APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER:
20220057
OBJECTING PARTY:
worker
REPRESENTED by:
worker representative
RESPONDENT:
employer
REPRESENTED by:
employer representative
HEARING:
TELECONFERENCE – May 2, 2022
HEARD by:
D. Bowker, appeals resolution officer
ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES:
observer
May 13, 2022
ISSUES
The worker is objecting to the eligibility adjudicator’s decision dated September 23, 2019 that denied initial entitlement to a low back injury.
BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2019, this helper in a heating, ventilation, air conditioning and duct cleaning company indicated they were lifting and holding a table weighing 50-60 pounds. As their co-worker unbolted the table, they twisted and felt pain in their low back. The pain worsened overnight and they were unable to get out of bed the next day.
The worker reported their injury to their employer on June 6, 2019 and sought medical attention on June 7, 2019. The worker underwent an MRI that revealed lumbar spine degenerative changes and an L5-S1 sequestered disc fragment with compression of the exiting right L5 nerve root.
The September 23, 2019 decision denied entitlement to a low back injury as the eligibility adjudicator was unable to establish the worker’s injury arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment. The eligibility adjudicator further determined the MRI findings of L4-L5 disc bulge and mild degenerative changes were age-related changes in the spine that did not result from a workplace injury.
The objection to this decision forms the basis of this appeal.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy Manual
Published
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
November 3, 2008
15-02-01 Definition of Accident
October 12, 2004
15-02-03 Pre-Existing Conditions
November 3, 2014
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision. I find the worker has initial entitlement to a low back injury.
Worker Position
The worker representative submits the worker sustained a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment and initial entitlement for a low back injury has, therefore, been met.
The worker representative notes the credibility test referenced in multiple Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decisions. The representative states the credibility test determined the assessment of the credibility of a witness in the case of a conflict of evidence could not be gauged solely by whether the worker’s demeanour was truthful but rather whether their story was in harmony with the preponderance of the available evidence.
The representative submits the available claim file evidence is in harmony with the worker’s story. The representative notes the consistent accident history of experiencing back pain after lifting and twisting a table top on May 31, 2019. The representative further notes the worker was unable to work following this incident.
The representative states the work performed by the worker on the date of injury is not in dispute. The representative argues the dispute in this claim is whether that work caused the worker’s back injury.
The representative further submits the available clinical evidence does not identify any symptomatic pre-existing conditions in the worker’s low back. The representative notes in Dr. Gupta’s August 19, 2019 referral to the spinal surgeon, Dr. Gupta listed the referral reason as “right radiculopathic pain over the past 2 months”.
The representative argues this demonstrates the worker’s low back pain was due to their accident as Dr. Gupta did not identify any other causes for the worker’s pain. The representative notes there was no symptomatic pre-existing condition or any documented intervening event following the May 31, 2019 accident that was so significant it rendered the worker’s injury insignificant.
The representative further argues the worker’s sworn testimony is in harmony with the evidence on file and notes there are two conflicting accounts of the worker’s accident history and whether they reported their low back injury.
The representative submits the witness statement from the worker’s co-worker was not provided until nearly three years post-accident. The representative notes that despite the employer noting there was a witness on the Employer’s Report of Injury, this witness was not contacted for a statement or questioned following the worker’s report of injury on June 6, 2019.
The representative argues the worker provided sworn testimony and this testimony was credible and straightforward. The representative states the statutory “benefit of the doubt” principle applies as this evidence is equal in weight.
The representative notes the WSIAT Medical Discussion Paper Low Back Pain states it is not uncommon for work injuries to be superimposed on a pre-existing condition. The representative further notes the paper supports a relatively trivial rotation, lifting from either the floor or overhead or using rotational force while handling heavy or bulky objects can also cause a disc bulge.
The worker representative argues the objective evidence supports it is more likely than not that the worker sustained a personal work-related injury on May 31, 2019 and as there is no evidence to the contrary, the worker is entitled to a claim for a low back injury.
Submission of Text Message Screenshots
The worker representative submitted a series of text messages between the worker and employer that were sent between May 14 and July 29, 2019. The text messages indicate on Thursday June 6, 2019 the worker reported they injured their back on Friday, May 31 and were experiencing numbness in their right leg. When the employer asked the worker how they injured their back, the worker replied “all the lifting last week I must of twisted something. It would have been something on Friday because Saturday I couldn’t get out of bed.”
