WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20100157
OBJECTION BY: Worker
PARTICIPANTS: Worker, Employer
ISSUES
The worker seeks initial entitlement for a workplace accident of December 11, 2009, whereby she sustained an electrical shock as she was activating a dock lever. In the decision dated March 1, 2010, the Eligibility Adjudicator (EA) denied initial entitlement as proof of disability beyond the date of accident could not be established.
The worker is seeking reimbursement for:
Eight (8) hours lost time to attend her medical appointments, although she did not actually lose any time from work to attend these appointments.
She is also seeking reimbursement for travel expenses to attend medical investigations related to her cardiac symptoms.
HOW THE ISSUES AROSE
The worker reported a workplace accident on December 11, 2009, after sustaining an electrical shock while in the process of activating a dock level. While she notified the employer of the incident immediately, she continued to work at her regular duties. The day after the accident, she reported experiencing heart palpitations. When the heart palpitations did not subside, she eventually sought medical attention on December 23, 2009. Given the delay in seeking medical attention, and the lack of any medical evidence to support that she sustained an injury as a result of this accident, initial entitlement to the claim was denied, citing the fact that there was no evidence of damage to the heart and therefore no proof of a disability beyond the day of accident.
The worker seeks recognition of initial entitlement as well as loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for time required to attend her medical appointments and investigations. The employer confirmed that the worker did not require any time off work as a result of this accident, and the worker has confirmed that she is seeking reimbursement for her own personal time to attend these medical appointments.
AUTHORITY
11-01-01 – Adjudicative Process
11-01-02 – Decision Making
17-01-05 – Wage Loss for Health Care Appointments
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS
Contact was made with the worker and it was agreed that I would proceed with a decision based on the information contained within the claim record, along with the additional submission in her Objection Form.
A Participant Form was received from the employer. The employer was contacted and advised of the objection issue and method of resolution. The employer had no further information to add.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
On December 11, 2009, this automotive accumulator reported that she experienced a type of electrical shock or “electrocution” as she was about to push a button to raise the platform. The worker explained that she was about to operate electrical panel #20 on the dock. This procedure would lock the truck tires in place as a safety mechanism prior to loading the trucks.
The activation of the panel is a two-step process. The initial activation locks the tires in place. The next step is activated 5-10 minutes later, and this raises the ramp to allow the load to be transported to the truck.
At the time of the onset, the worker described that she was standing with outstretched arm to push the button on the panel, and just as she was about to touch the button, she felt an electrical jolt. She described an electrical arc travelling from her left arm, across her elbow, chest and shoulder, to the right arm and into her right hand which was holding onto a metal cage for support at the time. While the worker reported that the electrical panel was not grounded, the employer confirmed that the Dock Leveler was shut down by the supervisor following the incident until a full investigation could be completed. He confirmed that the electrician identified no problems with the panel.
The worker did not experience an immediate onset of symptoms. On the contrary, she reported that approximately 15 hours after the accident she was at home and felt somewhat “off balance”. When she awoke the following day, she felt heart palpitations which increased in frequency as time went on. On December 23, 2009, she reported to her union office that she was not feeling well and that she planned to seek medical attention. She saw her family doctor on this date, and he referred her for medical investigation to further assess her cardiac symptoms. The Doctor’s First Report (Form 8) dated February 22, 2010 noted that the worker experienced heart palpitations. No other symptoms were identified.
The cardiologist’s report dated January 21, 2010 noted no previous history of cardiac problems. Since the accident, the worker reported some heart palpitations but the severity and frequency of these palpitations had improved significantly. Electrocardiogram and Echocardiogram testing were both normal. Holter monitoring identified no significant abnormalities. He diagnosed an electrocution type injury occurring weeks prior with no evidence of any resulting heart damage. No cardiac concerns were identified and the worker was cleared to resume all regular activities.
The current issue under consideration does not dispute whether a workplace incident occurred. The event was witnessed by a co-worker, the worker reported the incident immediately to her supervisor, and the supervisor responded to the worker’s concerns by shutting down the Dock Leveler pending further investigation by the electrician. The EA determined, however, that based on the negative results of all the medical tests, the worker did not sustain an injury beyond the date of accident.
The employer confirmed that the worker did not seek any medical attention at first aid at the time of the incident. There were also no trips to first aid between December 11, 2009 and December 23, 2009. The employer was on a company shut down from December 24, 2009 to January 3, 2010. The worker countered that there were no active nursing services available at the work site, and that she preferred to defer medical attention until she could see her family doctor. It is noted that, while the worker is employed in Brampton, her family physician is located in Windsor, Ontario.
I have considered all of the evidence before me. The information on file clearly identifies that a workplace accident did occur. The worker subsequently experienced symptoms (i.e. heart palpitations) that would be compatible with the accident. While the worker did not lose any time from work, she sought medical attention in response to these continuing symptoms. The woker currently seeks reimbursement for her travel expenses to attend medical appointments and LOE benefits for the personal time she incurred to attend these appointments.
With respect to the worker’s request for LOE benefits, policy 17-01-05 states:
The WSIB pays temporary total disability/loss of earnings benefits to workers who incur a wage loss due to absence from work for health care reasons.
The policy defines "absence from work" to include time off from the worker's normally scheduled working hours. As the worker did not lose any time from work to attend her medical appointments, she is not entitled to reimbursement of LOE benefits for the 8 hours she incurred of her own personal time.
With respect to the worker’s request for health care benefits, she is currently claiming for travel expenses to attend these appointments. Policy 17-01-05 goes on to state:
Attendance at such appointments is pre-authorized if the worker has made a claim and there is sufficient information in the file to warrant the WSIB requesting that the worker undergo special health care investigations or examinations so that a determination of entitlement to benefits may be made.
The worker experienced heart palpitations following the accident. It was undetermined whether the worker sustained any ensuing damage to the heart without pursuing these medical investigations. The medical reporting does not identify any pre-existing cardiac concerns. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the medical investigations with the cardiologist and the cardiac testing were a direct necessity of the workplace accident. While the employer has commented that the medical investigations appeared excessive given the nature of the incident, these are all investigations which the worker’s family physician deemed were appropriate given the accident history and the nature of the worker’s symptoms.
I therefore conclude that there is sufficient evidence to grant initial entitlement for the workplace accident of December 11, 2009, and for the symptoms related to the heart palpitations that subsequently developed.
CONCLUSION
The worker’s objection is allowed in part. Initial entitlement is granted and the worker is entitled to health care benefit reimbursement for travel to attend her medical appointments. As the worker did not lose any time from work to attend these appointments, her request for the 8 hours of LOE benefits is denied.
DATED November 5, 2010
R. Calvert
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch