APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER:
20220134
OBJECTING PARTY:
WORKER
REPRESENTED by:
SELF
RESPONDENT:
EMPLOYER
REPRESENTED by:
SELF (NOT PARTICIPATING)
HEARING:
HEARING IN WRITING
HEARD by:
c. da cunha, appeals resolution officer
NOVEMBER 21, 2022
ISSUE
The worker objects to the Occupational Disease and Survivor Benefits Program (ODSBP) Adjudicator’s March 7, 2022 decision. They seek:
- Initial entitlement to an adverse reaction to a compulsory work-related Covid-19 vaccination on January 18, 2022.
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2022, the worker received their first mandatory work-related Covid-19 booster vaccination at a clinic arranged and provided for by the employer. They had worked with the employer as a Personal Support Worker in a long-term care home for over 10 ½ years at the time.
On the day of the booster vaccination, but prior to receiving it, the worker contacted their family physician, Dr. C.E. Perrier, to discuss their concerns about receiving the vaccine again because they had experienced an adverse reaction after receiving the second Covid-19 vaccination. That reaction involved pain and a visible large lump in the armpit, which lasted for a few weeks. After speaking with Dr. Perrier, the worker decided to proceed with the first booster shot because the employer mandated it.
After receiving the booster vaccine, the worker experienced another reaction, involving pain down the left arm from the injection site into the armpit and left breast and down to the hand. The worker lost strength and range of motion in the left upper extremity, and developed another lump in the left armpit and breast area.
They sought emergency medical attention on January 19, 2022 at a Health Care Centre, where the attending physician diagnosed localized muscular inflammatory response post vaccination. On the same date, the worker reported the reaction to Dr. Perrier, who was able to complete a Functional Abilities Form on January 24, 2022.
On February 15, 2022, the worker returned to regular duties.
The ODSBP Adjudicator’s Decision: On March 4, 2022, the ODSBP Adjudicator obtained an expert medical opinion from Dr. Y.M. Markus, Occupational Medicine Consultant, who reviewed the medical evidence on record. After doing so, Dr. Markus opined that the worker’s reaction to the Covid-19 vaccine booster was normal and not a significant adverse reaction.
Based on Dr. Markus’ opinion, the ODSBP Adjudicator denied initial entitlement on March 7, 2022.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy Manual
Published
15-04-10: Immunization Against Infectious Disease
October 12, 2004
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information and relevant operational policy in reaching this decision. Having done so, I find that initial entitlement to an adverse reaction to the January 18, 2022 Covid-19 vaccination is in order.
Operational policy 15-04-10, Immunization Against Infectious Disease, is the determinative authority with respect to the issue in dispute. The policy prescribes that entitlement is granted for any adverse reaction arising from compulsory immunization procedures as a compulsory part of the employment, provided the immunization is for the prevention of work-related disease or infection.
In this specific case, there is no dispute that the January 18, 2022 Covid-19 booster vaccination arose from a compulsory immunization procedure, which was a compulsory part of the worker’s employment, with the objective of preventing work-related infection and disease (i.e. Covid-19). The only issue in dispute is whether the worker suffered an adverse reaction to the vaccination. With all respect to Dr. Markus, this question is an adjudicative and not a medical one.
The policy does not define what an “adverse reaction” is. However, the policy is written in a direct and straightforward way. A plain reading of it reasonably leads one to find that an adverse reaction is one that negatively impacts the worker and their interests.
In this specific case, the worker’s reaction to the injection was so severe that they had to seek emergency medical attention the next day. The reaction was compatible with and corroborated by their previous reaction to their second Covid-19 vaccine. Furthermore, both the emergency room and the family physicians confirmed that the reaction was of a muscular inflammatory nature and impacted their ability to use their left upper extremity. The worker also reported a significant amount of pain, corroborated by their need to seek emergency medical attention, the lump in their left armpit and breast region, their loss of strength and range of motion in the left upper extremity, and their temporary inability to perform their regular duties.
The facts and circumstances on record lead me to find that the worker suffered an adverse reaction to the work-related compulsory vaccination on January 18, 2022, as intended by operational policy 15-04-10, Immunization Against Infectious Disease. Therefore, initial entitlement is in order.
CONCLUSION
I find that initial entitlement to an adverse reaction to the January 18, 2022 Covid-19 vaccination is in order.
The worker’s objection is, therefore, allowed
DATED November 21, 2022.
C. da Cunha
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division