The remaining text messages addressed reporting the injury and updates on the worker’s condition. On June 12, 2019, the worker advised they were “just laying here. Can’t really move yet”. By June 18, 2019 the worker advised they felt they were starting to heal and were able to walk a short distance before experiencing numbness in their leg.
On July 5, 2019, the worker advised they would like to return to duct cleaning and delivery duties provided their co-worker was available to carry items. The employer advised the worker would require a note from their doctor clearing them to return to work given the length of time they had been off work. The worker followed up with the employer on July 9, 2019 and advised their doctor would not provide them with a note to return to work until they had a second MRI of their back to rule out a blood clot or a tumour.
The employer assured the worker they would not be fired in a message sent on July 10, 2019. The employer followed up on July 29, 2019 but there was no response from the worker.
Employer Position
The employer submits that are multiple discrepancies in the worker’s claim that make it difficult to grant initial entitlement to a low back injury.
The employer notes the worker went to their local emergency department due to the severity of their back pain but did not stay to be assessed. The employer questions why the worker, who rated their pain at an 8 out of a possible 10 would not stay to be treated.
The employer states they made multiple attempts to contact the worker to schedule them for work with no response from the worker. The employer assumed the worker “ghosted” them, which does happen with their small business. The employer further reached out to the worker to find out if they had terminated their employment but received no reply.
The employer notes their company policy is that all injuries must be reported immediately. The employer notes they do not feel the worker was dishonest but is not aware of when they injured themselves.
The employer submits they were the ones who initiated contact with the worker and the worker would frequently not reply to messages. The employer confirms there was suitable work available to the worker as, at the time the worker was injured, the employer was open 7 days a week for their busy season.
The employer submits there is no proof the worker’s disc injury in their low back was caused by lifting the table and feels if the worker were injured, their body language following their injury would have made it obvious to their co-worker. The employer notes the co-worker’s witness statement was completed by a long-term friend of the worker who had nothing to lose by their statement.
The employer further notes the worker was never issued a record of employment as the worker’s status was unclear and the employer was in a form of limbo regarding their intentions. The worker was not terminated or laid off at any point by the employer. The employer further notes the worker did not submit medical notes regarding their injury nor a letter of resignation.
The employer notes they reviewed their records and dispute the worker lifted sheet metal on the day of accident. The employer notes the sheet metal weigh 8 pounds each and the worker would normally lift 2 at a time due to their light weight.
Written Statement from Co-Worker
The employer provided a witness statement from one of the worker’s co-workers dated April 11, 2022. The co-worker stated they were friends with the worker and the worker had previously advised them of a sore back prior to the start of their employment with the employer.
The co-worker explained the worker’s duties as a helper included duct cleaning, patio furniture pick up and deliveries and assembling patio furniture in the showroom. The worker’s average weekly hours were 15 hours per week.
The co-worker noted they completed four deliveries of patio furniture on May 31, 2019 and returned to the office once complete. The worker did not mention anything about hurting their back and there was nothing in their demeanour to suggest they were injured.
The co-worker further noted they did not recall the worker assisting them with a table as the table top would have been unbolted while attached to the legs and the only time it would have been lifted was when they lifted the table off its legs to bring to the truck. The co-worker stated both of them would have shared the weight of the table top, making its shared weight about 30 pounds each as the total weight of the aluminium table with legs was 60 pounds.
The co-worker stated they sent multiple messages to the worker via text, phone and even attended their home to provide them with the work schedule. The worker did not respond to any of these messages, leaving the co-worker to conclude the worker had quit their job with the employer.
The co-worker noted the worker sent a text message to them approximately a week later advising they were unable to get out of bed but did not mention this was due to an injury at work. The co-worker thought the worker was sick and did not think they had injured themselves at work.
Relevant Policy
WSIB policy 15-02-01 (Definition of an Accident) provides three types of accidents:
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.
There are two types of disablements: a condition that emerges gradually over time (also called a disablement gradual onset), and an unexpected result of working duties (also called a disablement unexpected result).
When deciding on initial entitlement in a claim for WSIB benefits, Policy 11-01-01 Adjudicative Process states 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
In my review of the worker’s claim, I must turn my attention to whether the criteria for a work-related injury has been satisfied. A personal work-related injury means there’s an injury that arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. In other words, the injury happened at work and happened because of the work. It is not sufficient that a person has experienced pain at work, the evidence must show that the work was the cause of the injury.
