Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Appeals Resolution Officer Decision
Decision Number: 20150050
Decision Date: April 10, 2015
Objecting Party: Worker
Represented by: Worker Representative
Respondent: Employer (not participating)
Hearing: March 12, 2015, Toronto, Ontario
Heard by: P. Bouwman, Appeals Resolution Officer
Issue
The worker objects to the decision dated November 14, 2013, denying initial entitlement for repetitive strain injury.
Background
On October 16, 2013, the worker then 45 years of age and employed as a Call Centre Agent, for 2 ½ years, reported feeling wrist strain in relation to her job.
The worker saw her physician on October 17, 2013 and a functional Abilities Form (FAF) was completed indicating injury to the right wrist and the restriction of not using the right hand.
The Case Manager obtained a job description from the worker and subsequently denied the claim on the basis of compatibility.
The worker objected and the matter was referred to the Appeals Services Division for further consideration.
Authority
Operational Policy Manual Documents:
#11-01-01 Adjudication Process
#11-01-02 Decision Making
#15-02-01 Definition of Accident
Analysis
In considering the objection I have had regard for the information in the claim file record, the information presented at the hearing, as well as the applicable law and policy.
The worker representative requests entitlement for right wrist tendonitis. Based on my assessment I find the worker has entitlement for this condition. The following is a summary of my findings.
Accident History:
The employer is a large Call Centre. The worker’s job involves wearing a headset, taking calls and entering information into the various computer programs with a keyboard and mouse.
Memo 4 outlines a statement from the worker indicating that about one year prior to the injury she began to experience sporadic pain in the right wrist, near the base of the thumb. The worker applied a cream occasionally and purchased a wrist brace from the drug store, which she wore once or twice a week.
The employer instituted a new call system after which the worker began working 12+ hours of overtime per week. The worker then began to experience a gradual increase in pain in her right wrist near the thumb, shooting into her forearm.
The employer confirmed in memo 3 that the new call system was introduced in May 2013 for which the worker received training. After this training, the calls were longer than they had been previously. The employer confirmed that in the two months prior to the reporting of the injury the worker was performing overtime in excess of 12 hours per week.
The worker testified to the following:
- Prior to the injury, her desk was not ergonomically set up. Her desk and chair and were not adjustable. She had a regular keyboard and no wrist pad.
- After the new billing system was introduced, she and some other employees were moved to the basement to receive additional coaching as they were not fast enough
- The worker described the work setting as very cramped. They were sitting shoulder to shoulder. It was narrow and awkward, with not much room to move her arms. She had an ordinary stationary chair.
- She was handling 15 calls per hour. There was a lot of pressure to learn the system and increase speed.
- She began to experience sharp pain in her right wrist radiating up to her elbow. The pain was constant. The pain would get better when not at work. On the day of reporting, her right hand was “frozen”.
- The worker stated her home activities consist of the usual cooking and cleaning. She has no other hobbies. In her spare time she reads and watches TV. She has two children ages 18 and 20 years old.
- The worker testified that she lost two weeks from work. She was not offered modified duties while she was off work.
- She then went on modified work, half days for one week faxing and filing, then full hours modified for a couple of months
- Her desk was ergonomically set up for her. (confirmed by employer memo 3)
- She received physiotherapy treatment
- She is back at her regular job
- She continues to see her doctor regularly and takes anti-inflammatory medication
- She continues to have ongoing issues in the wrist with the pain going to her middle finger. Her physiotherapist ordered a brace for her left wrist as well.
- The worker saw a specialist last month who told her she did not have carpal tunnel syndrome. She is to have blood work done at the beginning of April.
- The worker confirmed she operates her headset and phone with the left hand, mouse with the right and keys with both hands
Medical Information:
Additional medical information was submitted for the hearing:
- A form was completed by the worker’s physician for the employer dated November 13, 2013 providing restrictions for modified work
- A further form was requested by the employer and completed by the family doctor dated June 24, 2014, confirming the diagnosis of right wrist tendonitis and the requirement for physiotherapy
- Prescription from physiotherapist for left wrist brace due to chronic strain
Analysis:
- The worker representative requests entitlement for right wrist tendonitis and loss of earnings benefits.
- The worker’s job requires constant repetitive keying of data utilizing phone, headset, mouse and keyboard. This is confirmed with the job description provided at the hearing and illustrates continuous exposure to wrist flexion/extension, gripping/pinching and finger dexterity.
- The employer confirms that prior to the reporting of the injury, the worker was performing overtime work in excess of 12 hours per week.
- I found the worker provided her testimony in a credible and straightforward manner. She testified that she was working in awkward cramped conditions in the basement during coaching, with inappropriate ergonomics. I find this is a significant factor in the development of the injury.
- There have been no outside risk factors identified or other potentially related health concerns.
- WSIB policy provides the definition of accident which includes: a disablement arising out of and in the course of employment that emerges gradually over time.
- The operating area denied entitlement on the basis there were no forceful and repetitive wrist movements. While this may be true, this criterion applies to carpal tunnel syndrome. There was no such diagnosis on file at the time of this decision, nor were there any details regarding the workstation set up, which were provided at the oral hearing.
- The worker has not been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The worker testified that CTS was ruled out. The diagnosis is right wrist tendonitis.
- I find this diagnosis is compatible with the accident history and for the above listed reasons, find entitlement is in order.
Conclusion
Entitlement for right wrist tendonitis is allowed. The worker is entitled to payment for two weeks loss of earnings initially incurred. Further and ongoing entitlement is at the discretion of the operating area.
The worker’s objection is allowed.
DATED April 10, 2015
P. Bouwman Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division