WSIAT Decision Search

• Loss of earnings {LOE} (lay-off) (short-term)
• Loss of earnings {LOE} (retirement)

No Summary Available

---

• Carpal tunnel syndrome
• Reconsideration (new evidence)

The worker sought reconsideration of Decision No. 770/24 concerning entitlement to bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), presenting new evidence including surgical reports from the treating plastic surgeon who performed a carpal tunnel release during thumb surgery.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration request and allowed the appeal. The Vice-Chair found the new evidence was not available at the original hearing and was substantial enough to likely change the outcome, meeting the high threshold required for reconsideration.

The Vice-Chair proceeded to reconsider the merits of the worker's entitlement to benefits for bilateral CTS based on the new evidence and submissions. The Vice-Chair found a causal relationship between the onset of the bilateral CTS and the worker's employment history as an industrial electrician. It was concluded that the worker's work duties likely made a significant contribution to the development of the bilateral CTS.

---

• Access to worker file, P. D. (issue in dispute) (relevance)

No Summary Available

---

• Loss of earnings {LOE} (employability)
• Permanent impairment {NEL} (degree of impairment) (psychotraumatic disability)
• Procedure (alternative dispute resolution) (early intervention)

No Summary Available

---

• Access to worker file, P. D. (issue in dispute) (relevance)

The worker objected to the release of portions of the claim file to the employer. The key issue was whether the employer had a right to access the worker's file under the Tribunal's Practice Direction titled "Access to Workers' Information When the Issue in Dispute is at the Tribunal."

The Vice-Chair allowed the worker's appeal.

Addendum 3 concerned an accident experienced by the worker in 2017 (two years after the worker's claimed back injury in 2015). The 2017 accident did not involve an injury to the worker's low back or upper back and instead involved a different body part. The Vice-Chair concluded that the entirety of Addendum 3 should not be provided to the employer as it was irrelevant to the worker's appeal of the July 31, 2020, ARO decision.

The Tribunal's Practice Direction mandates that irrelevant or sensitive information not be disclosed. Given the lack of relevance and potential for prejudice, the worker's objection to releasing Addendum 3 was upheld.

---

• Loss of earnings {LOE} (level of benefits) (hours of work)
• Suitable occupation

No Summary Available

---

• Health care (medical aid) (drugs)
• Jurisdiction, Tribunal (sequential issue)
• Neuropathy (peripheral)
• Permanent impairment {NEL}
• Psychotraumatic disability
• Restless leg syndrome

No Summary Available

---

• Accident (date)
• Loss of earnings {LOE} (employability)
• Permanent impairment {NEL} (degree of impairment) (psychotraumatic disability)

The worker was a bulk propane truck driver from 2010, stopped working in January 2016, and claimed entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) and later Chronic Mental Stress (CMS), both initially denied by the WSIB but later granted initial entitlement for TMS by the Tribunal in 2022. The worker was diagnosed with PTSD and situational vehicular phobia, found partially impaired with a 5% NEL award, and was considered able to work in entry-level suitable occupations earning minimum wage, but the worker disputed these findings.

The Panel allowed the appeal.

The Panel found the 5% NEL award too low and upgraded it to 15%, placing the impairment at the top of Class 2 (mild impairment) based on the worker's ongoing anxiety, fatigue, and functional limitations, supported by medical reports and testimony from the worker and spouse.

The Panel determined the appropriate date of injury as February 4, 2015, when the worker first sought medical attention for chest pain and anxiety symptoms eventually diagnosed as PTSD and anxiety, rather than the later date of January 25, 2017 used by the ARO.

Considering the worker's personal, vocational, and medical factors, including testimony and expert opinions, the Panel concluded the worker was essentially incapable of any employment, rejecting the ARO's finding that the worker could perform entry-level jobs, and thus entitled to full LOE benefits from January 25, 2017 to December 2, 2019.

---

• Consequences of injury (secondary condition)
• Loss of earnings {LOE} (employability)
• Permanent impairment {NEL}
• Tenosynovitis (shoulder)

No Summary Available

---

• Loss of earnings {LOE} (eligibility) (impairment)
• Permanent impairment {NEL} (disfigurement) (leg)

The worker appealed two decisions dated October 30, 2023, and January 5, 2024, concerning entitlement to a 1% Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award for a left leg injury and denial of ongoing Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits from November 3, 2021.

The Panel denied the appeal.

The worker received a 1% NEL award for a scar on the left leg from a September 2021 injury. The worker's representative argued for a higher rating within Class 1 impairment, citing previous cases. The Panel found that the NEL specialist correctly applied the AMA Guides, considering scar size and location, and that the cited cases were distinguishable and did not warrant a higher rating.

While the Panel accepted the worker's testimony that he was self-conscious about the scar on his leg and as a result he does not wear shorts in public, this evidence went to the issue of entitlement for a permanent impairment disfigurement rating but did not address the percentage to be assigned. Thus, the worker's self-consciousness about the scar was acknowledged but did not affect the percentage awarded.

The worker's October 2021 back injury led to LOE benefits granted from October 18 to November 3, 2021. The ARO found the worker fit to return to pre-injury duties without restrictions from November 3, 2021, and benefits ceased thereafter. The worker appealed for ongoing benefits. Testimony and medical evidence showed the worker was medically cleared to return but declined due to personal reasons, including frustration and termination by the employer for non-injury-related issues. The Panel gave significant weight to objective medical evidence from the physiotherapist and nurse practitioner confirming fitness to work.

The worker's representative argued conflicting medical evidence and ongoing restrictions related to upper back and shoulders. The Panel found no objective medical restrictions after November 3, 2021, and subjective pain reports did not override objective findings. The physiotherapist's and nurse practitioner's consistent assessments supported the termination of benefits.

The Panel denied the worker's appeal, confirming the 1% NEL award and the cessation of LOE benefits from November 3, 2021, as the worker was medically fit to return to work and any wage loss thereafter was not due to compensable injury.

---