Decision #144/01 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
An Appeal Panel hearing was held on October 16, 2001, at the request of a worker advisor, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on October 16, 2001.
Issue
Whether or not the claimant is entitled to payment of wage loss benefits after November 17, 2000.
Decision
That the claimant is not entitled to payment of wage loss benefits after November 17, 2000.
Background
On September 16, 2000, the claimant reported an injury to his left ankle at the back of his heel when he slipped off the rail of a railroad track during the course of his employment as a labourer. On the date of accident, the claimant attended a local hospital for treatment and was diagnosed with a soft tissue injury to the heel. A Medical Professional's Report dated September 16, 2000, noted that the claimant was capable of light work and was "not to pick up heavy objects 1 week".
X-rays were taken of the left ankle and left calcaneus on September 16, 2000. No fracture or dislocation was identified on the left ankle and the left calcaneus revealed no fracture.
A Doctor's First Report of September 22, 2000 diagnosed the claimant with a contused medial left heel. The physician believed that the claimant would be disabled for a period of 7 to 10 days.
In an October 30, 2000 report, an orthopaedic specialist noted that the claimant had continued discomfort mainly on the plantar aspect of his foot. It was worse when getting up in the mornings and the claimant had difficulty wearing certain shoes and with walking. On examination, the claimant had tenderness over the plantar fascia. The specialist noted that the findings were consistent with plantar fasciitis and some pes planus. Treatment included an injection.
In response to a WCB letter dated November 7, 2000, the attending physician commented that the claimant had good range of motion with activities involving the leg, ankle, and heel. There was no neurovascular abnormality and the joints were stable. According to the claimant, it hurt when he walked and he had a limp.
On November 15, 2000, a WCB medical advisor reviewed the claim and confirmed the diagnosis of left plantar fasciitis. He outlined the predisposing factors, which included natural anatomy (pes planus), improper footwear, obesity, excess walking, etc. However, the medical advisor was of the opinion that the claimant's plantar fascitis condition was unrelated to the compensable injury.
In a letter dated November 17, 2000, the claimant was advised by primary adjudication that it was of the opinion he had recovered from the effects of his work related injuries and that there was no basis to extend wage loss benefits beyond November 17, 2000.
On January 22, 2001, a worker advisor appealed primary adjudication's decision to the Review Office on behalf of the claimant. The worker advisor believed that there was a causal connection between the claimant's medical condition and his employment and that the claimant was entitled to ongoing wage loss benefits. In support, the worker advisor submitted a report from the attending physician dated January 19, 2001.
In its decision of February 2, 2001, Review Office confirmed that the claimant was not entitled to payment of wage loss benefits after November 17, 2000. In coming to this conclusion, Review Office took into consideration the diagnoses that were provided by the emergency room physician, the family physician and the orthopaedic surgeon. Review Office noted that the family physician's report of January 19, 2001 provided no clinical findings or any new information that would support the continuance of time loss after November 17, 2000. The claimant had no job to return to as he had been laid off from his pre-accident employment. Review Office believed that the claimant had been amply compensated for the effects of his work related injury and that there was no evidence to support total disability or inability to return to work insofar as the work related injury was concerned.
On May 25, 2001 the worker advisor appealed Review Office's decision and submitted a report from an orthopaedic specialist dated May 11, 2001. On October 16, 2001 an oral hearing was held at the Appeal Commission.
Reasons
We find based on a thorough review of the evidence that the area of insult at the time of the compensable incident is not, in our view, consistent with the claimant's development of plantar fasciitis. We note in particular that the insult did not occur to the medial calcaneal tubercle of the claimant's left foot, but rather to an area above the inside of his left ankle. When questioned as to the location of the injury, the claimant responded as follows:
Q. Like you slid backwards or did your foot hit downward?
A. I slipped right up. Both feet went straight up in the air.
Q. Okay.
A. And I hit my foot right on the rail, because I felt it right away.
Q. Okay. Now your injury report says that you hurt your ankle?
A. I hit my ankle, that's what I'm trying to say. Like I hit it.
Q. So from the bottom of your foot - -
A. Yes.
Q. - - how high up?
A. How high up?
Q. How many inches up did you hurt yourself?
A. About four inches up.
Q. So about that high? So it was like in the middle of that Achilles' tendon or was it on the side?
A. It was on the side. It was on the side of the rail.
Q. No, no, of your foot?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you said you hit your - - you have a foot and then you have your ankle.
A. H'mn, h'mn.
Q. Right, you know, going up the back of your leg, going up the back. So you said you hit about four inches up the back of your leg?
A. Yes, four inches the back of my leg.
Q. Okay. And you hit on the inside or the outside?
A. The outside.
Q. That is the - -
A. No, that's the outside. No, it's the inside, I'm sorry.
Q. The inside, okay.
A. Yes.
In conclusion, we find that the evidence does support the claimant's contention that he is entitled to payment of wage loss benefits after November 17, 2000. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal is hereby dismissed. (clerical error)
Panel Members
R. W. MacNeil, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Miller
R. W. MacNeil,
Presiding Officer
R. W. MacNeil - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 14th day of November, 2001