Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Appeals Resolution Officer Decision
DECISION NUMBER: 20110021
OBJECTION BY: Worker
PARTICIPANTS: Worker, Worker’s Representative
HEARING: N/A
ISSUE
The worker objects to the case manager’s decision dated May 5, 2010 denying entitlement to hand/arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
A Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim was established for this 64 year old (born 1947) construction electrician, who had approximately 35 years exposure to vibratory tools. The worker claims to have developed hand pain, numbness and cold sensitivity which he relates to his employment exposures. The worker seeks entitlement for HAVS.
The adjudicator accepted that the worker did have sufficient occupational exposure to vibratory tools to meet part of the criterion, as outlined under WSIB policy, for the development of HAVS. As such, arrangements were made for the worker to be assessed at St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), WSIB Occupational Disease Specialty Program HAVS strain, for an objective assessment.
Based on the results of the SMH assessment, dated January 28, 2010, the file was reviewed by the WSIB occupational disease medical consultant who opined that the medical evidence did not confirm objective evidence of Raynaud’s phenomenon. As such, entitlement in this claim for HAVS was denied.
The worker’s objection is the issue presently under appeal.
AUTHORITY
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the Act):
- Section 2 (1)
- Section 15
- Schedule III and Schedule IV of the Act
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the Act) Operational Policy Manual (OPM) Documents:
- 11-01-02 – Decision-Making
- 16-01-05 – Vibration Induced White Finger Disease
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS
Contact was made with the worker’s representative who agreed for the appeals resolution officer (ARO) to proceed to a decision based on the information contained within the claim record.
A Participant Form was not received from the employer and therefore they were not contacted for this appeal.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
In arriving at a decision in this claim, I have had regard for the record, the applicable law and policy, as well as the interested parties view on the issue.
In considering a worker’s entitlement to WSIB benefits, a decision maker is mandated is to have regard for WSIB legislation and related policy.
When I assessed all of the pertinent in the claim file, I found that the worker is entitled to allowance of this claim for HAVS. In reaching this conclusion, I have regard for all of the available information, however found the following details particularly relevant:
OPM 16-01-05 clearly states in part:
"Claims for Vibration Induced White Finger Disease are favourably considered when the following circumstances apply:
there is a clear and adequate history of two or more years of continuous employment on high frequency, rapid acceleration vibratory tools immediately preceding the onset of vasospastic response, AND
a condition has been confirmed on medical examination by a specialist consultant in vascular disease."
I note that there is sufficient occupational exposure to vibratory tools and that the adjudicator has accepted that the first criterion of this policy has been met.
It is noted that the worker was referred to the SMH for an assessment for the purpose of determining whether the second criterion of the policy has been met.
I have carefully noted Dr. House’s, SMH Occupational Disease Specialty Program HAVS Stream, report of April 1, 2010 which opined that the worker has Raynaud’s phenomenon and cold intolerance. Dr. House notes that there is no history of primary Raynaud’s phenomenon and also no history of any underlying medical condition that might be associated with Raynaud’s phenomenon and cold intolerance. Dr. House concludes that "There is no history of primary Raynaud’s Phenomenon and also no history of any underlying medical condition that might be associated with the development of secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon. In contrast to this, [the worker] has a history of exposure to hand-held vibrating tools of high frequency for many years."
As noted above, the Occupational Health Clinic Specialist at SMH, Dr. House has opined that the objective medical evidence has demonstrated that the worker has HAVS, based on the results of tests that were performed at the hospital. This medical opinion by a Specialist therefore fulfils the second criterion of the policy. Although the WSIB medical consultant has opined that the results are not clinically significant, I prefer to accept the opinion of Dr. House, as he too is a specialist in this field, and because he has had the opportunity to examine the worker himself.
CONCLUSION
The worker’s occupational exposures significantly contributed to the development of HAVS.
The worker’s objection is therefore allowed.
DATED April 12, 2011
S. Bennett Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Branch