APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20260006
OBJECTING PARTY: WORKER
REPRESENTED by: WORKER REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONDENT PARTY: EMPLOYER (NOT PARTICIPATING)
HEARING: TELECONFERENCE – OCTOBER 22, 2025
HEARD by: K. DENBOK, APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DATED: OCTOBER 30, 2025
ISSUE
The worker, through their representative, is objecting to the case manager’s decision dated October 30, 2024, which denied initial entitlement to a bilateral shoulder injury.
BACKGROUND
The worker, employed as a caretaker, developed an injury gradually occurring over time to both their shoulders which they attribute to using a malfunctioning auto-scrubber. The worker reported using the machine for approximately 2 hours each shift in classrooms, hallways and the gym. They had to restart the machine up to six times during each shift; they described that each time the machine shut down, they would have to crank the handles of the auto-scrubber and push the machine with both hands until it functioned properly again. The worker reported their regular duties also include general cleaning where they scrub countertops, sinks and mirrors. They vacuum, sweep and mop classrooms and bathrooms, and empty garbage throughout each shift.
The worker provided a medical note to their employer and began losing time from work on September 25, 2024. A Health Professional’s Report (Form 8) was completed on October 10, 2024, with the diagnosis of a repetitive strain injury to both their shoulders, with tendinopathy.
In their decision dated October 30, 2024, the case manager denied initial entitlement to a bilateral shoulder injury as a disablement that gradually emerged over time. They determined the job duties were not considered repetitive in nature and did not involve significant risk factors for a shoulder injury. The case manager reconsidered and upheld the initial entitlement decision on February 4, 2025.
The issue of initial entitlement, in the October 30, 2024 decision, is properly before me and forms the basis of this appeal.
AUTHORITY
| Operational Policy Manual | Published |
|---|---|
| 11-01-01 Adjudicative Process | November 3, 2008 |
| 11-01-04 Determining Date of Injury | April 9, 2021 |
| 15-02-01 Definition of an Accident | October 12, 2004 |
| 18-03-02 Payment and Reviewing LOE Benefits (Prior to Final Review) | September 1, 2021 |
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision. I have granted initial entitlement for a bilateral repetitive strain type injury.
Worker Representative’s Position and Remedy Sought
The worker representative’s position is the worker’s bilateral shoulder injury is a result of a malfunctioning auto scrubber as part of their regular job duties. They submit the employer and worker reports of injury and the clinical information on record are consistent in attributing the injury to the malfunctioning auto scrubber. They note the employer is not disputing the auto scrubber had malfunctioned and sent the machine to be repaired after the worker had reported the injury. They argue that although the worker’s regular duties involve various tasks, all tasks involve similar demands on the shoulders. They are seeking initial entitlement to a bilateral shoulder repetitive strain type injury and associated loss of earnings (LOE) entitlement.
Employer’s Position and Remedy Sought
The employer did not participate in this appeal and has not provided a written submission for consideration.
Worker’s Testimony
It is the worker’s testimony they have been working as a caretaker for their employer since 2007 and has been employed full-time since 2009. They work eight-hour shifts, five days per week. The worker had a prior non-occupational back injury and has had permanent workplace accommodations in place since 2016. Due to their non-occupational restrictions, the worker has been using the auto scrubber instead of mopping, whenever possible. They testified they were only mopping in areas where the auto scrubber could not fit or reach. Apart from the auto scrubber malfunctioning, there have been no recent changes to their job duties.
The worker testified their regular job duties include taking out garbage from every room, sweeping the floors, using a dustpan to retrieve the refuse, and vacuuming carpets in the classrooms. They clean tables, chairs and desks, mop the stairs and smaller areas of the classrooms, and use the auto scrubber for the hallways, gym and into the classrooms. They throw the garbage bags, weighing up to 25 pounds, over the lip of the dumpster above shoulder height.
Within testimony, the worker described the auto scrubbing machine as medium sized, about three feet wide and five feet long. The worker operates the machine by holding handles, similar in style to bicycle handles, at their navel level while walking behind the machine. The worker estimated the machine to be a couple hundred pounds with empty water and chemical reservoirs when the motor is not running. The machine is heavier when the reservoirs are filled before using the machine. They estimated they typically use the machine for two hours straight each shift.
