Worker v. Employer, 2025 CanLII 123888

20250065

REPRESENTED by:

VIDEOCONFERENCE – MAY 16, 2025

HEARD by:

DATED:

JULY 21, 2025

ISSUES

The worker is objecting to the following determinations in the Case Manager decision of February 5, 2025:

The worker was partially impaired as of August 1, 2016, with permanent restrictions for the neck and low back;
The worker was partially impaired by the psychotraumatic impairment with no psychological restrictions;
The worker had the ability to work in the suitable occupation (SO) of Cashier without additional training;
The inclusion of taxable dividends in the calculation of the worker’s post-injury earnings from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017;
The payment of no loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 because the worker’s actual post-injury earnings from their business in the form of taxable dividends, exceeded their pre-injury/recurrence earnings during that period;
The payment of partial LOE benefits from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, based on the worker’s actual post-injury earnings from taxable dividends;
The denial of full LOE benefits and the payment of partial LOE benefits from January 1, 2018 to March 17, 2021, based on the worker’s ability to earn minimum wage for 40 hours per week in the Cashier SO; and
The payment of partial LOE benefits from the 72-month review date of March 17, 2021 to age 65, based on earnings in the SO.

BACKGROUND

The worker was part owner of a restoration company. On March 17, 2015, his van was struck from behind while waiting at a red light. The worker was diagnosed with a concussion, neck strain and low back soft tissue injuries. He was 41 years old when the incident occurred and is currently 51 years old.

The worker continued to work in a sedentary role and drew regular earnings from the business up to August 1, 2016. Beyond August 1, 2016, the worker claimed the injuries prevented him from working and drawing a salary. Ongoing entitlement was requested by the worker but was denied by the WSIB in decisions at the operating level and by the Appeals Services Division, which limited entitlement to temporary soft tissue injuries of the neck and low back.

A decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) dated July 19, 2024, recognized a permanent impairment for chronic neck and low back strains superimposed on previously asymptomatic degenerative conditions, with the worker reaching maximum medical recovery (MMR) as of May 15, 2018. The decision also allowed entitlement for a psychotraumatic disability. The issue of LOE benefits from May 27, 2015 was returned to the WSIB for further adjudication to determine the nature and duration of benefits.

On October 11, 2024, the worker was granted a 52% Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefit for permanent neck and lower back strains with permanent exacerbations of pre-existing conditions.

The appeal implementation decision of February 5, 2025, made the following determinations:

The worker was partially disabled as of August 1, 2016 with permanent restrictions for the neck and low back.
The worker reached MMR for the psychotraumatic condition as of December 4, 2020, with a permanent impairment for Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. No temporary or permanent psychological restrictions were recognized from March 17, 2015 onward.
From August 1, 2016 to March 17, 2021 and thereafter to age 65, the worker was partially disabled by the workplace injury.
The worker was able to work in the SO of Cashier, National Occupational Classification (NOC) 6611, without additional training and earning minimum wage for 40 hours per week.
From August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the worker had actual earnings from taxable dividends totaling $369,018. Because the actual earnings exceeded the worker’s pre-injury and recurrence average earnings, there was no payment of partial LOE benefits during that period because there was no wage loss.
From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, the worker had actual earnings in the form of taxable dividends totaling $43,641. This exceeded determined earnings in the Cashier SO; therefore, partial LOE benefits were paid for that period based on the worker’s actual earnings from dividends.
From January 1, 2018 to the final review date of March 17, 2021 and beyond to age 65, the worker did not have actual earnings and partial LOE benefits were paid based on the worker’s ability to earn minimum wage working 40 hours per week in the Cashier SO.

On February 3, 2025, the worker was rated with a 10% NEL benefit for the psychotraumatic impairment, increasing the total NEL benefit in the claim to 62%. Because the worker has a 62% NEL benefit in this claim, the claim is now being handled by the Serious Injury Program.

AUTHORITY

Operational

Policy Manual

Published

11-02-02

Lost Time Claims

April 9, 2021

19-02-10

RTW Assessments and Plans

November 30, 2020

18-03-02

Payment and Reviewing LOE Benefits (Prior to Final Review)

December 5, 2024

18-02-08

Determining Average Earnings - Exceptional Cases

December 5, 2024

18-03-06

Final LOE Benefit Review

December 5, 2024

ANALYSIS

I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision. I find the worker is not capable of working in the Cashier SO and full LOE benefits are in order, less actual earnings from dividends. My reasons are explained below.

