WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20100113
OBJECTION BY: The Worker
EMPLOYER: Not Participating
REPRESENTATIVES: Worker
ISSUE
The worker requests:
- An extension to her LMR plan to allow her to complete it over six semesters instead of the currently approved five semesters.
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
This claim recognizes a repetitive strain workplace accident involving the worker's left upper extremity (shoulder, arm, elbow and wrist), with an onset date of September 7, 2007. The attending health care practitioners diagnosed strains of these areas and treated the conditions through physiotherapy and chiropractic treatments. The employer could not provide accommodated work duties and put the worker on layoff as of October 3, 2007.
Testing rules out neurological problems with the upper extremity and a regional evaluation centre (REC) assessment on April 8, 2008 provided a diagnosis of left rotator cuff tendonitis and neck sprain/strain. The REC team recommended active physiotherapy treatment and the continuation of precautions. An MRI scan on April 15, 2008 also ruled out any disc pathology but a CT scan on April 28, 2008 located a haemangioma at the T2 level of her spine.
An MRI scan of the worker's left shoulder on September 29, 2008 identified bursitis and mils degenerative changes but not tendinosis or any rotator cuff tear. She attended an assessment at an upper extremity clinic on December 15, 2008 for medical management purposes. The clinic specialist arranged for a bone scan on January 5, 2009 which proved negative for any abnormality. He concluded that the worker's symptoms related to myofascial pain and confirmed permanent precautions on upper extremity use.
The operating area initiated the non-economic loss (NEL) assessment process and arranged for the worker to attend a labour market re-entry (LMR) assessment. This assessment identified two potential suitable employment or businesses (SEB) for the worker – social services worker and customer service clerk. The operating area approved a LMR plan for the SEB of social services worker on May 1, 2009.
The worker attended a NEL assessment on May 4, 2009 and then a further one on October 2, 2009. She received a 5% permanent impairment rating for her left shoulder condition on October 17, 2009. In the interim, the worker and her representative had asked the operating area to extend her college training program by an additional semester to accommodate learning concerns. The case manager denied the request on October 6, 2009.
The worker objected to the decision on October 29, 2009; the worker's representative submitted an objection form on December 7, 2009 and the operating area referred the issue to the Appeals Branch on March 9, 2010.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy Manual documents:
- 19-03-01 Labour Market Re-entry (LMR) Overview
- 19-03-02 LMR Assessments
- 19-03-03 Determining Suitable and Available Employment or Business, and Earnings
- 19-03-04 Entitlement to LMR Plans
- 19-03-05 LMR Plans
- 22-01-03 Workers' Co-operation Obligations
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS
The worker's representative opted to resolve the presenting issue through a decision without a hearing. He provided a written by fax on June 15, 2010.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
The operating area case manager approved the worker's LMR plan to include the following components:
- 16 weeks of college preparation.
- 64 weeks of formal training
- 4 weeks creative job search training.
The timeframe for the completion of this plan was set as June 1, 2009 to April 29, 2011. The worker commenced the program as directed and asked for an extension to the plan to better accommodate her learning capability. The operating area view is that there is no need to do this.
The worker's representative notes that aptitude testing identified the worker as falling within the lower range of average in terms of learning capability and likely requiring remedial assistance. More importantly, her disability specialist at the college has endorsed the use of an additional semester to accommodate the worker's learning challenges and personal circumstances. For these reasons, the worker's representative believes the request is in the best interests of the worker and will increases her chances for success.
I agree. The psycho-vocational evaluation clearly identified the worker's learning challenges and anticipated the need for further assistance. The college advisory staff has worked directly with her and they are supportive of the extension of the training program by one semester. For these reasons, the operating area will extend the worker's college training program by one semester.
CONSLUSION
I conclude that:
The college advisory staff has worked directly with the worker and they are supportive of the extension of the training program by one semester.
The operating area will extend the worker's college training program by one semester.
The worker's objection is allowed.
DATED July 23, 2010
L. J. Vaccarello
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch