APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION

DECISION NUMBER:

20250057

OBJECTING PARTY:

WORKER

REPRESENTED by:

WORKER REPRESENTATIVE

RESPONDENT PARTY:

EMPLOYER (NOT PARTICIPATING)

HEARING:

VIDEOCONFERENCE – MARCH 17, 2025

HEARD by:

E. PARSONS, APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER

DATED:

APRIL 8, 2025

ISSUE

The worker, through their representative, is objecting to the Return-to-Work Specialist (RTWS) decision of September 5, 2024, that determined the suitable occupation (SO) of Computer Network Technicians - Systems Administrator and an associated Work Transition (WT) plan was suitable.

BACKGROUND

The Appeals Resolution Officer decision dated February 5, 2023, provides a detailed history of the case that will not be repeated here. Accordingly, I will only provide a brief history to place the issue for this appeal into context.

On December 31, 2020, this Construction Supervisor sustained injuries when they fell 12 to 16 feet through a hole in the floor cut out for stairs to be built. Entitlement was accepted for health care and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits to soft tissue injuries to their bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, chest, upper and lower back. A permanent impairment to bilateral knee injuries was accepted, and a 4% non- economic loss (NEL) award was granted.

In March 2024, entitlement to adjustment disorder was allowed under the psychotraumatic disability policy. The Case Manager determined the psychological condition first manifested in November 2021, and the worker was partially impaired with no restrictions or limitations from a psychological standpoint.

In a decision dated September 5, 2024, the RTWS determined the SO of Computer Network technicians – Systems Administrator (National Occupation Classification (NOC) 2281) was suitable. The RTW plan was scheduled from September 9, 2024, to May 1, 2026.

The worker objected to the decision dated September 5, 2024, and this matter was referred to the Appeals Services Decision for consideration.

AUTHORITY

Operational Policy Manual

Published

19-02-10 RTW Assessments and Plans

November 30, 2020

ANALYSIS

I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision.

For the reasons outlined below, I find the SO of Computer Network Technicians – Systems Administrator is not suitable.

Worker’s position

The worker representative contends the SO of Computer Network Technicians – Systems Administrator is not suitable. The representative submits this SO does not meet the requisite criteria in policy 19-02-10 (RTW Assessments and Plans) as it is not suited to the worker’s transferrable skills and is inconsistent with their functional abilities.

The representative contends the worker’s permanent physical restrictions and accepted psychological diagnosis impact their productivity and ability to interact with others. They are competitively unemployable as a result, and are unlikely to obtain gainful employment in the determined SO. The remedy being sought is the determination that the SO of Computer Network Technicians – Systems Administrator be deemed not suitable.

Employer’s position

The employer is not participating in the appeal and did not provide any submissions for my review.

Assessment & findings

To review the issue of SO suitability, I turned to policy 19-02-10 (RTW Assessments and Plans). The policy explains a SO represents a category of jobs suited to a worker’s transferrable skills that are safe, consistent with the worker’s functional abilities, and restores the worker’s pre-injury earnings to the greatest extent possible. A SO must be available, meaning it exists and is in demand to the extent that the worker has a reasonable prospect of obtaining employment in the occupation.

The WSIB considers a number of factors when determining a SO, including:

• the worker’s functional abilities, transferrable skills, education, aptitudes, and interests

• the worker’s work-related and non-work-related impairments/disabilities, including non-physical disabilities such as a learning disability, and any other human rights-related accommodation requirements

• the worker’s pre-injury earnings and work hours

• labour market trends and the likelihood of the worker being able to secure and maintain employment in the SO

• whether the SO has a reasonable prospect of continuing in the longer term, and

• whether the SO is achievable within a reasonable cost structure.

The identified SO before me for consideration is Computer Network Technician. The Career Handbook is the counselling supplement to the NOC system. The WSIB uses the NOC to help identify a SO and earnings for a worker. The NOC is a system that classifies and describes occupations in the Canadian labour market according to skill level and skill type. A decision-maker then determines the worker’s SO using the NOC system.

The Career Handbook for the SO of Computer Network Technician (NOC 2281) describes the primary functions of this role as establishing, operating, maintaining, and co-ordinating the use of local and wide area networks, mainframe networks, hardware, software, and related computer equipment. Computer Network Technicians set up and maintain internet and intranet webservices and web-server hardware and software and monitor and optimize network connectivity and performance. They are employed in information technology units throughout the private and public sectors. Systems Administrator is a role identified with the Computer Network Technician category.

To determine whether Computer Network Technician is suitable, I considered the nature of the occupation through the above elements that comprise a SO as outlined by the policy. This also includes reviewing the educational and employment components outlined in the Career Handbook as well. I considered the evidence on file as well as the testimony provided by the worker.

Is Computer Network Technician safe and consistent with the worker’s functional abilities?

For the reasons outlined below, I find Computer Network Technician to be safe and consistent with the accepted functional abilities for the work-related injuries.