Proof of accident means the injury is a result of a work-related accident and is demonstrated by the relationship between the work activity and the onset of the condition. The closer the reporting, medical attention and layoff from work to the onset of the injury, the greater the causal relationship.
Compatibility refers to the relationship between the injury/illness history and the medical diagnosis of the injury. The requirement for a causal relationship between the injury/illness history and a worker’s medical diagnosis must be present and clearly documented to satisfy the compatibility criteria.
Policy 15-02-03 Pre-existing Conditions states entitlement for a work-related injury will not be denied due to the existence of a pre-existing condition. Once initial entitlement is established, the decision-maker considers the impact, if any, of pre-existing conditions on the worker’s ongoing impairment.
Worker Testimony
The worker testified they began their employment with the employer on May 4, 2018. At the time of their injury, they were working 15 hours per week for the employer. The worker confirmed they were not employed elsewhere at the time of their injury.
The worker testified their job duties included delivering patio furniture and duct cleaning. The worker stated they did not have any previous injuries or issues with their low back prior to their employment with the employer. The worker stated they hurt their upper back at the age of 16 and spent approximately one year rehabilitating their back at that time with no further issues with their upper back.
The worker testified when they reported for work on May 31, 2019 there were no issues or concerns with their lower back. On that day, the worker stated they performed deliveries, picked up sheet metal and ended the day by picking up a table to be returned to the employer.
The worker stated they picked up 20-30 sheets of sheet metal and loaded them into the truck. This involved picking the pieces up from a skid on the ground by holding a corner on the end of the sheet, lifting and carrying it before placing it onto the truck.
At the last stop of the day, the worker stated they were in the backyard with their co-worker, preparing to disassemble the table to move from the backyard to the front yard to be loaded onto the truck. The worker estimated the table was an 8 foot by 4 foot table and weighed approximately 80 pounds. Their co-worker was beneath the table, unbolting the legs as the worker held the table. Together the two of them picked up the table and twisted it so they could walk with the table between the client’s house and the neighbour’s house to reach the front yard.
The worker testified they “felt something go in my back” as they lifted and twisted the table and “felt I messed something up.” The worker stated they told their co-worker this as they were moving the table from the back to the front yard. The worker stated they asked their co-worker to slow down as they felt “something hurting in my back” and asked their co-worker again to go slow as they were lifting the table up and into the back of the truck.
The worker noted the truck was a “U-Haul” truck and as their co-worker did not like to use the ramp, they had to lift the table above their waist to place into the truck. They stated they asked their co-worker to drive more slowly on the ride back to the shop as every bump was hurting their back. Once they arrived at the employer’s premises, the worker asked their co-worker to drop them off directly at their car so they could avoid any prolonged walking.
The worker testified they immediately drove home and went to bed. They stated they were unable to get out of bed the next day due to their back pain. The worker noted they did not contact the employer but spent the day resting and sleeping.
The worker confirmed they did not report their injury to their employer until June 6, 2019. They noted they texted the employer and advised them what had happened on May 31, 2019. The worker stated they did not report their injury earlier or seek medical attention earlier as they were “stuck in bed” and could not move.
The worker testified their evidence is that they did tell their co-worker about their back injury. They were not sure why the co-worker indicated they were not aware of their injury.
The worker testified they did not provide any notes from their employer as they did not know they needed these clearances and they continue to remain unable to return to work at this time.
The worker testified they did see a spinal surgeon and were advised there was a chance surgery would not entirely alleviate their pain. The worker elected to not proceed with the surgery.
Currently, the worker states their right leg is totally numb and they have difficulty sleeping and cannot sit for very long without being in pain. The worker stated they had attended chiropractic and physiotherapy treatments. They noted they were not working as they were unable to perform any heavy lifting.
The worker testified their sleep is interrupted due to their back pain and estimated they sleep for 3-4 hours per night before waking due to pain and numbness in their right leg. The worker explained they walked around the house or on their treadmill to help alleviate the pain and return feeling to their right leg. They perform a series of physiotherapy exercises to assist with managing their pain.
The worker explained they live in a home with their parents and their sibling. There is one flight of approximately 20 stairs and they are able to navigate the stairs as long as they hold the railing. Pre-injury, the worker was responsible for household chores such as taking the garbage out, shovelling snow, cleaning the bathroom, laundry and vacuuming. The worker noted currently they only do their own laundry and vacuum, as their vacuum is light.
