APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number: 20220089
OBJECTING PARTY: EMPLOYER
REPRESENTED by: SELF
RESPONDENT: WORKER (NOT PARTICIPATING)
HEARING: HEARING IN WRITING
HEARD by: Stephen Crisostomo, appeals resolution officer
DATED: JUNE 15, 2022
ISSUE
The employer objects to the Adjudicator’s decision dated April 19, 2021, which granted entitlement for a March 25, 2021 inhalation injury.
BACKGROUND
On April 1, 2021, the employer completed the Employer’s Report of Injury/Disease (Form 7) and indicated on March 29, 2021, the worker reported they inhaled harmful chemical at work on March 25, 2021, for which they sought medical attention. The employer explained that on March 24, 2021, the worker cleaned in the HVAC area with a broom and did not use any chemicals, and then the worker worked the rest of the day in the wash bay at the sink using chemicals, which included dish soap and 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (ISO). The following day on March 25, 2021, the worker worked the full day in the wash bay at the sink using dish soap and 70% ISO. The employer also advised that employees wear medical masks at work and that sanitation employees wear gloves, while cleaning.
The worker did not complete a Worker’s Report of Injury/Disease (Form 6); however, in a conversation with the Adjudicator on April 12, 2021, reported the following:
- They normally clean the washroom and other rooms in the facility.
- They were advised to wash and clean the pots in the wash bay.
- The pots were used for marijuana plants.
- After washing the pots, they started to feel a burning sensation in their throat and chest.
- They were unsure what the name of the chemical they used to clean the pots.
- They sought medical attention on March 26, 2021 at Regional Hospital.
- They voluntary quit on March 29, 2021.
Dr. Stuparyk completed the Health Professional’s (Form 8) dated March 26, 2021 and diagnosed the worker with an inhalation injury due to the inhalation of chemical cleaner at work on March 25, 2021.
The Adjudicator reviewed the file in April of 2021. Based on the review, the Adjudicator granted the worker entitlement for an inhalation injury sustained on March 25, 2021, after determining the worker’s employment exposure to cleaning chemicals contributed significantly to their inhalation injury. This decision was communicated on April 19, 2021.
The employer objected to the April 19, 2021 decision; however, it remained unchanged and as a result, the matter was referred to the Appeals Services Division for further consideration.
Employer’s Position
The employer submits:
- The worker never reported an injury to them duration their work shifts.
- All attempts to speak to the worker to investigate what occurred were ignored by the worker.
- The employer found out about the injury only after the worker dropped off the Form 8.
- At the time of their investigation, the surveillance camera footage showed no issues with the worker during their shift.
- Supervisors and Managers who worked with the worker were not made aware of any incidents and nothing was reported to them.
- The only chemicals the worker would have used is dish soap and ISO at a sink, which was in a very well ventilated room.
AUTHORITY
Sections 2(1) and 15 and Schedule 3 and 4 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (the Act)
Operational Policy Manual:
Published
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process November 3, 2008
11-01-02 Decision-Making October 12, 2004
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information, the applicable legislation and the relevant operational policies in reaching this decision.
I find the worker suffered an inhalation injury at work on March 25, 2021, due to their employment exposures. Therefore, entitlement for an inhalation injury sustained on March 25, 2021 was appropriately allowed. The reasons for my decision follow.
Operational Policy 11-01-01 related to the adjudicative process states in part:
Five point check system
All decision-makers use the same criteria for ruling on initial entitlement to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (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.
Occupational disease cases are adjudicated under s. 2 (1) and s. 15 of the Act and by Regulation in Schedules 3 & 4 of the Act. If the disease is not listed in the Schedules, entitlement to benefits and services, is determined based on the merits and justice of the case in accordance with Operational Policy 11-01-02. It must be established that it is more probable than not that the circumstances of the worker’s employment and exposure history significantly contributed to the development of the medical condition being claimed. In this case, the worker claims they suffered an inhalation injury on March 25, 2021 due to their employment exposures to chemicals at work.
There is no WSIB policy that applies specifically to the worker’s employment exposures and their claimed condition. Therefore, entitlement must be determined based upon the available evidence and the individual merits of the case.
Employment Exposures on March 25, 2021
The worker claimed that on March 25, 2021, they were washing pots that held marijuana using an unknown chemical.
