3 total
Firefighter granted benefits for laryngeal cancer based on expert medical evidence linking disease to occupational exposure.
The worker, a firefighter with 28 years of service, was diagnosed with right vocal cord squamous cell carcinoma (laryngeal cancer) and sought benefits for an occupational disease.
The initial adjudicator denied the claim because laryngeal cancer is not a prescribed cancer for firefighters under the presumptive policy.
On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer weighed competing medical opinions.
The Officer preferred the opinions of the worker's treating oncologist and an occupational medicine physician, who both concluded that the cancer was likely caused by occupational exposures given the worker's lack of other risk factors, over the opinion of the Board's medical consultant.
The appeal was allowed and entitlement to benefits was granted.
WSIB benefits denied; low-dose ionizing radiation exposure did not significantly contribute to worker's multiple myeloma.
The worker's Estate objected to a decision denying WSIB benefits for multiple myeloma, arguing the disease was caused by the worker's occupational exposure to ionizing radiation while employed as a draftsman at a nuclear power station.
The Appeals Resolution Officer weighed competing medical and occupational hygiene opinions.
Relying on WSIB Occupational Medical Consultants, the Officer found that the worker's exposure to ionizing radiation was low-dose and, combined with a long latency period and non-modifiable risk factors, did not significantly contribute to the development of multiple myeloma.
The objection was denied.
Survivor benefits for occupational lung cancer must be based on earnings of the worker's last exposure job.
The estate of a deceased worker appealed a decision regarding the calculation of survivor benefits for the worker's spouse.
The worker died from non-small-cell lung cancer caused by workplace asbestos exposure.
The initial decision based the benefits on the earnings of a Foundry Worker, where the most significant exposure occurred.
The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal, finding that the worker's later exposure as a Storekeeper also contributed synergistically to the disease, and therefore the benefits should be based on the earnings of a Storekeeper on the date of injury.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.