible with the diagnosis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker, a personal support worker, suffered an ankle injury and was offered modified clerical duties by the employer.

The worker's family doctor advised against returning to work, stating the modified duties would delay recovery.

The decision maker initially denied loss of earnings (LOE) benefits, finding the modified work suitable.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was cooperative in the work reintegration process and appropriately followed her doctor's advice to remain off work.

The worker's objection was allowed, and entitlement to LOE benefits was granted for the disputed period.

The employer objected to the 2014 and 2015 Period Reconciliation not Reported (PRNR) charges on its Workplace Safety and Insurance Board account.

The employer argued that as a small business, it was difficult to navigate the reporting requirements and requested cancellation of the penalties.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no justification for complete cancellation but applied the WSIB's 2008 guidelines, which allow for revision if a penalty exceeds 10% of the annual actual assessment.

The 2014 PRNR charges exceeded this threshold and were reduced to 10% of the 2014 premium.

The 2015 charges did not exceed the threshold and were confirmed.

The objection was allowed in part.

The worker objected to the denial of full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from August 20, 2007, following a workplace injury to his low back and subsequent depression.

The worker argued that his physical injury and depression rendered him unemployable.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that the worker was partially impaired, not totally impaired, and was capable of working 20 hours per week.

The objection was allowed in part, granting partial LOE based on a 20-hour work week.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) claimed to be causally related to his employment exposure to benzene between 1980 and 2007.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the worker's exposure history and medical evidence, including WSIB policy and recent tribunal decisions.

The officer found that the worker's exposure to benzene was generally below the threshold limit value and that current medical and scientific evidence does not establish a causal relationship between benzene exposure and NHL.

The worker's objection was denied, as the evidence did not support that workplace exposures were a significant contributing factor to the development of the disease.

The employer objected to decisions granting the worker a 4% NEL award for a left shoulder permanent impairment, psychotraumatic disability entitlement, and related psychological treatment, as well as a decision granting the employer only 25% SIEF cost relief.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker suffered a permanent impairment to her left shoulder as a direct result of the workplace accident and that her pre-existing psychological impairment was temporarily aggravated by the injury.

The officer confirmed the NEL award and psychotraumatic entitlement.

However, the officer increased the SIEF cost relief to 75%, finding that the combination of the worker's pre-existing psychological condition and extensive pre-existing degenerative changes in her shoulder constituted a major-severity pre-existing condition combined with a moderate-severity accident.

The worker requested a reconsideration of a decision denying loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from October 1, 2001 onwards.

The worker had previously been granted a 48% non-economic loss (NEL) award for organic low back and psychotraumatic disabilities.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the significant NEL award constituted new evidence warranting reconsideration.

However, the Officer determined that the worker was only partially impaired and capable of performing suitable employment on a part-time basis.

The worker was granted partial LOE benefits based on the minimum wage for 15 hours per week.

The worker objected to a case manager's decision discontinuing partial Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits at the final 72-month review.

The worker had suffered a compensable injury for bilateral epicondylitis and was placed in a Suitable Employment or Business (SEB) as a pharmacy assistant.

The worker argued the SEB was unsuitable and aggravated her condition, requesting LOE benefits based on the SEB target wage of $10.15 an hour.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the specific employment obtained may not have been suitable, the approved SEB was appropriate.

The Officer concluded that the projected wage should be based on the worker's actual earnings from employment in the approved SEB, directing the operations division to adjust the final LOE benefit review to process partial LOE based on projected wages of $13.00 an hour.

The objection was allowed in part.

The worker objected to the denial of supplementary benefits, a medical cane, a non-economic loss (NEL) redetermination, and the calculations and effective date of future economic loss (FEL) benefits following a 1997 low back injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the NEL redetermination and cane, finding no significant deterioration in the worker's condition.

The request for supplementary benefits beyond September 2010 was also denied, as the worker had received sufficient labour market re-entry training for a suitable occupation.

However, the officer allowed the objection in part by adjusting the FEL D1 retroactive date to April 1, 2009, the date the worker was permanently laid off and placed on full benefits.