The worker testified the auto scrubber began malfunctioning about one year prior to their reporting of a bilateral shoulder injury. They testified that in the process of moving the machine along the floor, an indicator on the machine would start flashing and the machine would spontaneously stop. The machine would become very heavy when the motor stopped and felt stuck to the floor. The worker stated that initially, they may have had to restart the machine once per shift, however by September 2024 the machine was much worse, and they were having to restart the machine 4 to 5 times each shift. When describing how they had to restart the auto scrubber, they testified the handles are similar to bicycle handles in shape and width. They had to turn, or crank, the handles with both hands to engage the scrubber head or pad and push the machine forwards until the motor reengaged. They testified they pushed the machine with their arms extended in front, while leaning forwards, to apply more force. They testified there was a significant amount of force required as they were moving a very heavy stationary object into motion until the motor restarted. The worker testified that by September 2024, they often had to push start the machine more than once before the motor would re-engage.
Within testimony, the worker acknowledged they may have talked with their doctor about some shoulder pain before the injury, however they had not been given a diagnosis or received any treatment for their shoulders. Before September 2024, they testified they had never had any imaging done on their shoulders and the pain medication they had been prescribed was for their pre-existing back issue. The worker testified they first reported significant pain in their shoulders due to the malfunctioning auto scrubber to their doctor on September 25, 2024.
Assessment of Evidence
According to Policy 11-01-01 Adjudicative Process, decision-makers use the “five-point check system” when ruling on entitlement to benefits. An allowable claim must have the following five points:
- An employer
- A worker
- A personal work-related injury
- Proof of accident, and
- Compatibility of diagnosis to accident or disablement history.
In this case, there is general agreement regarding the worker and employer relationship. In considering whether there is evidence of a personal work-related injury, the nature of the accident must be defined. As the worker is attributing their bilateral shoulder injury to their job duties of operating a malfunctioning auto scrubber over time, I am guided by Policy 15-02-01, Definition of an Accident, in my determination the accident is a disablement emerging gradually over time arising out of and in the course of employment.
Date of Injury
Policy 11-01-04, Determining the Date of Injury, explains that in a gradual onset disablement claim, the date of injury is established using the date of first medical attention which led to the diagnosis, or the date of diagnosis, whichever is earlier. Further to the worker’s testimony with the medical information on the case record, I have determined the date of injury to be September 25, 2024. While the doctor first indicated a work-related bilateral shoulder injury in their forms dated October 10, 2024, the worker testified that although their doctor had not completed a WSIB form on September 25, 2024, they had reported to their doctor their pain was due to the scrubbing machine issues.
While I note the worker had received health care for bilateral shoulder pain previously from their doctor, I accept the worker’s testimony they had not received a diagnosis, required any treatment, or attributed their shoulder pain to their job duties before September 2024.
Did an injury arise out of the worker’s job duties?
In determining whether the worker sustained a personal work-related injury, the evidence must show the personal injury not only happened at work but also happened because of the work. There must be some injuring process which is part of the worker’s employment to establish their right shoulder injury arose out of their employment. While I acknowledge the disablement history satisfies the criteria for a personal injury occurring in the course of employment, the criteria of proof of accident and clinical compatibility must also be satisfied to demonstrate the bilateral shoulder condition arose out the worker’s employment.
Policy 11-01-01 provides authority for decision makers to consider factors that may be relevant in establishing proof of accident including whether a disablement situation exists, and whether there are delays in the onset of symptoms, lost time, or in seeking health care.
The worker testified they reported both their shoulder pain and the issues they were having with the auto scrubber to their head caretaker in September 2024. While I acknowledge the worker had not specified their injury was work-related, I accept the worker’s testimony that neither their employer nor the union had asked whether the injury was work-related until the worker attempted to return to work for one shift in October 2024. I note the worker does not have an extensive history of work-related claims, and I find it reasonable they were unfamiliar with the process of reporting a work-related injury. Both the worker and employer have an onus in reporting a work-related injury. With the available information, I find the worker had attempted to report the injury as work-related in September 2024 to both their employer and doctor.
