WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
claim: Claim 20172035
OBJECTING PARTY: Worker
REPRESENTED by: Representative
RESPONDENT: Employer (Not Participating)
HEARING: July 25, 2017, Ottawa, Ontario
HEARD by: L. Mansueti, Appeals Resolution Officer
DATED: August 1, 2017
ISSUE
The worker objects to the decision dated April 30, 2015 denying initial entitlement to benefits for a syncope episode on March 11, 2015.
BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2015 the worker was in a training classroom when she stood up, felt dizzy and fainted, and struck her head against a wall or cabinet. The worker attributed her fainting spell to excessive heat in the training room. The worker was 61 years of age at the time of injury, working as a pharmacist. She had worked with the employer for approximately 7 months.
The incident was reported to her employer and she sought medical attention immediately. The worker was diagnosed with a head contusion and whiplash symptoms to head and neck.
The operating area determined there was no entitlement to benefits for the worker’s fainting episode, as communicated in the decision letter dated April 30, 2015.
The worker objected to the decision dated April 30, 2015 and this is now the issue before the Appeals Services Division.
AUTHORITY
Section 2 and 13 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA), 1997
Operational Policies:
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
11-01-02 Decision Making
11-01-03 Merits and Justice
15-02-01 Definition of an Accident
15-02-02 Accident in the Course of Employment
ANALYSIS
I have reviewed and considered the information contained in the record as well as the testimony provided by the worker, in accordance with the above noted legislation and operational policies.
Worker’s Statement
The record indicated the worker attended an afternoon computer training session on March 11, 2015. The worker submitted the room was extremely hot upon arrival. She advised she tried to open the windows, but they would not open. The worker testified she sat on the sunnier side of the room by a window, indicating all the other spots were occupied. She indicated that everyone in the room found the room to be very hot, and they were unable to open the window. The worker described there were 15 to 20 people in the room, as well as 15 to 20 desktop computers. She advised there was a morning training session as well.
The worker’s training session commenced at 12 noon. A scheduled break took place at 1:30pm at which time the worker stood up to do a few stretches. The worker testified she was feeling quite hot at this point, and she was relieved to have a break. She stretched backwards, felt dizzy and then “the room turned dark.” The worker advised she recalled she struck the back of her head on something very hard and crunched her neck forward. The worker regained consciousness and was found herself lying on the floor. She was advised the code blue team had been called, and she was advised not to move. The code blue team arrived and transferred the worker to hospital emergency via ambulance. The worker was of the view the excessive heat in the room may have brought on her dizziness.
The worker denied experiencing a dizzy spell in the past. She indicated she did not have high blood pressure. The worker attributed her fainting spell to the hot temperature in the training room.
Employer’s Statement
The employer advised the operating area there were 15 to 20 people in the training room at the time the worker attended the session. It was noted there were no complaints about the heat reported to building maintenance from any of the other individuals attending sessions. The employer also indicated the air conditioning system was working properly.
Medical Evidence
The emergency report dated March 11, 2015 indicated the worker was in a very hot room when she stood up to stretch. She became dizzy and fell back striking her head on a wall or cabinet. The worker was diagnosed with a contusion and whiplash symptoms to her neck and back.
A computed tomography (CT) scan of the worker’s head and cervical spine revealed there was no acute intracranial abnormality or fractures.
Dr. L. Pitre, the worker’s family doctor submitted a letter dated June 15, 2015 indicating the worker had been her patient for approximately 20 years. Dr. Pitre indicated the worker did not have a history of any neurological disease including fainting, syncope, or vertigo.
Pertinent Information
The record contains witness statements from individuals who were present in the training room at the time the worker fainted. A witness statement dated September 30, 2016 indicated the training room was very hot on March 11, 2015. It was indicated the code blue staff borrowed fans from in-patient units to cool the room down. The fans remained in the room for future classes due to the heat. A witness statement was provided by Dr. C. Wiebe, physician on the code blue team who responded to the call. Dr. Wiebe indicated the worker was found lying on the floor after what appeared to be a syncopal event and falling. Dr. Wiebe further indicated the room felt warm, and the code blue team believed the heat may have contributed to her syncope and subsequent fall. A witness statement was prepared by another individual who attended the same training class as the worker on March 11, 2015. The witness indicated the room was very warm to the point where the temperature was “quite uncomfortable.” The witness indicated the computer course instructor indicated it was difficult to open the windows in the room. It was noted the room remained very warm until after the code blue was called for the worker. Once the code blue team arrived to respond to the call for the worker, one of the team members was able to pry a window open which provided some relief from the heat. It was also noted a fan was brought in which helped cool the room down. The witness indicated that after the worker was taken to hospital emergency the class resumed with the window open and the fan in the room which resulted in a “more pleasant and comfortable atmosphere.”
Assessment of the Evidence
Based on a review of the evidence before me, I accept entitlement is in order for the worker’s fainting episode on March 11, 2015. The reasons for this decision are provided below.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board recognizes four different types of accidents, two of which are categorized as being disablements. On this issue, operational policy 15-02-01 states in part:
Accident includes
a wilful 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.
Chance event
A chance event is defined as an identifiable unintended event which causes an injury. An injury itself is not a chance event.
Disablement
The definition of disablement includes
a condition that emerges gradually over time
an unexpected result of working duties.
In order for entitlement to accepted, the evidence must show the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. There is no question the worker was in the course of her employment when she fainted on March 11, 2015. I find the worker’s accident meets the criteria of place, time, and activity as outlined in operational policy 15-02-02. The worker was on the employer’s premises during her normal working hours and was engaged in a work-related activity at the time of the accident. The question to be determined is whether the worker’s accident arose out of her employment. Subsection 13(2) of WSIA states:
If the accident arises out of the worker’s employment, it is presumed to have occurred in the course of the employment unless the contrary is shown. If it occurs in the course of the worker’s employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of the employment unless the contrary is shown.
I find there is sufficient evidence to support the worker’s fainting episode was likely caused by the warm temperature of the room, evidenced by the witness statements which were corroborated with the worker’s statement. I find the worker’s accident is in keeping with a chance event-type accident as it was occasioned by a natural cause (warm temperature of the room) which I accept is associated with the work environment. The injuring process or mechanism of injury is the worker’s fainting, fall to the floor, and striking her head. Given the injury is a chance event, the statutory presumption is applicable. That is, it is presumed that the accident arose of the employment unless there is evidence which establishes on a balance of probabilities that the accident did not arise out of the employment. In this case, the presumption has not been rebutted.
In summation, I find the evidence supports the work environment more likely than not contributed to the worker’s fainting episode due to the warm temperature in the training room. This is supported by the witness statements submitted to the record corroborating the worker’s statement wherein the room was described to be very hot and uncomfortable. While I acknowledge there were no formal complaints submitted to building maintenance and there were no functional issues with the air conditioning system, it appears that several individuals who were in the training room described it to be very hot. Furthermore, the evidence from Dr. Pitre confirmed the worker did not suffer from any neurological disease and it was confirmed she did not have a history of fainting, syncope, or vertigo. Based on the evidence before me, I find the worker suffered an accident in the course of her employment on March 11, 2015, and the presumption that it arose out of her employment has not been rebutted. Accordingly, I accept the worker is entitled to benefits for her personal injuries sustained on March 11, 2015.
CONCLUSION
I conclude entitlement is in order for the worker’s fainting episode on March 11, 2015. The operating area shall determine the extent and duration of benefits flowing from this decision.
The worker’s objection is allowed.
DATED August 1, 2017
L. Mansueti
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division