To determine whether the physical demands of the identified SO aligns with the worker’s functional abilities, I first reviewed the worker’s accepted level of impairment. I observe that the Case Manager’s decision letter of November 30, 2021, accepted the following permanent restrictions for the work-related bilateral knee injuries:

• Full abilities in walking, standing, sitting, stair and ladder climbing.

• Waist to floor lifting up to 40-lbs on an occasional basis.

• Waist to crown lifting up to 40-lbs on an occasional basis.

• Front carrying up to 40-lbs on an occasional basis.

• Occasional crouching abilities.

I observe entitlement was granted for psychotraumatic disability; however, there are no accepted formal work restrictions for the psychological condition as outlined in the Case Manager’s decision of

March 8, 2024. It is important to note that the issue of level of impairment and permanent restrictions is not before me, and as such, I make no findings on the matter. The issue before me is strictly related to the suitability of the identified SO and WT plan given the accepted restrictions in this claim.

The worker testified they have significant pain and functional limitations that impede their ability to work. The pain continued since the December 2020 accident. Areas of significant pain were confirmed to the knees and low back. They confirmed the pain is not constant but rather “comes and goes”. They described feeling bothered by pain, and having difficulty while sleeping, sitting for prolonged periods, or walking for long distances.

The worker described difficulty with sitting, standing, or walking longer than 15 to 20 minutes. The worker described issues with their knees locking with prolonged sitting, and stated they often must get up to flex and move their knee to relieve the locking and discomfort. The worker confirmed they do not use any gait aids or assistive devices.

When asked whether there were specific physical requirements of the identified SO they could not perform, the worker advised they do not fully understand what the work entails. They described concerns about having to connect wires and equipment, potential lifting, or having to perform a task that requires prolonged standing or sitting. The worker expressed doubt that they would successfully obtain new employment given the number of breaks and position changes they require due to pain. They did not identify any alternative position or occupation they felt they were capable of performing.

The worker testified their mental health is poor. They reported feeling anxious, depressed, irritable, and angry. The worker described significant impacts to their concentration, motivation, and ability to get along with others including their family. The worker reported struggling with the coursework because of these mental health symptoms. The worker described feeling a loss of their sense of worth and diminished confidence in their future prospects.

To consider whether the worker’s functional abilities correspond with the physical requirements of Computer Network Technician, I again reviewed the NOC Career Handbook. I paid particular attention to the section on physical activities. The Computer Network Technician occupation category requires medium strength (handing loads between 10-kg and 20-kg) to complete activities involving pushing, pulling, lifting and/or moving objects. The work requires sitting, standing, and walking, and the use of upper limbs.

Having considered the available evidence, I find the identified SO is within the worker’s functional abilities. The physical demands outlined by the NOC in the Career Handbook confirm that the work tasks do not exceed the accepted permanent restrictions as outlined above. There is no evidence the work would pose a safety risk to the worker or others. While the worker has reported additional pain and functional limitations involving their low back, I note there are no accepted restrictions for the low back at this time. Therefore, I find the identified SO is considered safe and consistent with the accepted functional abilities.

Is the SO suited to the worker’s transferrable skills?

For the reasons that follow, while the identified SO is available, and would restore the pre-injury earnings to the greatest extent possible, I find the identified SO is not suited to the worker’s transferrable skills.

To consider whether the worker is well-suited to transition into to the occupation within Computer Network Technician, I again reviewed the Career Handbook. I paid particular attention to the section that highlights the aptitudes most relevant in the performance of the work.

The Career Handbook confirms the work requires an above average general learning ability (an ability to ‘catch on’ or understand instructions and underlying principles; to reason and make judgements), and numerical ability (ability to carry out arithmetical processes quickly and accurately). The role requires average verbal abilities, spatial perception, form perception, clerical perception, motor co-ordination, finger dexterity, and manual dexterity.

The worker participated in a psycho-vocational assessment on August 30 and 31, 2021. The report dated September 7, 2021, indicated that the worker was best suited to short-term courses or training programs less than one year or entry-level employment opportunities, provided the worker successfully upgraded their English literacy skills.

The report provided information on the worker’s measured intelligence and aptitudes based on the battery of testing completed during the assessment. The results of the academic achievement subtest suggest the worker has very rudimentary English literacy skills. While math skills were indicated to be

adequate, the worker would require upgrading for occupations requiring more sophisticated skills in this area. With respect to cognitive ability, the worker scored extremely low and below average. The report indicates the results are likely underestimates as English is not their first language.

The worker testified the highest level of education achieved was the completion of college courses where they studied liberal arts. The worker testified they are currently completing college prep courses. They are struggling and feeling behind in their work. The worker described difficulty concentrating and requiring assistance from their spouse to help them with reading and writing of homework and assignments. While their spouse does not do the work for them, they rely on them to check their understanding and review their work. They testified they don’t believe they have learned anything and are worried about what will happen when the course material progresses and becomes more challenging.