The worker representative submitted an Appeal Readiness Form dated March 12, 2025, presented arguments at the hearing, and relied on testimony from the worker. They are claiming the worker is totally unable to work due to the physical and psychological impairments, the Cashier SO is not suitable, the worker should be paid full LOE benefits from August 1, 2016 onward, and taxable dividends should be excluded from the calculation of post-injury earnings in 2016 and 2017.

The employer did not participate in the hearing and did not submit a Respondent Form. Physical and Psychological Restrictions, Level of Impairment, and SO Suitability

I find the worker is unable to work due to the combined effect of the physical and psychological impairments.

According to operational policy 11-02-02, the WSIB monitors, assesses and weighs the health care information in the worker's claim file to determine whether they have recovered from their work-related injury/disease and determines, through the review of clinical information, when a worker is fit to go back to their pre-injury work, or suitable and available work.

The WSIAT decision of July 19, 2024, concluded that the worker has permanent impairments in the neck and low back, as well as entitlement for a psychotraumatic disability. The decision also determined the worker would have been unable to sustain his pre-injury job as a result of the work-related impairments. It was left to the WSIB to determine the worker’s employability in the general labour market.

The decision letter of February 5, 2025 accepted the following permanent restrictions for the worker’s neck and low back:

Limit prolonged extremes of flexion and extension of the neck
Limit repetitive work above shoulder level
Limit repetitive neck movement
Limit sustained flexion of the lower back (forward, lateral, backward)
Limit repetitive trunk movement
Limit heavy lifting and prolonged sitting, standing, walking.

No psychological restrictions were recognized.

The worker testified that he is currently 51 years old. He came to Canada from Country A in approximately 2006. In Country A the worker did farm work and served in the army. He has not attended school since arriving in Canada, has worked doing renovations, and co-owned a restoration company. The worker confirmed the accident history.

The worker testified that memory problems prevented him from recalling all of the details of his recovery, but he noted that he has been using a wheelchair, a walker, and a cane for several years. The worker stated that he has extreme pain from the injury and has difficulty leaving his home. The worker testified that he has tried multiple pain medications but none of them provided much relief from the pain.

The worker testified that in addition to the physical pain, he also has depression and anxiety that causes irritability and trouble being around people. The worker said he requires help from his brother to complete many daily activities. The worker stated that the injury and resulting financial strain led to him losing his house and his marriage. The worker testified that he lives in his car and goes to his brother’s home to shower.

Regarding his ability to work, the worker testified that he can stand and drive for only short periods of time. His psychological condition causes problems with concentration, and he has angry outbursts that would make it difficult to deal with people as a cashier. The worker said he has no cashier experience and does not believe he is capable of working because of the severity of the pain and the psychological symptoms. The worker said he has not worked since August 2016.

I find the balance of the evidence supports the worker’s position that he has been unable to work since August 2016 as a result of the work-related impairments. The WSIAT decision of July 19, 2024 determined the worker was unable to perform their pre-injury job, and the medical evidence supports that it would be unlikely that the worker could have secured or sustained alternate employment.

Looking first at the physical impairments of the neck and low back, the medical evidence establishes that the worker has been experiencing severe and disabling pain and loss of function since the accident and beyond August 2016. In reaching that conclusion, I specifically note the following medical evidence:

