WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20170018
OBJECTING PARTY: Worker
REPRESENTED by: Union Local
RESPONDENT: Employer (participating)
REPRESENTED by: Representative
HEARING: Oral Hearing
DATE: June 15, 2017
ISSUE
The worker is seeking initial entitlement for a right shoulder sprain, denied in the decision of August 14, 2015.
BACKGROUND
The worker was employed as a personal support worker. On Friday July 17, 2015 she claimed she injured her right shoulder while pulling a door closed behind her when exiting a patient room. She was 41 years old when the injury occurred and had been in the job approximately 4 years. She sought medical treatment on July 20, 2015 and was diagnosed with a right shoulder sprain.
On August 14, 2015 the Eligibility Adjudicator (EA) denied entitlement for the right shoulder injury, noting the worker was performing her regular job duties and the act of pulling the door closed did not require much effort or physical force.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
15-02-01 Definition of an Accident
ANALYSIS
I have considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision and find the worker has initial entitlement for a right shoulder sprain. My reasons are explained below.
According to Operational Policy 11-01-01, an allowable claim must have the following five points:
- an employer
- a worker
- personal work-related injury
- proof of accident, and
- compatibility of diagnosis to accident or disablement history.
An accident, as defined by Operational Policy 15-02-01, does not necessarily require that a chance event be the cause of the injury. The accident may be in the form of a disablement, which would include a condition emerging gradually over time, or an unexpected result of working duties. However, there is an important difference between a chance event and a disablement injury. When a chance event results in an injury during the course of the employment, it is presumed that the injury also arose out of the employment (unless the contrary is shown). In a disablement injury, that presumption does not exist. The onus is on the worker to demonstrate the injury not only occurred during the course of the employment, but that it also arose out of the employment. The evidence must clearly show that the work made a significant contribution to the development of the injury.
According to the Employer’s Report of Injury (Form 7) completed on July 28, 2015, the worker was existing a patient’s room on July 17, 2015 while carrying soiled linen in her left arm. As she pulled the door closed behind her, she noticed an immediate burning pain in her right shoulder and down her right arm to her elbow.
On August 4, 2015, the worker described the injury to the EA. She said she was performing normal patient care before the injury, rolling and turning a patient. She said there was no pain after performing the patient care. As she left the room, she pulled the door toward her to open it. She said the door had a spring-loaded latch. She exited through the door and reached back with her right arm to grab the door to pull it closed and that’s when she felt the pain in her right shoulder. She didn’t think it was significant until she realized her right shoulder was hurting the more she used it. She said she told the charge nurse about it. In a follow up conversation with the EA on August 6, 2015, the worker said the workplace had recently been understaffed and the workload had increased.
On August 9, 2015 the worker completed the Worker’s Report of Injury (Form 6). The Form 6 indicated she was performing patient care on a 200 pound patient who was paralyzed from mid-chest down. She performed complete patient care, which included rolling, boosting, patient hygiene and linen change. She claims she felt the severity of the injury when she pulled the door closed. She noted there was a higher volume of work because they were short-staffed.
The worker testified regarding the accident history and confirmed the mechanism of injury described in the claim file record. She said in July 2015 she was working in adult oncology and had been there approximately 6 months. She described it as a heavy floor, because most patients were on chemotherapy and couldn’t do much for themselves. She confirmed on the day of injury she had been working on a 200 pound patient who had most of his body paralyzed. She said she had given him a bed bath, which was a two-person job. It would have involved rolling him on his side. She said she probably used an overhand pull to roll him over with a sheet while a co-worker washed his back. She said there was nothing unusual about the patient care she provided and she would typically have 40-50 patients on the floor. She said she normally works from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm and they frequently have problems with being short-staffed.
After completing care for that patient, she said pulled open the door to leave his room. She said it had a pull lever. She was carrying a bundle of linen in her left arm and opened the door with her right. She said she was trying to hold the linen bundle away from her body, because it could potentially be soiled with chemotherapy chemicals. As she was leaving, the patient asked her to close the door. She reached back with her right arm to close the door and as she did so, she felt pain in her right shoulder and also in her funny bone. She said she reported the injury to her charge nurse that day and later had to ice her shoulder to manage the pain.
The worker confirmed she also had a previous injury to her right shoulder in 2013. She said she was providing care to a 650 pound patient. She was trying to roll him over when his weight rolled back on her and she pulled a muscle in her right shoulder. She said the injury resolved but she continued to have some normal aches and pains associated with the heavy nature of her job. She also noted she continues to go for regular chiropractic treatments for maintenance and prevention.
The employer representative argued the denial of entitlement should be upheld, noting the worker was engaged in her regular job duties and was performing a normal activity of closing a door when she experienced pain in her right shoulder.
The worker representative argued that the act of closing the door was a culminating event that needed to be considered in the context of the worker’s job duties. He argued there were several factors that left the worker susceptible to a shoulder injury; the heavy nature of her normal job duties, the fact that they are frequently short-staffed, most of her patients were non-ambulatory because of the floor she worked on and she was vulnerable because of a prior shoulder injury.
After considering the evidence and arguments, I am persuaded by the arguments raised by the worker representative. Although the act of closing a door would not cause a shoulder sprain under normal circumstances, I agree the factors identified by the worker representative left the worker susceptible to injury. I also note she was carrying an armload of soiled linen when she closed the door, which could have contributed to an awkward posture as she closed the door, particularly because she said she was trying to hold it away from her body. Noting the immediate onset of pain and immediate reporting to her charge nurse, I am satisfied proof of accident is established and that the right shoulder sprain is compatible with the act of closing the door, when considered within the context of her job duties.
There is little evidence before me regarding lost time associated with this claim; therefore, I will leave the issue of benefits flowing from this decision to the operating area.
CONCLUSION
I conclude the worker has entitlement for a right shoulder sprain arising as an unexpected result of her job duties.
The objection is allowed.
DATED June 15, 2017
H. Shaw
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division