WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number: 20150100
DECISION DATE: May 18, 2015
OBJECTING PARTY: Worker
REPRESENTED by: Self-Representative
RESPONDENT: Employer
REPRESENTED by: Employer Representative
HEARING: Hearing in Writing
HEARD by: E. Moir, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUE
The issue is the denial of Loss of Earnings (LOE) Benefits.
BACKGROUND
The injured worker, who is 29 years of age, was injured on July 6, 2014. The worker was employed as a Youth Services Officer and during an altercation with a youth who was in residence she sustained an injury to her left hand, neck, and upper back.
At the time of the incident the worker sought medical attention and initial entitlement was granted for health care services.
On July 18, 2014, the Eligibility Adjudicator (EA) determined that the injury employer offered suitable work commencing the worker's next scheduled shift July 9, 2014 and denied LOE benefits.
On August 7, 2014, the issue was reconsidered and the decision to deny LOE benefits was upheld.
AUTHORITY
The most relevant policies are as follows:
Policy 11-02-02 - Lost Time Claims
Policy 19-02-02 - Responsibilities of the Workplace Parties and Work Reintegration
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered the issue before me, and I have determined that LOE Benefits are not in order. My analysis follows.
The worker argued in her submissions that her primary practitioner directed her to be off work from July 7 until July 16, 2014. She believed it was inappropriate for the employer to offer modified work given that the doctor told her to rest for a period of one week after the injury. She lost a total of four shifts prior to returning to work on July 17, 2014.
The employer submitted that the decision to deny LOE Benefits had been rendered correctly by the operating area and that modified work was appropriately offered to the worker following her injury.
The health professional report (Form 8) which indicated that the worker was treated on July 7, 2014, stated that the worker had pain, swelling, tenderness, and the diagnosis was "soft tissue injury." While the doctor prescribed ice and rest, I have noted that there were no investigations or referrals conducted and the worker had no limitations. I have had consideration for the separate note indicating that this worker was to be absent until July 16, 2014; however, I must place weight on the completed Form 8 which provided objective physical findings.
Legislation requires workplace parties to cooperate in the early and safe return to work process. Recovery in the workplace has been identified to assist injured workers in a more complete recovery. The employer appropriately offered the injured worker administrative duties on July 7, 2014 in keeping with their obligations during her recovery from this work related injury.
While I have had regard for the submissions and the worker’s rationale for the payment of LOE, I am not satisfied that the clinical evidence confirmed a complete inability to work. The employer offered administrative duties to this worker via electronic mail, and in my opinion, the duties would have been suitable, available, and would have mitigated any loss of earnings.
This worker was to attend her physician on July 11, 2014 and did not report to that appointment, which was to include the completion of a Functional Abilities Form (FAF) with respect to her capabilities.
I am compelled by the evidence to uphold the EA decision and subsequent reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
I conclude there is no entitlement for LOE Benefits from July 7 to 16, 2014. The appeal is denied.
DATED: May 18, 2015.
E. Moir
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division