A chart note from the worker’s doctor dated September 22, 2016, indicated the worker was having severe lower back pain. He was unable to perform his normal work and had stopped working because of constant pain. The worker rated the pain as 7/10 in severity, with burning pain that prevented him from doing anything by himself. The worker walked with a limping gait due to low back problems.
A chart note dated October 18, 2016, noted that the worker was having constant severe pain of the left upper limb due to advanced stenosis in the neck, and also had lower back pain.
A chart note dated October 27, 2016, indicated the worker was unable to stand up and walk properly, with the pain being the worst it had ever been.
A chart note dated November 3, 2016, reported that the worker was using two crutches to walk and had a lot of difficulty standing up.
A chart note dated December 12, 2016, confirmed the worker continued to have severe lower back pain.
A chart note dated May 10, 2017, indicated the worker had severe pain shooting down to the bottom of the left foot and was being referred to a neurosurgeon.
A chart note dated September 12, 2017, reported the worker was unable to function at all. The worker indicated he needed help bathing, was unable to walk upstairs, and needed crutches to walk.
A chart note dated October 10, 2017, indicated the pain severity and intensity remained the same and prevented the worker from performing daily activities.
A report from a physical medicine specialist dated November 21, 2017, confirmed ongoing problems with chronic mechanical neck and lower back pain.
A chart note dated December 12, 2017, noted the worker was seen for a prescription renewal. Pain levels continued to be severe, and the worker reported regularly going to a hospital emergency for morphine when the pain became too severe.
A chart note dated January 9, 2018, indicated that chronic lower back pain continued to disable the worker from working.
The worker was seen on February 28, 2018 with continuing severe pain in the back and difficulty walking.
A chart note date March 21, 2018, indicated the worker continued to have severe low back pain and was unable to complete daily chores.
Clinical records from a pain management centre show the worker participated in a series of pain management injections from May 2018 and continued to receive nerve block injections until at least December 2020. The initial records from April 30, 2018, indicated the worker had constant pain in the left lumbar area with radiation to the left foot. The worker was spending most days at home lying down, had problems standing, and used crutches in order to walk. The worker reported being unable to complete their activities of daily living.
A neurosurgery clinic report dated May 15, 2018, noted the worker presented with neck and lower back pain since a motor vehicle accident in 2015. The worker had pain radiating to both legs and arms associated with numbness and tingling, and aggravated by standing and walking. The report indicated the worker was not able to work due to pain. The worker was walking with the help of a cane. Surgery was offered but would only help leg pain and not the back pain.
A chart note dated June 7, 2018, indicated the worker was limping with the left leg and using a cane.
A chart note dated September 11, 2018, noted the injections helped a bit but the worker continued to report bad leg pain, particularly on the left side. The worker was unable to do anything at home and required help with most daily activities. The worker continued to limp and used a cane.
A chart note dated November 16, 2018, indicated the worker had started relying on a wheel chair sometimes, and needed a new place to live to accommodate his condition.
A chart note dated December 7, 2018, noted the worker continued to have severe pain in the lower back, neck, and left leg. The worker was still using a cane and sometimes a wheelchair. The worker applied for an accessible parking permit on December 12, 2018.
A chart note dated May 30, 2019, noted the worker had severe pain, was limping, and used a cane.
Despite the regular use of medication and nerve block injections, a note from the pain management clinic dated May 21, 2020 indicated the worker continued to have significant chronic back and neck pain, disability, and limitations in function.
Letters from an osteopathic therapist dated March 16, 2022 and June 16, 2022, indicated the worker was first seen on February 15, 2022. The report identified multiple disorders in the cervical and lumbar spine, resulting in chronic pain and depression.
A letter from the worker’s family doctor dated April 4, 2023, indicated the worker continued to suffer severe back pain affecting all aspects of his activities of daily living. It was the doctor’s opinion that the worker was permanently disabled and unable to work.
Follow-up letters from the worker’s doctor dated August 31, 2023 and December 29, 2023, indicated there had been no change in the worker’s condition and he was totally disabled by severe back pain and depression.
The NEL rating sheet for the neck and low back dated October 4, 2024, shows that the worker has significantly impaired range of motion in the neck and low back with disc or soft tissue lesions in both areas, resulting in a very high NEL rating of 52% for the physical conditions.
A letter from the worker’s doctor dated March 4, 2025, indicated they had been the worker’s doctor since July 5, 2019. During that time the worker suffered from disabling chronic low back pain and severe depression, resulting in the worker being totally disabled. The doctor reported that the physical disability prevented prolonged sitting or standing as a cashier.
The worker representative submitted an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment dated March 20, 2025. The worker reported having difficulty standing and pain that prevented him from completing meaningful activities of daily living. The worker was able to drive but had a driving tolerance of approximately half an hour. On assessments of pain and disability, the worker scored in the severe range of perceived disability. He reported significant limitations in most activities of daily living such as meal preparation, cleaning and laundry, and self-care/personal hygiene. In terms of walking, the worker required more than two minutes to move from a sitting position on a couch to begin walking. The worker limped, relied on a cane, and was observed to have poor balance. The worker was able to walk from the couch to the door only five times before reporting severe pain. The worker’s observed standing tolerance was just under two minutes. He was able to lift a 17 inch laptop while sitting but was unable to carry it while using a cane to walk. The worker was unable to wash dishes because he couldn’t let go of the cane while standing at the kitchen counter, or to sweep the floor. It was determined that the worker needed assistance with meal preparation, hygiene tasks, and self-care.
The WSIB arranged for a Personal Care Needs Assessment, but it has not yet taken place because the worker is living in their car and requested that the assessment be done after he finds a home.
I observed at the hearing that the worker appeared to experience significant discomfort and had to alternate from sitting to standing every few minutes.

