Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Appeals Resolution Officer Decision
DECISION NUMBER: 20100029
OBJECTION BY: Worker
EMPLOYER: Participated
REPRESENTATIVES: Worker
ISSUE
The worker objects to the denial of two days lost time on April 5 and 6, 2009 related to an exposure in the workplace on April 4, 2009.
The decision letter is dated June 18, 2009.
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
On the morning of April 4, 2009, this worker entered the janitor closet at work and was exposed to the fumes from a bucket of air freshener.
The worker developed a headache on April 4, 2009; however, she was able to complete her shift.
The worker lost time the next day on April 5, 2009 but sought no medical attention, then in trying to return to work on April 6, 2009, she was only able to work three hours and left to seek medical attention.
Entitlement was reviewed by the Operating Area regarding the request for the lost time benefits for April 5 and 6, 2009 but was denied as the worker did not seek medical attention for the lost time. The worker did not have medical authorization to remain off of work related to this incident.
The worker objects to the denial of lost time entitlement in this claim.
AUTHORITY
Section 2(1) and Section 15 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the Act).
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
In arriving at a decision in this claim, I have reviewed and considered file evidence and the circumstances surrounding the worker’s exposure on April 4, 2009. The worker was exposed to the bucket of air freshener in a small confined unventilated space of the janitor’s closet. The worker reported the exposure immediately and there were two witnesses listed to confirm this exposure.
The worker developed a migraine headache related to this exposure; however, she was able to complete the shift of April 4, 2009.
The worker remained off of work on April 5, 2009 then attempted a return to work on April 6, 2009 but was unable to continue due to the migraine headache.
The worker attempted to medicate herself at home using available medication.
The exposure incident occurred on Saturday, April 4, 2009. Medical attention was sought on Monday, April 6, 2009.
The reasons given for the denial as outlined in the letter of June 18, 2009 are correct. The worker did not seek medical attention and did not have the medical authorization to remain off of work on April 5, 2009. However, as medical attention was sought on April 6, 2009, the lost time on April 6, 2009 would be acceptable.
The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) indicates that this product has no emergency precautions and no First Aid measures but also notes that the product should be kept tightly closed and in a cool, ventilated space.
I accept that a bucket of air freshener left standing in a janitor’s closet with little or no ventilation in the closet could cause a build up of fumes/strong smell in the area and could possibly trigger a migraine headache.
In my review and assessment of the file evidence , I highlight that:
the worker is a long term employee, having worked for the accident employer for over 20 years
the worker has no prior lost time claims.
the employer confirmed the incident, the immediate reporting and the witnesses (co-workers) to this exposure.
the employer does not dispute this incident.
I accept that the delay in seeking medical attention was over a weekend and was not excessive.
However, the worker should familiarize herself with the requirements of claiming lost time entitlement. Immediate medical attention should be sought to obtain treatment and to obtain the proper medical authorization for lost time. Medical authorization after the fact is not usually accepted.
In these circumstances, I accept the lost time of April 5 and April 6, 2009 given that the worker sought medical attention on April 6, 2009, the worker is a long term employee, the exposure was confirmed and given that a strong scent can trigger a migraine headache. I also accept that the incident occurred on a weekend when the worker’s family physician may not have been available.
I accept the lost time entitlement for April 5 and April 6, 2009.
CONCLUSION
The worker’s request for lost time entitlement on April 5 and 6, 2009 is allowed.
The worker’s objection is allowed.
DATED January 4, 2010
N. Grunenko
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch