WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20150040
DECISION DATE: March 12, 2015
OBJECTING PARTY: Worker
REPRESENTED by: Worker Representative
RESPONDENT: Employer (Not participating)
HEARING: Hearing in Writing
HEARD by: S. Crisostomo, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUE
The worker is requesting entitlement for irritable larynx syndrome.
BACKGROUND
The claim was established based on the Employer’s Report of Injury/Disease (Form 7) dated October 12, 2010. The employer reported that dust from construction was aggravating the worker’s respiratory condition.
Following a conversation with the worker, the Eligibility Adjudicator (EA) requested additional medical and occupational information. After obtaining the information, the EA determined that it was improbable that the circumstances of the worker’s employment and exposure history significantly contributed to the development of, or aggravation of, his COPD medical condition. Therefore, the EA denied entitlement to COPD. This decision was communicated on May 19, 2011.
As the medical evidence suggested a possible diagnosis of irritable larynx syndrome, the worker was referred to a WSIB specialty clinic for a medical assessment.
Eligibility Adjudicator’s Decision
On March 11, 2014, the EA denied entitlement for irritable larynx syndrome after determining there was no confirmed diagnosis of irritable larynx syndrome.
Worker’s Representative’s Position
The worker’s representative submits that the medical evidence is supportive of the diagnosis of irritable larynx syndrome exacerbated by the worker’s workplace exposures and that entitlement should be granted for irritable larynx syndrome resulting from the worker’s exposure to poor air quality, dust and fumes.
AUTHORITY
Section 2 and 15 and Regulations 3 and 4 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
Operational Policies:
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
11-01-02 Decision-Making
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision.
There is no WSIB policy that applies specifically to irritable larynx syndrome. Therefore, entitlement must be determined based upon the available evidence and the individual merits and justice of the case.
I find the worker is not entitled to WSIB benefits for irritable larynx syndrome related to his employment exposure.
I note that a specialist in respiratory medicine at the WSIB specialty clinic indicated in the report of September 18, 2013 that the worker’s findings were supportive of irritable larynx syndrome exacerbated by his work exposure. One month later, on October 16, 2013, the specialist referred the worker to an Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) Specialist for a more detailed evaluation of the diagnosis of irritable larynx syndrome.
Based on the assessment of January 23, 2014, the ENT opined that it was questionable if the worker met the criteria for irritable larynx syndrome based on his history and the assessment findings.
In my assessment of the medical evidence contained in the file, I place significant weight on the ENT’s opinion of January 23, 2014, since she is a well-known specialist in the field and is the Otolaryngologist-in-Chief at _________ Hospital. I also place weight on the ENT opinion as I find the assessment was thorough, taking into consideration the worker’s exposure history dating back to 1999, a physical examination of the worker and the results of the worker’s exposure to irritants test.
In my review of the medical evidence in the file, I am satisfied that there is no confirmed diagnosis of irritable larynx syndrome with respect to the worker. As such, I conclude entitlement to benefits for irritable larynx syndrome is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence outlined in this decision, I conclude entitlement for irritable larynx syndrome is denied.
The worker’s objection is denied.
DATED March 12, 2015
S. Crisostomo
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division