The worker testified they only drive for short trips of limited duration, such as a 5-10 minute drive to the store. They stated they were taking Tylenol and Advil as needed for pain relief and estimated they took a combined total of 10 pills per day.
The worker noted at the age of 16 they drove off a picnic table with a stunt bike, landed on their neck and were unable to walk. The worker did not require surgery but required a year to learn to walk again. They stated they were fully rehabilitated and had no further issues.
Relevant Case Details
The worker called Telehealth Ontario on June 6, 2019 and advised they had twisted their lower back one week prior and had not yet been assessed for this injury. The worker reported lower back pain on their right side and noted it was worsening over the day. The Telehealth nurse advised the worker to seek medical attention.
The worker later called again and advised they went to the hospital and waited for four hours but was not seen. The worker was directed to seek medical attention at a local walk-in or urgent care clinic.
There are notes from the worker’s local emergency department indicating the worker presented for treatment but was not assessed.
Chart notes from the worker’s physician Dr Gupta dated June 7, 2019 indicate the worker reported experiencing back pain for a week following lifting at work. The worker reported pain radiating down their right leg with numbness in their right big toe. The worker stated their right leg was always in pain until they were lying down and this pain radiated from their hip to their toes. They rated their pain as ranging from a 5 to a 9 in severity out of a possible 10 and was made worse on bending forward. The worker was diagnosed with back pain with right L5 radiculopathy and prolapsed intervertebral disk was queried.
Dr. Gupta referred the worker for an MRI for their lumbar spine.
The July 3, 2019 MRI of the lumbar spine revealed a 1.2 centimetre lesion within the spinal canal posterior to L5 vertebral body, appearing to represent a solid lesion such as a small nerve sheath tumour. There was multilevel lower lumbar spine mild degenerative changes, most notable at L4-L5 and a small broad-based central disc bulge. Additional investigation was recommended.
The worker saw Dr. Gupta for follow-up of back pain on July 9, 2019. There was a positive straight leg raise at 60 degrees in the right leg. The worker was to be seen following their contrast MRI in 3 weeks.
The worker had a further MRI on August 6, 2019 to investigate the lesion in their spinal canal. The lesion was determined to be a sequestered disc fragment. The final report indicated it was a superiorly migrating right L5-S1 sequestered disc fragment with compression of the exiting right L5 nerve root.
Dr. Gupta referred the worker to spinal surgeon Dr. Moammer on August 9, 2019. The referral note requested assessment for right L5 radiculopathy for the past 3 months and noted the MRI showed L5-S1 disc fragment compressing the L5 root.
The employer completed the Employer’s Report of Injury (Form 7) on August 26, 2019 and noted that although the worker reported their injury on Thursday June 6, 2019, the employer was not sure when or where they were hurt. The employer noted the worker was working with another employee at all times and did not report any injury to that co-worker.
The employer further noted the worker had advised they were concurrently employed at the time they were hired in 2018 and their other position required heavy lifting.
The worker completed the Worker’s Report of Injury (Form 6) on September 4, 2019 and stated on Friday, May 31 2019 their job duties included dropping patio furniture off at two customer’s homes, picking up 30 sheets of sheet metal and picking up a table at a client’s home. The worker stated it was while taking the table apart they felt a twist in their back. On June 1, 2019, the worker was unable to get out of bed due to pain in their back and numbness in their right leg.
The worker noted they attempted to seek medical attention at their local emergency department on June 6, 2019 but left without being seen after waiting for over six hours. The worker stated they were extremely uncomfortable and could not sit or stand on their leg for long. The worker said they saw their physician on Friday June 7, 2019 and were prescribed Naproxen and referred for an MRI.
The worker noted on the report of injury they had their MRI on July 3, 2019 and were immediately contacted to book a second MRI with contrast dye. The worker’s physician advised they either had a tumour or a blood clot on their spine and they were to refrain from returning to work or doing any lifting whatsoever as this could cause further damage to their spine. The worker was directed to remain off work until after their MRI.
The worker stated they had the MRI on August 6 and received the results from Dr. Gupta on August 9, 2019. The worker noted they were advised they had a disc fragment compressing the nerve in their spine and causing the numbness in their leg. The worker further noted they were awaiting an appointment spinal surgeon Dr. Moammer on October 22, 2019.