Although specific psychological restrictions have not been identified, the available medical evidence suggests the worker would have tolerance limitations from a psychological perspective that would likely interfere with his ability to sustain employment. I note the following evidence:

A chart note dated March 22, 2016, indicated the worker was easily upset, had poor sleep, and needed counselling for anxiety.
A chart note dated December 12, 2016, confirmed the worker was feeling depressed.
A chart note dated April 30, 2018, indicated the worker was very depressed with no energy or concentration due to chronic low back pain.
A chart note dated February 5, 2019, noted that in addition to chronic lower back pain, the worker was very depressed resulting in crying, loss of appetite, loss of focus/concentration, a 20 pound weight loss, and problems with gambling.
A chart note dated May 30, 2019, noted the worker appeared very anxious.
A Community Mental Health Program (CMHP) assessment form dated May 15, 2020, diagnosed the worker with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and a pain disorder. The worker reported chronic fatigue, sadness, listlessness, sleep disturbances, loss of energy, concentration difficulties, significant agitation, and generalized fear. The symptoms interfered with work, social relationships, leisure activities and general satisfaction with life.
A psychiatric report from Dr. Dreshaj dated December 4, 2020, indicated the worker had been experiencing depression and anxiety since the accident in March 2015. The worker did not need a wheel chair at that time but was using crutches to ambulate. The worker reported being unable to care for himself. The diagnoses were posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. It was subsequently determined that the worker reached maximum psychological recovery as of the date of that report.
From November 2022 to March 2023, the worker attended treatment through a mental health outpatient clinic. A clinical record dated December 30, 2022, indicated the worker was having significant difficulty in social interactions secondary to irritability due to pain. He reported not sleeping for several days due to pain and stress. The worker also had problems with concentration, appetite, continued to have verbal altercations, and was neglecting personal hygiene. A voluntary inpatient admission was discussed with the worker, but he declined.
A CMHP assessment form dated September 27, 2024, noted the worker was experiencing severe pain in the neck, low back and left leg, as well as symptoms of anxiety, severe depression, suicidal ideation, and sleep disturbance. The psychologist considered the worker unable to work.
A letter from the family doctor dated March 4, 2025, reported that the worker’s mental state prevents interaction with the public and noted that he has poor focus and concentration, as well as difficulty with socialization.
The January 31, 2025 NEL rating sheet for the psychotraumatic impairment identified a moderate degree of impairment to social functioning and adaptation to stress, with an overall psychological impairment rating in the moderate range. This increased the worker’s total NEL benefit in the claim to 62%, which is considered a severe impairment.
The OT assessment dated March 20, 2025, noted that the worker reported reduced memory function, significant stress and anxiety, and limited social functioning. The worker claimed he only speaks to his children and his brother, and has problems with anger and aggression because of severe pain.

Based on the medical evidence and the worker’s testimony, as described above, I find the worker likely is not capable of finding or sustaining employment in the general labour market. The worker has consistently presented as significantly disabled as a result of the physical impairments in this claim, and his position is supported by the medical evidence. The worker reportedly has very limited standing and walking tolerance, is able to walk and stand for only a few minutes with support from a cane or crutches, and at times uses a wheelchair. The worker also reports being unable to meaningfully participate in most activities of daily living, including meal preparation, house cleaning and laundry, and also needs support for personal care/hygiene tasks.