Given the evidence, I find the identified SO is not aligned with the worker’s aptitudes or academic skills and abilities. The Career Handbook confirms that Computer Network Technician (NOC 2281) positions require average language abilities and above average math skills. In my view, the worker does not currently have these aptitudes and skills, and they would face difficulty in obtaining a level of proficiency that would enable them to be successful in this line of work.

I afforded weight to the psycho-vocational assessment results which indicated the worker is best suited for short-term courses or training programs less than one year or entry-level employment opportunities. Given the gap in English literacy and math skills required for the identified SO, the worker would likely need to participate in significant academic upgrading before moving on to complete a college level educational program. This type of educational plan is not short-term and would extend well beyond the recommended timeframes provided by the psycho-vocational assessors.

Turning to the worker’s educational experience, employment history and transferrable skills, I did not find that the worker’s resume contained significant experience that was meaningfully relevant to the identified SO.

The psycho-vocational assessment report dated September 7, 2021, confirmed the following transferrable skills: customer service skills, working as part of a team, communication skills, supervisory skills, data input, handling items, operating tools, blueprint reading, delegating responsibility, directing projects, conflict resolution.

While the RTWS letter dated September 5, 2024, outlines the worker “has experience building testing and programming computers at a previous employer”, I found this to be largely inaccurate. The worker’s employment history confirms work experience in customer service, management, manual production, and assembly. There is no demonstrated experience in computer programming, software, or information technology. With respect to computer skills, the worker is capable of using some programs within Microsoft Office Suite.

The worker testified they didn’t believe their prior experience would help them in the identified SO. When asked about their prior employment with Company A, they explained the work was manufacturing in nature, whereas the type of work in the identified SO is computer programming. While working for Company A, the worker physically built computers by manually assembling all the pieces. They were not required to solve problems or work in software. The worker advised they worked at Company A 18 years ago.

I find the worker’s prior work history with Company A does not provide transferrable knowledge or skills to pursue employment in the identified SO. First, the worker did not perform tasks that are sufficiently analogous to work within the Computer Network Technician job category. The worker’s position was in an assembly environment where they repetitively and manually assembled computers. No knowledge or

understanding about the various components was required beyond how the parts physically connected and the order sequencing of the assembly. No problem identification, troubleshooting or problem-solving involving computer software or hardware was required. Second, the knowledge and skillset acquired at that time is considered outdated now. Given the fast pace of technological advancement that has transpired since this employment experience (almost 18 years ago), much of the technology the worker encountered and was familiar with is now obsolete.

In summary, I find the identified SO is not suited to the worker’s transferrable skills. In my view, the occupation of Computer Network Technician is not well-aligned with their aptitudes, education, and experience.

Is the WT plan for the SO of Computer Network Technicians appropriate?

In my view, the WT plan for the SO of Computer Network Technicians – Systems Administrator is not appropriate.

Policy 19-02-10 (RTW Assessments and Plans) provides that a RTW plan (with training) may be developed that outlines the assistance and services a worker requires to enable their return to work. Decisions about the services provided to a worker, and their duration, are made based on the individual circumstances of the worker. The policy provides that in some cases limited services are required, and in general, a plan will not exceed three years in duration.

The WT plan began on September 9, 2024, with a scheduled end date of July 11, 2025. The plan includes a 42-week private college vocational program followed by 12 weeks of employment services and job search training.

I find the WT plan does not adequately prepare and train the worker for a career in the identified SO. As previously discussed, the worker has proficiency gaps in English literacy and math skills. They have little precursory knowledge with respect to computers other than familiarity with Microsoft Office Suite. I find the plan does not provide sufficient upskilling to enable the worker to successfully complete the college educational programming and obtain successful and sustainable employment. Furthermore, the worker would be competing against other candidates who have completed multiyear college or university level degree programs.

In short, I find the plan does not sufficiently address the worker proficiency gaps in literacy and math. Additionally, given the short duration of the college program, I find the worker is unlikely to obtain and maintain work in the identified SO at the conclusion of the plan.

Is the SO of Computer Network Technicians – Systems Administrator suitable?

In conclusion, I find the identified SO of Computer Network Technicians – Systems Administrator is not suitable, and the associated WT plan is not appropriate. While I determined the SO was safe and consistent with the worker’s functional abilities, available, and would restore the worker’s pre-injury earnings to the greatest extent possible, I found it was not suited to the worker’s transferrable skills.

Moreover, I found the plan did not sufficiently address proficiency gaps and would not ensure the worker was competitively employable. In keeping with policy 19-02-10 (RTW Assessments and Plans), I find the identified SO and associated WT plan not suitable.

CONCLUSION

The identified SO of Computer Network Technician – Systems Administrator is not suitable, and the associated WT plan is not appropriate. Any benefits or services are remitted back to the operating area, and subject to the usual rights of appeal.

The worker’s objection is allowed.

DATED APRIL 8, 2025

E. Parsons

Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division