The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on December 12, 2001, at the request of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on December 12, 2001.

Issue

Whether or not the November 27, 2000 left eye surgery is causally related to the compensable accident of February 27, 1984.

Decision

That the November 27, 2000 left eye surgery was not causally related to the compensable accident of February 27, 1984.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

The claimant completed a worker's claim for injury or industrial disease on May 20, 1984 and reported that he sustained injury to his eyes when he was exposed to smoke from a fire on February 27, 1984. Medical treatment was sought from a local emergency room facility where the claimant was diagnosed with and treated for corneal burns. The claimant was discharged with instruction to seek follow-up medical treatment. When subsequently seen by an eye specialist, the claimant was diagnosed with severe conjunctivitis, which was said to have resolved by March 9, 1984, with the claimant's returning to work on March 11, 1984. The claim was approved by the Manitoba Workers Compensation Board (WCB) and the claimant received temporary total disability benefits until his return to work date.

On October 31, 2000, the claimant attended the WCB and reported that he was experiencing further difficulties with his eyes. He advised that he had been scheduled to undergo surgery to the left eye on November 27, 2000, and that surgery to the right eye would follow at a later date. According to the claimant, his eye surgeon had indicated that the need for surgery was due to corneal burns.

The WCB adjudicator assigned to the claim wrote to the claimant's eye surgeon on February 2, 2001. In his reply to the WCB dated February 16, 2001, the eye specialist reported initially assessing the claimant on October 3, 2000. The objective findings included a growth in the medial canthal area of the left eye, which he diagnosed as an active pterygium. With respect to the causal relationship between this diagnosis and the compensable event of 1984, the eye specialist indicated that there was a remote possibility the 1984 injury may have aggravated or initiated the current lesion. The physician stated, however, that it would be difficult to prove a cause and effect relationship.

By letter dated March 19, 2001, the WCB advised the claimant that a cause and effect relationship between the current diagnosis and the compensable event could not be established. As such, the claimant was advised that the WCB would not accept any responsibility for the surgery and associated time loss from work.

The claimant subsequently appealed this decision to the WCB's Review Office. After further consultation with the claimant's eye specialist, Review Office advised that it was unable to establish a causal relationship between the medical condition and the accident.

On November 1, 2001, the claimant completed an application to appeal requesting an Appeal Panel be convened to consider his claim. A standard oral hearing was convened on December 12, 2001.

Reasons

While performing his duties as a firefighter, the claimant sustained a compensable accident on February 27th, 1984 when he suffered corneal burns after being exposed to chemical smoke. The last medical report received on file with respect to this injury is dated March 21st, 1984. The treating physician states: "On examination on March 09th 1984, the (sic) both eyes have recovered from the conjunctivitis. In my opinion he is fit for regular duties on March 11th 1984."

The claimant testified that his vision has been excellent and that he did not experience any further signs, symptoms or problems with his eyes following his injury until approximately two years ago when he developed active pterygium (medial) in the left eye. This condition has been defined as a triangular thickening of the bulbar conjunctiva extending from the inner canthus to the border of the cornea with the apex toward the pupil. The treating eye specialist recorded in October 2000 objective findings of "growth in medial canthal area of left eye" for approximately one year. A conjunctival biopsy of the left eye was carried out on November 27th, 2000.

The claimant contends that his November left eye surgery is causally connected to his 1984 compensable accident. In a letter to the WCB dated April 20th, 2001, the treating eye specialist provided an opinion with respect to the possible relationship between the claimant's eye surgery and his compensable injury. He stated as follows: "Remote possibility that this lesion may have been aggravated or initiated by his injury in 1984. It is difficult to prove cause and effect."

After carefully weighing all of the evidence, we find that the claimant's recent eye surgery is not, on a balance of probabilities, causally related to his 1984 compensable injury. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal is hereby dismissed.

Panel Members

R. W. MacNeil, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

R. W. MacNeil - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 10th day of January, 2002