The worker spoke to the WSIB customer service representative on September 5, 2019 and advised they were not employed with any other company. The worker stated they were lifting and holding a table weighing 50-60 pounds while their co-worker unbolted the table. The worker could not recall how high they were lifting or holding the table but they twisted and felt pain in their low back. The following day, they were unable to get out of bed and their right leg was numb.
The return to work specialist spoke with the employer on September 12, 2019 and was advised there was no sedentary alternate work such as office duties or seated shop work available. The employer could not offer assembly of light patio furniture as this was seasonal work but they were able to offer duct cleaning on a graduated basis once the worker was able to participate in return to work.
Assessment of the Evidence
In my review of this case and having regard for the requirements under policies 15-02-01 Definition of Accident and 11-01-01 Adjudicative Process, I find the worker has initial entitlement to a low back injury.
WSIB policy 15-02-01 Definition of Accident provides two types of disablements: a condition that emerges gradually over time (also called a disablement gradual onset), and an unexpected result of working duties (also called a disablement unexpected result).
A disablement that is an unexpected result of working duties occurs when a worker is performing their regular job duties and experiences a sudden onset of pain. The injury itself is not observable. In this case, the worker was lifting a 60-pound table when they felt an onset of back pain. The worker has identified a specific action and a specific item that caused their injury. Although they intended to lift the table, it is reasonable to presume they did not intend to injure their back.
I note the co-worker’s witness statement confirms this mechanism of injury. The co-worker stated the table was lifted from its legs and carried to their truck. The co-worker also confirmed the table was aluminium and weighed 60 pounds.
I am therefore satisfied the worker’s injury is a disablement unexpected result type of accident. I must now turn my attention to whether the worker has met the criteria for initial entitlement.
Policy 11-01-01 Adjudicative Process directs me to review the following five points when deciding on initial entitlement in a claim for WSIB benefits:
an employer
a worker
personal work-related injury
proof of accident, and
compatibility of diagnosis to accident or disablement history
As it is not in dispute there is an employer and a worker in this claim, I shall turn my attention to the remaining three points.
Personal Work-Related Injury
A personal work-related injury means an injury happened at work and because of the work the individual was doing. The evidence must show the work was the cause of the injury.
In this case, I note the worker reported a specific lifting task on a specific day caused them to experience acute back pain. The worker denied experiencing back pain prior to the date of injury. I further note at the time they were injured, the worker was performing their regular job and duties.
The worker testified they were unable to move or walk properly from the day after their injury onward. They were unable to work and remain off work at this time. There was a change in the worker’s ability to work after the worker lifted the table on May 31, 2019.
The worker’s co-worker stated in their witness statement the worker did not mention a back injury and there was nothing in their demeanour to suggest they were injured. The employer has also argued the worker’s body language following their injury did not suggest they were injured.
As the worker’s injury occurred in 2019 and I am reviewing the issue of the worker’s entitlement in 2022, I must place greater reliance in the reports and statements provided at the time of the worker’s injury as this information was acquired immediately following the worker’s accident.
I am placing greater weight in the worker’s account of their injury as it has been a consistent account from 2019 onward and is supported by contemporaneous reports. The worker provided sworn testimony and there is corroborating evidence of this accident history in the chart notes from the worker’s physician based on the physician’s June 7, 2019 exam of the worker.
The text messages exchanged between the worker and employer document the worker reported they injured their back on Friday, May 31 and were experiencing numbness in their right leg. I note this exchange occurred on Thursday, June 6, 2019. The worker also provided a similar accident history on the Worker’s Report of Injury they completed on September 4, 2019 and again in a conversation with the customer service representative on September 5, 2019.
I am placing less weight in the co-worker’s statement as it was provided several years after the worker’s injury and is based on the subjective opinion of how someone with an injury “should” behave. As the employer was not present at the time of the worker’s injury and did not directly observe the worker, I am not persuaded the employer’s comments regarding the worker’s body language should be given weight. I note the employer did not provide any reports or statements at the time the worker’s injury was reported in 2019 to dispute the accident history.
The worker has also identified they were lifting sheets of sheet metal on the day of injury. While it is possible this work has contributed to their back pain, in my view their injury was caused by lifting and twisting the table to transport it from the client’s backyard to the truck. I am placing greater weight in this mechanism of injury as it was consistently reported to their employer, health care providers and the WSIB. The worker also required medical attention and was unable to work following this specific lift.