The employer reported that the worker used dish soap and ISO, while washing pots and provided the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for the following products:
- Vayselle-Liquid dish detergent.
- Buckeye Eco Heavy Duty Cleaner-heavy duty cleaner
- Buckeye Eco Sanitizer-EPA registered sanitizer
- Isopropyl Alcohol 70%.
Based on the available evidence, I am satisfied that the worker was exposed to Vayselle, Buckeye Eco Heavy Duty Cleaner, Buckeye Eco Sanitizer and/or Isopropyl Alcohol or a combination of the products at work on March 25, 2021.
Diagnosis
The worker sought medical on March 26, 2021. Based on the medical assessment, Dr. Stuparyk diagnosed the worker with an inhalation injury due to inhalation of fumes at work on March 25, 2021.
Based on the medical evidence before me, I am satisfied the worker was diagnosed with inhalation injury.
Discussion and Reasoning
For entitlement to be established for a March 25, 2021 work-related inhalation injury, it must be established that it is more probable than not that the circumstances of the worker’s employment and employment exposure significantly contributed to the development of their inhalation injury.
A review of the information contained in the file reveals:
- The worker normally cleans the washroom and other rooms in the facility.
- On March 25, 2021, the worker was washing pots.
- The worker was exposed to Vayselle, Buckeye Eco Heavy Duty Cleaner, Buckeye Eco Sanitizer and/or Isopropyl Alcohol or a combination of the products at work on March 25, 2021, while washing the pots.
- The SDS for:
- Vayselle shows it causes skin irritation and serious eye irritation. If inhaled, the person needs to be removed to fresh air and kept comfortable for breathing. A poison center or doctor/physician should be called if the person feels unwell. Inhalation of vapours may cause irritation to the airways and that inhalation of larger amounts may induce discomfort, nausea, dizziness, headache, narcosis, and unconsciousness.
- Buckeye Eco Heavy Duty Cleaner shows it causes skin irritation and serious eye irritation. If inhaled, the person needs to be removed to fresh air, as it is not meant to be inhaled.
- Buckeye Eco Sanitizer shows it causes skin irritation and serious eye irritation. If inhaled, the person needs to be removed to fresh air and kept at rest in a position comfortable for breathing. Toxicological information indicates that it should not be inhaled.
- Isopropyl Alcohol 70% shows if it is inhaled headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness and loss of consciousness may occur. Respiratory protection was recommended.
- Dr. Stuparyk diagnosed the worker with an inhalation injury due to inhalation of chemical cleaner at work on March 25, 2021.
I recognize that there was a delay in the worker reporting their inhalation to the employer; however, there was no delay in the worker seeking medical attention with respect to their throat and nasal passage symptoms, as the worker sought medical attention for their symptoms the day following their chemical exposure at work on March 25, 2021.
Based on my assessment of the SDS contained in the record related to the worker’s employment exposures on March 25, 2021, I am satisfied the SDS show that the cleaning products used by the worker can cause respiratory and other symptoms if, inhaled.
I acknowledge, the employer indicates that medical masks were worn by employees and I accept that medical masks can protect against large-particle droplets; however, I am not satisfied that a medical mask effectively protects somebody from inhaling small particles, fumes and/or vapours, even if it is properly worn.
Noting, the products used by the worker on March 25, 2021 could cause respiratory problems if, inhaled and that following the use of the products the worker developed respiratory symptoms and was diagnosed with an inhalation injury, the day following the exposure, I find the weight of the evidence, on a balance of probabilities, establishes that the worker’s workplace exposure to cleaning products in the workplace on March 25, 2021 caused their inhalation injury, as diagnosed by Dr. Stuparyk. Therefore, I am satisfied that the worker’s workplace exposure to cleaning products on March 25, 2021, significantly contributed to and is compatible with, their diagnosed March 26, 2021 inhalation injury. Thus, the criteria in Operational Policy 11-01-01 for ruling on initial entitlement to WSIB benefits have all been met. Therefore, I find initial entitlement for an inhalation injury sustained due to chemical exposures on March 25, 2021 was appropriately allowed.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence outlined in this decision, I conclude initial entitlement for an inhalation injury sustained on March 25, 2021 was appropriately allowed.
The employer’s objection is denied.
DATED June 15, 2022
S. Crisostomo Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division