In examining whether a disablement situation exists, there must be some injuring process which is part of the worker’s employment to establish their bilateral shoulder injuries arose out of their employment.
The worker had been working as a caretaker in the same public school for several years prior to reporting a bilateral shoulder injury. The worker confirmed there had been no changes to their job duties apart from the auto scrubber malfunctioning, which resulted in the worker having to push start the machine each time it stopped running. The employer provided documentation outlining the worker’s non-occupational permanent restrictions that have been in place since 2016, and the report indicates the worker was restricted from using ladders, lifting more than 15 pounds, carrying items up and down stairs, and dusting areas higher than 5 feet. The worker had been recommended to use damp mops no more than 16 ounces and take breaks every two hours.
I accept the worker’s testimony the auto scrubbing machine they consistently used had been malfunctioning leading up to their bilateral shoulder injury. The worker testified that since 2016, they preferred to use the auto scrubber to clean the floors instead of mopping, whenever possible. They would only mop in areas where the auto scrubber could not access. The worker did not have any issues with operating the auto scrubber before it malfunctioned. The worker testified the employer had the machine repaired once they had reported the injury and several repairs had been required to make it run properly again. I find it significant the employer has not indicated any disagreement regarding the malfunctioning scrubber.
I have considered the physical demands involved with the machine malfunctioning and associated risk factors for a shoulder injury. I accept the worker’s testimony they had to push the machine with their arms extended in front of them and their body leaning forwards due to the force required to set the stationary machine, weighing at least 200 pounds, into motion until the motor re-engaged. I accept that significant force would have been required to push the machine until the motor turned on. While the machine handles were positioned at the worker’s navel height, I note the worker described pushing the machine with their arms extended in front of them with their body inclined forwards. I find it reasonable that in this position, the handle height would be more reasonably at chest level. I find it reasonable that a significant amount of strain would have been placed on the workers’ shoulders when they had to push start the machine each time it stopped running.
I find the worker would have been unaccustomed to the forceful pushing required to restart the auto scrubber. As there is no contravening statement from the employer, I accept the worker’s testimony they would have to restart the machine four to five times within the two-hour period, and they often needed to push the machine two to three times each time before it would restart. While I acknowledge the worker used the scrubber for a two-hour period each shift, there was a distinct change in the physical demands required to operate the malfunctioning scrubber leading up to September 2024. I have considered the mechanics involved, the push force required and the frequency. I find the change in job duties due to the malfunctioning machine involved significant risk factors for a bilateral shoulder injury.
Policy 11-01-01, requires clinical compatibility of diagnosis with disablement history. In other words, the evidence must demonstrate the medical diagnosis could have resulted from, or been caused by, the disablement history. I have determined the most appropriate diagnosis of the worker’s shoulders is a repetitive strain injury. I note the family doctor related the worsening bilateral shoulder pain to the recent repetitive duty involving the scrubbing machine in their reports from October 10, 2024, and there is no contravening clinical opinion on record. I find the bilateral shoulder repetitive strain injury is compatible with the unaccustomed strain from forcefully pushing a malfunctioning auto scrubber.
In summary, all five adjudicative criteria outlined in Policy 11-01-01 have been satisfied. I find that initial entitlement to a bilateral shoulder repetitive strain injury is in order.
I note the worker has had some further investigation and consultation for their shoulder condition. Whether the worker’s bilateral shoulder condition has evolved to include additional diagnoses can be determined by the operating area with additional clinical information.
Benefits Flowing
Policy 18-03-02, Payment and Reviewing LOE Benefits (Prior to Final Review), requires wage loss to be a result of the work-related injury. Full LOE benefits may be in order if the work-related injury prevents a return 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.
I note the worker began losing wages on September 26, 2024. As there is no information on record to indicate when modified duties were made available, or when the worker returned to work, I am unable to decide on the loss of earnings entitlement. I remit back the LOE entitlement determination back to the operating area.
CONCLUSION
I have concluded that initial entitlement is in order for a bilateral shoulder repetitive strain injury. I remit a determination of the LOE entitlement back to the operating area.
The objection is allowed.
DATED OCTOBER 30, 2025
K. Denbok Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division