Decision #47/01 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
A non-oral file review was held on March 28, 2001, at the request of the claimant.
Issue
Whether or not the claimant's permanent partial impairment rating and lump sum settlement have been calculated correctly.
Decision
That the claimant's permanent partial impairment rating and lump sum settlement have been calculated correctly.
Background
While employed as a sheet metal worker on June 11, 1998, the claimant's right hand was crushed against a wall by a 3 tonne beam which caused a complete amputation of his third finger and a laceration to his ring finger. On June 14, 1998, revision of the amputation took place at the level of the metacarpal-phalangeal joint of the right middle finger. The claim was accepted as a responsibility of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) and benefits were paid accordingly.
On March 6, 2000, the claimant was assessed by a medical consultant at the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board on behalf of the Manitoba WCB. Based on this assessment, the claimant was advised on June 5, 2000 that he was entitled to a 5.9% permanent impairment award which calculated into a one time payment of $1,110.00. In August 2000, the claimant appealed this decision to Review Office.
In a November 10, 2000 decision, Review Office determined that the impairment rating of 5.9% was correct and that the monetary award of $1,110.00 was also correct. Review Office confirmed that the 5.9% impairment award was in accordance with the WCB's adopted Schedule of Impairment Ratings and that the monetary award of $1,110.00 was in keeping with Section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba. On January 2, 2001, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision to the Appeal Commission and a non-oral file review took place on March 28, 2001.
Reasons
This is the case of a man who lost the middle finger on his right hand, as well as a partial loss of range of motion in his right ring finger, due to a work-related accident. As a result of this, he was awarded a partial permanent impairment (PPI) rating and compensated accordingly.
He has challenged the impairment rating, as well as the amount of compensation he received for it. For him to succeed, the panel must determine that the PPI rating was calculated incorrectly. Under the terms of The Workers' Compensation Act, the panel has no discretion as to the amount of compensation awarded for a particular level of PPI rating, and must follow the compensation schedule that is set out in the Act.
Section 38(1) of the Act states: "The board shall determine the degree of a worker's impairment expressed as a percentage of total impairment."
Calculation of a PPI rating is described in WCB Policy 44.90.10, which, among other things, includes a schedule setting out the amounts to be awarded for amputation of a finger, as in this case. Under this schedule, a different amount - equal to the percentage of impairment - is awarded for each digit of the finger lost. In the case of the claimant, this amounted to the following:
- Distal phalange (1st digit) -- 2.4%
- Middle phalange (2nd digit) -- 1.6%
- Proximal phalange (3rd digit) -- 0.8%
This totaled 4.8%.
In addition, he was awarded a further 1.1% for the loss of range of motion of the 1st digit of his ring finger -- for a total PPI rating of 5.9%. We find that this calculation was correct.
The amount of compensation granted for a PPI is set out in section 38(2) of the Act, which states:
Where the board determines that a worker has suffered an impairment, the board shall, subject to subsection (3), pay to the worker as a lump sum an impairment award in the following amount, for an impairment that is determined by the board to be:
- 1% or greater but less than 5%: $500;
- 5% or greater but less than 10%: $1,000;
- 10% or greater: $1,000. plus $1,000 for each full 1% of impairment in excess of 10%.
With periodic indexation, the amount awarded under section 38(2)(b) has increased to $1110.00, which is the amount paid to the claimant.
While we may sympathize with the claimant and agree that this does not seem like a lot of money for the loss of a finger, we are bound by the strictures of both the act and the board policy.
Accordingly, the appeal is not allowed.
Panel Members
T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Miller
T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 3rd day of April, 2001