<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
**Decision Number:** 20210025
**OBJECTING PARTY:** worker
**REPRESENTED by:** WORKER REPRESENTATIVE
**RESPONDENT:** EMPLOYER
**REPRESENTED by:** EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE
**HEARING:** VIDEOCONFERENCE – May 11, 2021
**HEARD by:** Brian smith, appeals resolution officer
**ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES:** Employer STAFF MEMBER
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**DATED:** JULY 27, 2021
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## ISSUES
The worker objects to the Eligibility Adjudicator’s decision dated February 12, 2015 and the reconsiderations dated July 23, 2015, September 5, 2019 and October 9, 2020 that denied entitlement to a right knee meniscal tear.
## BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2014, the worker reported that he had felt a sharp pain in his right knee when stepping on the second rung of a ladder. The worker first sought medical attention on September 8, 2014 and was diagnosed with a right knee strain.
On December 4, 2014, the worker underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The scan revealed a large medial meniscal tear with a large complex medial meniscal cyst and a recent rupture of a Baker’s cyst.
On February 5, 2015, the employer submitted an Employer’s Report of Injury to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board indicating that the worker had reported a right knee injury on January 20, 2015.
On February 12, 2015, an Eligibility Adjudicator denied entitlement to a right knee medial meniscus tear because they determined that the diagnosis was not compatible with the mechanism of injury.
On March 25, 2015, the worker underwent a right knee arthroscopy and debridement of two compartments of the right knee with partial medial meniscectomy.
On July 23, 2015, an Eligibility Adjudicator reconsidered and upheld the February 12, 2015 decision because they determined that the work was not the underlying causal factor in the diagnosed right medial meniscus tear.
On August 19, 2015, the worker had an ACL reconstruction completed.
On September 5, 2019, an Eligibility Adjudicator reconsidered initial entitlement to the right knee meniscus tear as an aggravation, and denied entitlement because they determined that the evidence did not meet the entitlement criteria for an aggravation basis, as the worker did not have a pre-accident impairment.
On October 9, 2020, an Eligibility Adjudicator reconsidered the September 5, 2019 decision. The Eligibility Adjudicator determined that the appropriate date of accident should be changed from February 15, 2015 to August 26, 2014. The Eligibility Adjudicator also reconsidered and upheld the denial of entitlement to a right knee meniscal tear.
The worker is appealing the Eligibility Adjudicator’s decision dated February 12, 2015 and reconsiderations dated July 23, 2015, September 5, 2019 and October 9, 2020 that denied entitlement to a right knee meniscal tear. The worker’s representative has submitted an Appeal Readiness Form and the claim was forwarded to the Appeals Services Division for consideration.
## AUTHORITY
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 Section 13(2)
Operational Policy Manual
Published
15-02-01 Definition of an Accident
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
15-02-03 Pre-existing Condition
15-02-04 Aggravation Basis
October 12, 2004
November 3, 2008
November 3, 2014
November 3, 2014
## ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision.
I find that the worker is entitled to benefits for a right knee meniscal tear.
The worker’s representative argues that the worker had a minor pre-existing condition that was significantly worsened by the incident on August 26, 2014. Therefore, entitlement to loss of earnings benefits and healthcare are in order.
The employer’s position is that the entitlement decision rendered is correct as the reported mechanism of injury is not compatible with the diagnosis of an acute meniscal tear as there is no evidence of forceful twisting, forceful rotation or hyperflexion of the knee.
The employer also argues that entitlement cannot be granted as an aggravation because the worker did not have a pre-accident impairment.
### Worker Testimony
The worker testified that he began working for the employer on August 9, 1999 as a Regional Surveillance Technician. He worked approximately 80 hours per week. He worked four 10-hour shifts a week, plus after hours on-call duties, during which time he was responsible for issues with the surveillance and card access systems. He also stated that he earned approximately $28 per hour.
The worker testified that the job was labour intensive. He would install surveillance systems and card access systems for all the casinos, bingo halls, corporate centers and warehouses. He would build the systems from scratch, building surveillance rooms, data centers and complete surveillance systems, installing all the wiring and equipment from start to finish.
The activities would involve lifting, climbing, bending, pulling wire, installing locksets, working overhead, above ceiling and installing racks that are heavy. The worker testified that most of the work was mounting wiring and programming.
The worker testified that, at the time of the accident, he worked primarily as a support person. He would travel from site to site upgrading units or completing repairs. He was not required to perform installing work every day. He was mostly doing maintenance work. The worker clarified that early in his employment, there was quite a bit of installing work, but afterwards, the work had more variation.
The worker testified that his injury occurred at a casino, installing cameras on the gaming floor. He and his partner were pulling wire from the second floor to the first floor, using wiring, ladders and hammers. He stated that the accident happened on August 26 but he could not remember the year.
The worker testified that he was climbing the ladder in an awkward position when he felt his knee snap. He also stated that the co-worker heard his knee snap. The worker explained that there was pressure on his leg as he was climbing the ladder and his knee felt really bad. When he stepped onto the ground, he felt a very sharp pain and he could not complete the job. His co-worker essentially completed the job and it was at that time he reported the incident to his supervisor via phone call.
The worker testified that when he reported the incident, his supervisor advised him to take it easy the rest of day. He did not leave early but he did not do very much the rest of the day. He also testified that he did not receive any medical attention at the job site.
The days following, the worker continued to work every day with sharp pains. On September 3, 2014, he was carrying a rack on his shoulder and was squatting when he felt a really sharp pain and had to stop working. He then reported the second incident to the same supervisor and finished the shift.
The worker testified
minicounsel