WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number: 20150099
DECISION DATE: April 30, 2015, 2015
OBJECTING PARTY: Worker
REPRESENTED by: Worker Representative
RESPONDENT: Employer (Not Participating)
HEARING: March 31, 2015 - Ottawa, Ontario
HEARD by: A. Danos, Appeals Resolution Officer
ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES: Witness for the Worker
ISSUE
The worker is requesting initial entitlement for left lateral epicondylitis and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis as a result of his job duties.
BACKGROUND
The worker received medical treatment for left lateral epicondylitis and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis which he attributed to the repetitive duties involved in his job as a personal support worker (PSW). An accident date of April 10, 2013 has been established as it is the date the worker first reported his issues to the employer and the first date he received medical treatment for the condition.
The Eligibility Adjudicator (EA) reviewed the information on file, including the job description and the details of the gradual onset of problems. Entitlement was denied as noted in a decision letter dated May 29, 2013, as the worker’s condition was not considered compatible with the job duties described.
The worker objected to the denial, and requests initial entitlement for left lateral epicondylitis and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis.
AUTHORITY
11-01-01 – Adjudicative Process
15-02-01 – Definition of an Accident
15-02-02 – Accident in the Course of Employment
ANALYSIS
I find that the worker’s left lateral epicondylitis and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis is likely the result of his work duties as a personal support worker (PSW) as described in the documents on file and through testimony in a hearing.
Policy 11-01-01 requires that the diagnosis be compatible with the accident history.
The definition of an accident includes
- a willful and intentional act, not being the act of the worker
- a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, and
- a disablement arising out of and in the course of employment.
The definition of disablement includes
- a condition that emerges gradually over time
- an unexpected result of working duties.
Prior to his immigration to Canada in 2012, this worker was employed in his native country as a nursing instructor or facilitator. His main duties involved lecturing and supervising students, accompanying them to the hospital two or three days a week. He did not do any physical work himself, but he would oversee the students and assign work to others.
In October 2012, the worker was hired as a PSW with the accident employer. By late January and early February of 2013 he noticed a gradual onset of symptoms. He described these symptoms as sharp burning pain in his right hand and fingers, with numbness and paresthesia. He also noted a burning sensation in his left elbow, going down his left arm.
The information on file is that the worker’s job duties did require heavy manipulation involving his wrists and hands on a continuing basis throughout the day, due to massage requirements of the client’s. Although there were also other various tasks, there was still a constant pushing, pulling or lifting aspect in most of the activities.
The worker and the witness were both sworn in and provided testimony under oath. The witness was on the opposite shift for the same patient the worker was caring for. Therefore he explained that his duties were slightly different, as the client’s requirements were different in the day than at night. However, either way, as a PSW it was very heavy work.
The client had developed severe spastic paralysis due to his medical condition. This caused deformities and his muscles became very hard. As a result, the worker had to push very hard to open the client’s hands and arms due to the contractures caused. The worker had to continuously massage the client. He also had to do other range of motion exercises the entire time he was on shift, aside from feeding and suctioning duties.
With respect to the worker’s job requirements, the employer’s correspondence and the other information on file is consistent with the testimony. There is no objective information to refute these details.
The medical reports indicate the health professionals were aware of the worker’s job description as noted. The medical opinions support the diagnosed conditions were compatible with those described duties. On June 16, 2013 the physician responded to a request from the EA, providing an opinion that the listed job duties would predispose the worker to the development of de Quervain’s tenosynovitis.
The clinical opinions support compatibility between the work performed and the medical conditions diagnosed and treated. There is no corresponding objective information to counter these opinions.
I find the overall evidence supports that the worker’s left lateral epicondylitis and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis resulted from a disablement arising out of and in the course of his employment.
CONCLUSION
I conclude the worker has entitlement to left lateral epicondylitis and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis relating to his work duties as a personal support worker (PSW).
The operating area is to determine the level and duration of any additional benefits in this claim, subject to appeal in the usual manner.
The worker’s objection is allowed.
DATED April 30, 2015
A. Danos
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division