Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Appeals Resolution Officer Decision
Decision Number: 20190079
Objecting Party: Worker
Represented by: Self
Respondent: Employer
Represented by: Employer Representative
Hearing: Hearing in Writing
Heard by: A. Danos, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUE
The worker objects to the Eligibility Adjudicator’s decision dated September 11, 2018 which denied initial entitlement to trachomatous conjunctivitis.
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2018 this 46-year-old warehouse associate experienced blurred vision while at work. He received medical treatment for trachomatous conjunctivitis and claimed benefits stating his work had caused the condition.
As outlined in a decision dated September 11, 2018 an Eligibility Adjudicator denied entitlement to trachomatous conjunctivitis, stating there was no compatibility to the work duties performed.
The worker is objecting to the decision dated September 11, 2018 and requests initial entitlement for trachomatous conjunctivitis.
AUTHORITY
The following Operational Policies apply:
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
15-02-01 Definition of an Accident
ANALYSIS
The evidence does not support initial entitlement to trachomatous conjunctivitis.
In reaching my conclusion I considered the claim file record as well as written submissions from the worker and the employer representative.
Policy
Policy Document 11-01-01 states that all decision-makers use the same criteria for ruling on initial entitlement to WSIB benefits. This system is known as the "five point check system".
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.
When examining proof of accident, decision-makers may consider the following:
- Does an accident or disablement situation exist?
- Are there any witnesses?
- Are there discrepancies in the date of accident and the date the worker stopped working?
- Was there any delay in the onset of symptoms or in seeking health care attention?
Policy Document 15-02-01 states that 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.
A chance event is defined as an identifiable unintended event which causes an injury. An injury itself is not a chance event.
The definition of disablement includes a condition that emerges gradually over time, and an unexpected result of working duties.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the Act) provides a presumption: if an accident arose out of the employment, it is presumed that it also arose in the course of the employment, and vice versa. In such cases, entitlement is in order unless the employer rebuts the presumption by showing that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment.
However, if the accident is a disablement, there is no such presumption. In such a case, the evidence must demonstrate that the disablement both arose out of and in the course of the employment.
Assessment of the Evidence
The worker stated the main cause of his eye infection was the nature of the shift pattern he was assigned at work. He stated the shift schedule did not allow him to get enough sleep. He also stated that his work in re-bin required him to work in an environment with lots of LEDs blinking blue, red and green at a very fast pace. He described his job duties in detail and stated his eye problem resulted in him making mistakes at work by misplacing items in the wrong bins.
The worker added that the nature of the building he worked in was also a factor in the development of his eye condition. He said that the facility is almost a million square feet, 4 storeys high and all steel structure. The worker stated the steel does not absorb the cold air-conditioned air and said that makes the place very dry and so humid. He stated that those with more sensitive eyes start to react and get easily infected if they spend long hours with not enough sleep due to the nature of the shift pattern that his employer offered.
The employer representative outlined the position that while the worker may have experienced some discomfort or difficulties with his eyes while at work, the diagnoses were non-occupational in nature. The employer representative stated there is no evidence that the air quality at the workplace is any different from the air quality outside of the employment environment. As well, there is no evidence to support the worker’s interpretation of the effect of the blinking LED lights.
The employer representative pointed out that in the Intent to Object (ITO) form, the worker himself said the conditions in his eyes were not caused by the job. However, I find that the worker stated that in the context of the issue under appeal, noting the date of the decision in which the Eligibility Adjudicator concluded the “work activities are not the cause of my [sic] eye infection”. Regardless, in my review of this case I find it is not useful to rely on the worker’s opinion about whether the job duties did, or did not, cause his condition.
The worker was provided with an opportunity to rebut the employer’s position but did not make any further submission.
In this case I confirm the issue is not whether the worker experienced blurred vision or developed trachomatous conjunctivitis or that he had symptoms while at work. However, it must be shown that the diagnosed condition was the result of the worker’s job duties.
In a medical report dated July 4, 2018, Dr. Elakrat provided a diagnosis of chronic trachomatous conjunctivitis and symptomatic dry eyes. He recommended the worker rest his eyes from using digital screens and to follow the prescribed treatment including medication for 6 weeks. This report provides no evidence or medical opinion that the work duties caused the worker’s condition.
On July 30, 2018 Dr. Elakrat completed a report for the employer, stating the worker would be able to return to work with limitations starting August 9, 2018. This report included no reference to the causation of the worker’s condition.
There is no dispute that the worker experienced symptoms while performing his work and required medical treatment. There is no dispute that the worker developed chronic trachomatous conjunctivitis and symptomatic dry eyes, and required some restrictions with respect to his activities including those at work.
However, there is no objective evidence or any information that would support any work-related cause of the chronic trachomatous conjunctivitis and symptomatic dry eyes.
Policy requires compatibility of diagnosis to the accident or disablement history. However, in the absence of any clear work-related cause of the diagnosed condition in this case, I am unable to conclude that it was the result of the job duties.
Noting the above, there is no entitlement for trachomatous conjunctivitis.
CONCLUSION
I conclude the worker does not have initial entitlement to trachomatous conjunctivitis.
The worker’s objection is denied.
DATED: May 1, 2019
A. Danos
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division