APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20220100
OBJECTING PARTY: WORKER
REPRESENTED by: SELF
RESPONDENT: EMPLOYER (NOT PARTICIPATING)
HEARING: HEARING IN WRITING
HEARD by: Stephen Crisostomo, appeals resolution officer
ISSUE
The worker objects to Adjudicator’s decision dated November 25, 2021, which denied entitlement to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits for the development of their diagnosed skin condition (dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema) of the hands and wrists related to their occupational exposure.
BACKGROUND
The employer completed the Employer’s Report of Injury/Disease (Form 7) dated July 27, 2021 and indicated on July 21, 2021, the worker, an Operator, reported that in June of 2021 they developed a work-related allergic reaction to the gloves they wore at work. The employer advised that there was no change in the chemicals, gloves or the equipment used by the worker to perform their job duties.
The worker completed the Worker’s Report of Injury/Disease (Form 6) dated October 19, 2021 and indicated in June of 2021 they developed itchy hands, which worsened and for which they sought medical attention.
The worker was seen at the hospital on June 30, 2021 and July 18, 2021, and was diagnosed with dyshidrotic eczema. The worker was subsequently seen by Dr. Toth, Dermatologist, on September 17, 2021 and diagnosed with vesicular eczema of the hands/wrists.
In November of 2021, the Adjudicator reviewed the file. Based on the review, the Adjudicator denied entitlement for the worker’s diagnosed skin condition after determining the skin condition could not be attributed to their exposures at work. This decision was communicated on November 25, 2021.
The worker objected to the November 25, 2021 decision; however, it remained unchanged and as a result, the matter was referred to the Appeals Services Division for further consideration.
Worker’s Position
The worker submits the decision to deny entitlement in the claim is unfair as they were suffering from extreme pain, for which they sought medical attention to try to resolve the issue.
AUTHORITY
Sections 2(1) and 15 and Schedule 3 and 4 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997
Operational Policy Manual:
Published
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process 11-01-02 Decision-Making
November 3, 2008 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 no evidence that the worker’s employment and/or their workplace exposures significantly contributed to their diagnosed dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema. Therefore, initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for the worker’s diagnosed dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema is denied. 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 Section 2 (1) and 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 that they developed a skin condition due to their employment exposure.
There is no WSIB policy that applies specifically to the worker’s claim. Therefore, entitlement must be determined based upon the available evidence and the individual merits of the case.
Diagnosis
A review of the file reveals:
The worker was seen at the hospital on June 30, 2021 and July 18, 2021, and was diagnosed with dyshidrotic eczema.
Dr. Toth saw the worker on September 17, 2021 and diagnosed them with vesicular eczema of the hands/wrists.
Based on the medical evidence before me, I am satisfied the worker was diagnosed with dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema.
Discussion and Reasoning
For entitlement to be established for the worker’s diagnosed dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema, 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 dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema.
A review of the information contained in the file reveals:
The worker was employed by the employer as an Operator and was hired on December 21, 2017.
On July 29, 2021, the worker advised the Adjudicator that they were unsure what caused their skin condition but reported that they were many types of gloves at work including nylon and cotton.
The employer reported there was no change in the chemicals or gloves used by the worker at work at the time they developed their skin condition.
Dr. Shaw saw the worker at the hospital on June 30, 2021 and opined the worker’s condition was consistent with dyshidrotic eczema versus some exposure leading to acute blistering.
Dr. Adekoya saw the worker at the hospital on July 18, 2021 and noted the worker advised there was no new exposures at work.
None of the worker’s assessing and treating physician’s opined the worker’s dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema was caused by anything at their workplace.
I acknowledge the worker’s submission that their diagnosed eczema is work-related. However, I recognize the cause of dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema is unknown and that many factors can trigger dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema. In reviewing the evidence in the file, including the opinions of Dr. Shaw and Dr. Adekoya, I find no evidence that establishes a connection between the worker’s employment and employment exposures, and their diagnosed dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema.
In the absence of any evidence that supports the worker’s employment and/or employment exposures may have caused and/or contributed to the development of their dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema in June of 2021, I find the weight of the evidence noted above and contained within the record does not establish the worker’s diagnosed dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema is causally related to their employment and/or employment exposures. Therefore, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the worker’s employment and/or employment exposures including their use of gloves at work, did not significantly contributed to their diagnosed dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema. Thus, the criteria in Policy 11-01-01 for ruling on initial entitlement to WSIB benefits have not been met, as compatibility between the worker’s diagnosed skin condition and their employment exposure has not been established. Therefore, initial entitlement to WSIB benefits for the worker’s diagnosed bilateral hand and wrist dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence outlined in this decision, I conclude entitlement for the worker’s diagnosed bilateral hand and wrist dyshidrotic/vesicular eczema is denied
The worker’s objection is denied.
DATED July 26, 2022
S. Crisostomo
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division