Estate of Worker v. Employer, 2026 CanLII 41524

20260018

REPRESENTED by:

HEARD by:

DATED:

JANUARY 7, 2026

ISSUES

On behalf of the Estate, the worker’s spouse objects to the Adjudicator’s January 17, 2023, decision that was reconsidered on September 29, 2023, and found the following:

The worker did not have entitlement for intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH).
Entitlement for survivors’ benefits was denied.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2003, the worker fell and slipped on ice taking the garbage out at work. At the time of the injury, the worker was employed as a Dental Assistant. Entitlement was accepted for soft tissue injuries to the neck, right shoulder, right elbow, right wrist, and chest. On January 17, 2005, the worker was travelling by taxi to an appointment at the functional restoration program when they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The worker reported further soft tissue injuries to the chest wall, abdomen, back, and neck. In addition, entitlement was accepted for chronic pain disability and for an aggravation of their neck and low back degenerative disc disease and disc herniation. It was determined the worker would have a permanent impairment and a 60% non-economic loss (NEL) benefit was allowed.

On July 25, 2022, the worker developed sensory loss, paresthesia, persistent vomiting, severe headaches, neck pain, and difficulty lifting the left eyelid. The worker was seen in the emergency department with intracranial bleed, reduced Glasgow scale, and periodic apnea. Diagnostic testing confirmed intraventricular hemorrhage centred in the fourth and third ventricles and a small subarachnoid hemorrhage. On September 15, 2022, the worker passed away.

The worker had been paid full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from April 8, 2003, until September 15, 2022.

The Estate requested entitlement for this condition and survivors’ benefits. As outlined in the decision dated January 17, 2023, the Adjudicator found the workplace injuries were not a significant contributing factor in the development of IVH which ultimately led to the worker’s death. As such, entitlement for IVH and survivors’ benefits was denied.

The representative for the Estate argues the medication prescribed for the workplace injuries contributed to the development of IVH and as such, ongoing entitlement should be allowed. The employer is not participating in this appeal.

As the decision remained unchanged, the matter was referred to the Appeals Services Division for further review and consideration.

AUTHORITY

Operational Policy Manual

Published

15-05-01 – Secondary Conditions

April 9, 2021

20-01-02 – Definitions and Application Dates

January 3, 2007

ANALYSIS

I have carefully considered all the available information, legislation, relevant operational policies, and any submissions provided in reaching this decision. After having conducted a thorough review of the circumstances of this claim, I find the evidence does not support granting the Estate’s appeal. The following is a summary of my observations and findings.

Entitlement for IVH

Operational policy 15-05-01 outlines when the WSIB may provide benefits to a worker who sustains a secondary physical or psychological condition due to a work-related injury/disease or treatment. This policy states in part:

Policy

Workers sustaining secondary conditions that are causally linked to the work-related injury will derive benefits to compensate for the further aggravation of the work-related impairment or for new injuries.

Injury resulting from work-related injury

Entitlement for any secondary condition is accepted when it is established that a causal link exists between it and the work-related injury. The development of a left knee disability/impairment due to an increased dependency following a work-related injury to the right knee, is an example.

After reviewing the medical evidence on record, I find the following particularly relevant to the issue before me.

On July 27, 2022, the worker had a CT scan, and the impression was the worker had a moderate volume predominantly intraventricular hemorrhage centred in the fourth and third ventricles and small volume subarachnoid hemorrhage.

The July 27, 2022, reports from the emergency department diagnosed the worker with an intracranial bleed reduced Glasgow coma scale and periodic apnea. The worker had intraventricular hemorrhage in the fourth and third ventricles and a small volume of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Diagnostic testing also indicated possibility of brainstem cavernoma.

Dr. Razavi was asked to provide an opinion regarding the worker’s condition and whether the workplace injury was a significant contributing factor in the development of the IVH and ultimately the worker’s passing. On January 16, 2023, Dr. Razavi opined the suspected causes of the intraventricular hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage included spontaneous or secondary to an aneurysm example pica aneurysm or underlying mass/AVM. It was opined that none of the suspected causes for the fatal condition were caused or worsened by the accepted conditions or treatments in this claim. Further, it was noted that brain hemorrhage is the most fatal form of stroke and has the highest morbidity of any stroke subtype. As such, the cause of death was opined to be IVH.

On September 27, 2023, Dr. Razavi reviewed the medication prescribed to the worker and opined the medications related to the workplace injury did not have a positive association between the medication and the development of IVH.

The representative of the Estate submits that the workplace injury and treatment were a significant contributing factor in the development of IVH and is the cause of the worker’s passing. Specifically, the risks associated with the medications prescribed to treat their workplace injury was not considered.

As outlined above in operational policy, for entitlement to be considered, there must be evidence to support the condition was causally related to the workplace injury. In this case, the worker suffered from an intraventricular hemorrhage on July 22, 2022. I acknowledge the position of the Estate is that this was causally related to the workplace injury/medications.

The accident history has been outlined above, and it was ultimately determined the worker had entitlement for soft tissue injuries to the chest, right upper extremity, and aggravation of the pre-existing degenerative disc disease and an aggravation of the low back degenerative disc disease with disc herniation. The worker was also provided with a chronic pain disability, and it was accepted this condition would remain permanent with the worker receiving 60% NEL benefit.

I place significant weight on the medical opinion provided by Dr. Razavi who confirmed the diagnosis of IVH and opined the medications were not associated with a risk for developing this condition. As such, it is not established that the workplace injury/treatment was a significant contributing factor in the development of IVH. As such, there is no causal relationship and entitlement for IVH is denied.

Survivors’ Benefits

Operational policy 20-01-02, states that if a worker dies because of a work-related accident, the worker's survivors, as defined, are entitled to benefits based on the date of the worker's death.

The representative of the Estate, the deceased worker spouse, submits that the worker’s death was a result of the workplace injury/treatment.

The medical evidence outlined above and on record, determined the worker’s cause of death to be the IVH. As outlined above, entitlement was denied as the evidence did not support a causal relationship between the IVH and the workplace accident. As such, there is no link between the workplace accident and the worker’s death. Therefore, there is no entitlement to ongoing benefits or survivors’ benefits.

CONCLUSION

I conclude the following:

The evidence does not support that there was a causal relationship between the workplace injury and IVH.
The cause of death was not related to the workplace accident/treatment and therefore, there is no further entitlement to benefits or survivor benefits.

The objection of the Estate is denied.

DATED JANUARY 7, 2026

Jennifer Mangoff

Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division