The employer appealed a WSIB case manager's determination that it breached its re-employment obligation to the worker and the resulting $20,179.54 penalty.

The worker, a welder, suffered a compensable ankle injury and was terminated within six months of his re-employment.

The employer argued the termination was for just cause due to the worker allegedly stealing company tools.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the items in question were mostly disposable or of negligible value, rejecting the theft allegation.

The employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 41(10) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act that the termination was related to the worker's injury.

The appeal was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for a right shoulder injury and terminating her full Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the right shoulder injury was a compensable secondary injury resulting from the worker's reliance on her upper body due to her compensable low back condition.

Furthermore, based on medical and psychological evidence indicating the worker was totally disabled and unable to participate in labour market re-entry, the Officer granted full LOE benefits from February 28, 2010, and directed the operating area to rule on permanent psycho traumatic disability.

The worker suffered a psycho-traumatic reaction to a workplace incident in 1980 and was granted a 15% permanent disability award.

In 2010, she sought a reassessment, claiming her condition had deteriorated.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker's symptoms of anxiety and depression had worsened, the medical evidence indicated this was precipitated by a new, non-compensable cerebral vascular event (stroke) in 2009, rather than a deterioration of her work-related condition.

The request for a permanent disability reassessment was denied.

The worker, a construction electrician with 35 years of exposure to vibratory tools, appealed a case manager's decision denying entitlement for hand/arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).

The WSIB had accepted the worker's occupational exposure but denied the claim based on a WSIB medical consultant's opinion that there was no objective evidence of Raynaud's phenomenon.

The Appeals Resolution Officer preferred the opinion of the specialist who personally examined the worker and confirmed the diagnosis of secondary Raynaud's phenomenon.

The appeal was allowed, and entitlement for HAVS was granted.

The worker, a 37-year-old seamstress, suffered a compensable bilateral hand and wrist injury (tendonitis) in 2004.

After a labour market re-entry plan, she was deemed capable of working as an accounting clerk, but subsequent work attempts exacerbated her condition and led to major depressive disorder.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the accounting clerk role unsuitable due to her permanent restrictions against repetitive arm use.

The Officer also granted entitlement for psycho-traumatic disability, finding her depression was directly related to the workplace injury and chronic pain.

Full Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits were restored retroactively to September 2009 and directed to continue to age 65, as the worker was found completely disabled from work.

The worker suffered a right shoulder and neck strain while lifting a heavy pot at work.

After initially returning to modified work, the worker went off work again due to pain and claimed full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for the period of May 24 to May 31, 2010.

The case manager denied the claim, but the Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the worker's objection, finding that medical evidence supported the worker's total disability during that period.

The worker, a dietary aid, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a low back injury sustained while pushing a heavy rack of dishes through a dishwasher.

The initial decision denied the claim on the basis that the worker was not performing an unusual or awkward movement.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the evidence, including an MSD Hazard Identification Worksheet and confirmation from the employer's Occupational Health Co-ordinator, which supported that the task was heavy and required an awkward posture.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met the five-point check system criteria for an allowable claim under WSIB policy and granted initial entitlement for a low back strain, directing the operating area to determine entitlement to loss of earnings benefits.

The employer objected to a decision denying entitlement to the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) following a worker's compensable injury to his left leg and low back.

The employer argued that the worker's recovery was prolonged by pre-existing conditions, including osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease, as shown on imaging.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that the pre-existing conditions did not cause or contribute to the compensable accident, nor did they prolong or enhance the period of recovery.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker, a Sterilizing Processing Department Attendant, appealed a decision denying entitlement for an ankle injury sustained while turning at a workstation.

The Appeals Resolution Officer considered whether the incident constituted an 'accident' under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Officer found that the simple act of turning without a slip or twist did not constitute a 'chance event' under the Act.

However, the Officer remitted the matter to the operating area to gather more information and determine whether the injury could be considered a disablement arising gradually over time due to repetitive work duties.