In addition to his physical limitations, the worker also must cope with the psychotraumatic impairment. Although specific psychological limitations have not been identified by health care professionals, medical records have consistently indicated the worker has impaired memory and concentration and disturbed sleep. The worker’s tolerance for social interactions is reported to be very limited, with the worker at times getting involved in verbal altercations secondary to his psychological condition and irritability caused by pain.

These functional limitations reported by the worker and health care professionals are confirmed in the NEL ratings, which identified significant limitations in neck and low back range of motion and a moderately severe psychotraumatic impairment, particularly in the areas of social functioning and adaptation to stress. The combined NEL ratings for the physical and psychotraumatic impairments have resulted in a 62% NEL benefit, which is considered a severe impairment.

The decision of February 5, 2025, determined the worker was not totally disabled, relying on evidence that the worker was able to travel out of the country in 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2024. I am not persuaded by that analysis. I find the short term demands of managing a flight and other requirements of travel cannot be equated with the day-to-day physical and psychological demands of maintaining regular employment.

After considering all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the worker has been unable to participate in return to work activities or to secure and sustain employment as a result of his work-related impairments.

Regarding the suitability of the Cashier SO, operational policy 19-02-10 states in part that a SO represents a category of jobs suited to a worker’s transferable skills that are safe, consistent with the worker’s functional abilities, and that to the extent possible, restores the worker’s pre-injury earnings. The 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.

I find the Cashier SO is not suitable as a result of the worker’s physical and psychological impairments. As noted in the decision of February 5, 2025, the physical demands of the Cashier SO require varying degrees of sitting, standing, and walking. With the worker’s demonstrated standing and walking tolerance only being a few minutes in duration, I find it unlikely that he could tolerate even short periods of time standing while working as a Cashier. During the OT assessment, the worker was unable to carry a laptop or wash dishes because of the need to use a cane when walking, suggesting the worker would have difficulty meeting the requirements for upper limb coordination and light strength. Noting the worker’s perception of severe disability, I find the worker would not be able to meet the physical demands of the cashier SO.

I also find the worker would likely have problems with the Cashier SO because of his psychological tolerances and difficulty interacting with people. The SO would require regular involvement with people, but the evidence consistently indicated that the worker had trouble being around people due to his psychological state and irritability resulting from having chronic pain. Various medical reports noted above, indicated the worker had significant problems with social interactions, had regular verbal altercations, and generally limited social interactions to his close family.

In summary, I find the worker is unable to work due to the work-related impairments and the Cashier SO is not suitable because it is not consistent with the worker’s functional abilities.

LOE Benefits from August 1, 2016 and the Inclusion of Taxable Dividends

According to operational policy 18-03-02, if the nature or seriousness of the injury/disease completely prevents a worker from returning to any type of work, or if the worker is able to return to some form of work but the WSIB determines no suitable work is available, the worker is generally entitled to full LOE benefits providing the worker co-operates in health care measures and all aspects of the return-to-work (RTW) process. Post-injury earnings may be based on either actual employment earnings or determined earnings.

Because I have determined that the nature and seriousness of the work-related impairment has completely prevented the worker from working, I find full LOE benefits are in order.

Although the worker is claiming full LOE benefits from August 1, 2016, the evidence shows the worker had actual earnings from taxable dividends beyond August 1, 2016. From January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the worker had actual earnings from taxable dividends totaling $369,018. When prorated over the year, the worker’s actual earnings from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 exceeded the worker’s pre-injury and recurrence average earnings. There was no payment of LOE benefits during that period because there was no wage loss. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, the worker had income in the form of taxable dividends totaling $43,641 and was paid partial LOE benefits during that period based on his actual earnings from dividends.

The worker representative argued that the worker’s taxable dividends should not have been treated as earnings. They relied on a letter from an accountant dated March 18, 2025, which provided an opinion that the dividends received in the years 2016 and 2017 are not considered earned income because it was a payment to the worker in lieu of giving up ownership in the company. They argued that dividends are not considered to be earned income and are monies paid from retained earnings that the corporation has already paid taxes on. They are not considered part of operating expenses and cannot be considered salaries or earned income.