As the worker experienced low back pain following this task I find it is more probable than not that this was the cause of their acute back pain. I am therefore satisfied the worker sustained a personal work-related injury as a result of the duties they were performing on May 31, 2019.
Proof of Accident
Proof of accident means there is evidence the accident occurred. It is demonstrated by the relationship between the work activity and the onset of the condition. The closer the reporting, medical attention and layoff from work to the onset of the injury, the greater the causal relationship between the work and the condition.
The worker began to experience back pain on May 31 but as they testified, they did not immediately report this pain as they were “stuck in bed” and could not move. The worker confirmed they reported their injury to their employer on June 6, 2019.
The medical evidence available to me confirms the worker called Telehealth Ontario on June 6 and attempted to seek medical attention in the local emergency department. The worker saw their physician on June 7 for treatment of low back pain following lifting one week prior.
I am satisfied the criteria for proof of accident has been met. Although there were delays in reporting the accident and seeking medical attention, I am not persuaded there was any intervening event that occurred between the date of accident and the date the worker sought medical attention. There has been no evidence provided to suggest the reason the worker sought health care on June 7, 2019 was for any reason other than the work-related injury they sustained on May 31, 2019.
Compatibility
Compatibility refers to the causal relationship between the injury and the worker’s medical diagnosis. There must be a relationship between the injury and the diagnosis to satisfy the compatibility criteria.
In this case, the issue of compatibility is more difficult to establish but it is not impossible. I find it necessary to distinguish between the worker’s diagnosis and the MRI findings.
The MRIs of July 3 and August 6, 2019 revealed mild degenerative changes in the low back. A small disc bulge and a sequestered disc fragment pressing on the nerve root in the worker’s lumbar spine were also present. At this time and given the paucity of available clinical information, I am unable to assess the compatibility of the MRI findings of disc bulges and the nerve fragment to the mechanism of injury.
In my view, further information is required to clarify whether the MRI findings are a responsibility of this claim or a result of non-compensable, pre-existing conditions in the worker’s spine. There has been no clinical opinion provided regarding the MRI findings and the role, if any, they are exerting on the worker’s back pain. The worker’s pre-injury clinical records, the consultation report from the October 22, 2019 appointment with the spinal surgeon and an opinion from a medical consultant regarding the compatibility of the MRI findings to the mechanism of injury are required to address these findings.
WSIB policy 15-02-03 Pre-existing Conditions states entitlement for a work-related injury will not be denied due to the existence of a pre-existing condition. Once initial entitlement is established, the decision-maker considers the impact, if any, of pre-existing conditions on the worker’s ongoing impairment.
The issue currently before me is initial entitlement to a low back injury and not the compatibility of a pre-existing condition to the mechanism of injury. I must establish whether the available diagnosis is compatible with the mechanism of injury. Once entitlement is established, the issue of the impact of any pre-existing conditions is beyond my jurisdiction.
The only available diagnosis I am able to consider is Dr. Gupta’s June 7, 2019 diagnosis of back pain with L5 radiculopathy. In my review of the mechanism of injury as described by the worker and this diagnosis, I find it reasonable the worker was experiencing back pain with radiating features.
Based on this diagnosis and the available chart notes from Dr. Gupta, I am therefore persuaded the worker sustained a soft tissue injury to their back as a result of lifting at work on May 31, 2019. This diagnosis is consistent with the accident history of lifting a 60-pound table, twisting it and transporting it to a truck.
After my review of the above information, I am persuaded the worker sustained a personal work-related soft tissue injury to their low back as a result of the work activity performed on May 31, 2019 and has met the criteria for initial entitlement.
The issue of the worker’s ongoing entitlement and the impact of any pre-existing condition on the worker’s ongoing impairment is remitted to the operating area to determine. The operating area should consider requesting the worker’s pre and post-injury clinical records, the consultation report from Dr. Moammer and obtaining an opinion from the medical consultant to further delineate the worker’s entitlement in this claim.
CONCLUSION
The worker’s objection is allowed. I find the worker has entitlement to a low back soft tissue injury as a result of the work duties they performed on May 31, 2019.
This claim is remitted to the operating area to conduct further inquiries to determine the nature and duration of the benefits flowing from this decision. Consideration should be given to obtaining a medical opinion regarding the compatibility of the MRI findings to the mechanism of injury once further clinical records have been obtained.
DATED MAY 13, 2022
Donna Bowker
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division