WSIAT Decision Search

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

No Summary Available

---

• Hearing loss (sensorineural)

No Summary Available

---

• Arthritis (septic)
• Procedure (medical examination) (Tribunal assessor) (questions to assessor)

No Summary Available

---

• Reconsideration (procedural error)

The worker requested a reconsideration of Decision No. 405/25.

The Vice-Chair denied the reconsideration request. The Tribunal's threshold test for granting a reconsideration request had not been met.

There was no basis for the worker's submission that he was not treated fairly or given an opportunity to properly present his case. There was also sufficient evidence available for the Panel to reach the conclusions that it did.

---

• Board Directives and Guidelines (psychotraumatic disability) (five year guideline)
• Psychotraumatic disability

The WSIB recognized initial entitlement for the worker's accident in 1989, including permanent impairments to the neck and low back. The worker has a total PD award of 45%, which includes permanent disabilities to the neck (15%), the low back (25%), and the left ankle (5%). The WSIB denied entitlement for psychotraumatic disability in a decision dated September 19, 1997. The sole issue before the Panel was the worker's entitlement for psychotraumatic disability.

The Panel denied the appeal.

The worker was injured in a chance event on May 29, 1989. The worker's psychological condition must have manifested on or before mid-1994 in order to establish entitlement under the WSIB's policy. The worker did not seek entitlement until 1997. There was no contemporaneous medical evidence regarding psychological issues or symptoms prior to 1996. The Panel found that the worker had not met the five-year rule set out in the policy as the worker's psychological condition did not manifest within five years of the work-related accident.

The Panel also found that the work-related accident was not a significant contributor to the worker's psychological condition, due to the presence of several significant intervening events. As such, there were no compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances to warrant extending the five-year period set out in the WSIB's policy.

The Panel acknowledged that the policy allows for the five-year limit to be reset with surgery, and that previous WSIAT decisions have found that this may, in certain circumstances, also apply to significant deteriorations (see Decision No. 2988/18). In this case however, the WSIB did not recognize a significant deterioration in the worker's compensable conditions until 2017. The Panel was bound by the WSIB's determination that the worker's compensable low back and neck conditions were more or less stable until 2017.

As the available evidence established that the worker's psychological condition had become entrenched by 2017, the Panel could not find that the significant deterioration was a significant contributing factor leading to the development of the worker's psychological condition. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances described by Decision No. 2988/18 did not apply.

---

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

No Summary Available

---

• Adjournment
• Procedure (absent parties)

No Summary Available

---

• Exposure (silica)
• Fibrosis (pulmonary)

The worker worked as a fitter machinist with the employer from 1965 until he retired in 2001. The worker was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease and then pulmonary fibrosis was subsequently diagnosed by 2014. The worker's medical condition deteriorated in subsequent years and he passed away on October 17, 2018. The issue under appeal was whether the worker had initial entitlement for pulmonary fibrosis.

The Panel denied the appeal.

The worker's estate submitted that it was the combined effects of the exposures to asbestos, silica, rubber emissions, and in particular metal dusts, and metal working fluids, which were the significant contributing factor in the cause of the worker's pulmonary fibrosis, or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

"Idiopathic" in this diagnostic assessment means an unknown cause or origin. Decision No. 1735/21 notes that, "sometimes the cause or origin of a condition is indeterminate, including in the opinion of health care providers" but "nonetheless, the Panel must assess whether work-related factors were a significant contributing factor in the development of the claimed condition and this lies at the core of the Tribunal's adjudication in such cases".

The Panel ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that these exposures made a significant contribution to the development of the worker's pulmonary fibrosis.

---

• Permanent impairment {NEL} (degree of impairment) (hearing loss)

The issue under appeal was whether the worker's NEL award was correctly assessed at 9% for NIHL and 1% for tinnitus for a total of 10%.

The Vice-Chair denied the appeal.

When interpreting and applying Policy 16-01-08 in a way that was consistent with the Act or Regulations, the Vice-Chair concluded that the 2% awarded for the tinnitus was appropriate based on the evidence of the worker's impairment at or around the date of MMR. While the Vice-Chair acknowledged the impact of the condition on the worker's life, there were no exceptional circumstances which warranted a variation in the usual application of Policy 16-01-08 (see Decision No. 1675/00).

The worker was not entitled to an increase in the NEL award for the binaural NIHL and tinnitus.

---

• Fracture (foot)
• Loss of earnings {LOE} (eligibility) (impairment)

No Summary Available

---