The worker testified that the income he received in 2016 and 2017 was from selling his interest in the business to his business partner. The worker confirmed there was no contract for the sale of the business, and no other paperwork or supporting evidence to establish that the dividends received by the worker in 2016 and 2017 were in fact a buy out of his interest in the business.

I have considered the arguments presented by the worker representative regarding the treatment of the worker’s dividends, but I find their position is not supported by the operational policies. Operational policy 18-02-08 states in part that to determine the average earnings for sole proprietors, partners and independent operators, decision-makers use the net business income during the calculation period based on the income reported to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) or an audited financial statement of earnings prepared by a chartered accountant. The decision-maker then overestimates the net business income by including items such as:

pension plan and RRSP contributions
depreciation and amortization
charitable donations
expenses arising out of the individual’s use of personal home or vehicle for business purposes
dividends from the business, and/or
other items as appropriate.

A coverage status enquiry in claim file memo A0046 dated October 11, 2024, determined the worker was an executive officer who reported taxable dividends as income to the CRA. According to claim file memo A0040 dated August 21, 2024, the worker did not have pre-injury or post-injury T4 or business income and was paid taxable dividends as income from 2013 to 2017. This is consistent with the tax return information submitted by the worker through their representative. From 2013 to 2015, the worker’s only income was in the form of taxable dividends and the income from those taxable dividends was used to establish the worker’s pre-injury earnings. Noting the worker’s taxable dividends were used to establish his pre-injury earnings, I find it was appropriate to consider the dividends received in 2016 and 2017 to be earnings for the purpose of establishing his post-injury earnings and entitlement to LOE benefits.

I acknowledge that the $369,018 in dividends reported by the worker in 2016 was considerably higher than the dividends reported by the worker before the injury ($100,000 in 2013, $118,000 in 2014, and $153,400 in 2015). However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the worker received money for the sale of his business interest in 2016 or 2017, it is not possible to determine the nature of the dividends paid during that period. For these reasons, I find the dividends paid to the worker in 2016 and 2017 were appropriately treated as post-injury earnings.

Noting the worker received $369,018 in dividends in 2016, I find the decision of February 5, 2025 appropriately determined that the worker did not have a wage loss from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, because the post-injury earnings in the form of dividends exceeded the worker’s pre-injury earnings. I find that from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, partial LOE benefits were appropriately paid based on actual post-injury earnings in the form of taxable dividends totaling $43,641.

From January 1, 2018 to the 72-month review date on March 17, 2021, I find the worker is entitled to full LOE benefits because I have determined he was unable to work due to the injury, he was not employed, and did not report any earnings during that period.

Operational policy 18-03-06 states in part that the WSIB shall not review a worker’s LOE benefit more than 72 months after the date of the worker’s injury unless certain circumstances are met. This claim reached the 72-month review date on March 17, 2021. No improvement was anticipated in the worker’s condition at the time of the 72-month review date. Because I have concluded that the worker was unable to work and entitled to full LOE benefits from January 1, 2018 to March 17, 2021, I find it was appropriate to continue paying full LOE benefits from March 17, 2021 to age 65.

Noting the worker’s earnings information was on file at the time of the implementation decision of February 5, 2025, I find the necessary information is on file to implement this decision. The decision letter of February 5, 2025 noted the worker had collected social assistance since 2018, but indicated the worker was responsible for addressing the reimbursement directly with the third party.

CONCLUSION

I conclude:

The worker is completely unable to work due to the permanent impairment of the neck and low back.
The worker is also unable to work due to the permanent psychotraumatic impairment.
The Cashier SO is not suitable.
The taxable dividends received by the worker from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 were appropriately treated as post-injury earnings.
From August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, it was appropriate to pay no LOE benefits because the worker’s actual post-injury earnings from dividends exceeded the worker’s pre- injury/recurrence earnings.
From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, it was appropriate to pay partial LOE benefits based on the worker actual post-injury earnings from dividends.
From January 1, 2018 to the final review date of March 17, 2021, the worker is entitled to full LOE benefits.
Full LOE benefits are payable from the final review date of March 17, 2021 to age 65.

The worker’s objection is allowed-in-part.

DATED JULY 21, 2025

Helen Shaw

Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division