WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number:
20150071
DECISION DATE:
March 23, 2015
OBJECTING PARTY:
Worker
REPRESENTED by:
Self-Represented
RESPONDENT:
Employer
REPRESENTED by:
Employer Representative
HEARING:
Hearing in Writing
HEARD by:
S. Vagadia, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUE
The worker objects to the decision denying initial entitlement.
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
This then 66 year old Site Project Engineer indicated he was walking in a parking lot to his truck on December 22, 2013 when he slipped on ice. He grabbed the truck handle with his left hand and twisted his thumb. The worker stated he received first aid the same day and medical attention from his family doctor on January 4, 2014. He also indicated he advised his employer of his accident on January 5, 2014.
The employer indicated the worker did not seek medical attention until February 4, 2014 and did not advise them of the injury until February 5, 2014.
A Health Professional’s Report (Form 8) completed by the worker’s family doctor on February 4, 2014 indicated he had a left thumb sprain. A February 7, 2014 x-ray was normal. The worker was seen by a specialist on April 2, 2014. He recommended an ultrasound and MRI and was to reassess the worker after the test results.
A March 7, 2014 decision from the Eligibility Adjudicator (EA) advised that initial entitlement was denied. The EA noted the significant delay in the receipt of medical attention and concluded he was unable to establish a relationship between the diagnosis and the workplace accident.
The worker disputes the decision denying initial entitlement and the issue is now before me.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy:
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
15-02-02 Accident in the Course of Employment
ANALYSIS
I have considered the relevant policies, the representative’s submission, and the evidence in the claim file in arriving at my decision in this case.
The worker indicated that a company nurse was aware of his injury when she visited the worksite on January 31, 2014 and she advised him to seek medical attention. The worker stated he saw his doctor who referred him for an x-ray. He was also seen by a specialist who recommended an ultrasound and MRI. The specialist subsequently recommended a second ultrasound instead of the MRI.
The employer agreed with the Eligibility Adjudicator’s (EA) decision. The employer indicated the worker continued to be able to perform his full regular duties without assistance until his contract ended in June of 2014. The employer submitted continuity had not been established given the delay in seeking medical attention as well as the lack of complaints to co-workers or managers from December 22, 2013 to February 4, 2014.
I note that in a conversation with the EA (memo 3 in the claim file) the worker stated he reported his injury to his employer the same day but confirmed he did not seek medical attention until about six weeks later. He indicated he thought his symptoms would resolve on their own.
Based on my assessment of the evidence in the claim file, I concur with the EA’s decision to deny entitlement. I find that a temporal relationship between the events of December 22, 2013 and the need for medical attention on February 4, 2014 has not been established.
In arriving at this conclusion I can appreciate the worker’s statement that he thought his symptoms would resolve over time, but I am struck by the lack of any impact to his job and the lack of any complaints to co-worker’s or managers. I note the employer rejects the notion that the injury was reported right away and the company nurse did not become involved until more than one month after the incident. For these reasons, I am unable to establish a link or relationship between the two events and find that entitlement is not in order.
CONCLUSION
The worker’s appeal is denied.
DATED March 23, 2015
Mr. S. Vagadia
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division