Decision #18/02 - Type: Workers Compensation

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on January 22, 2002, at the request of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on January 22, 2002.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

The claimant filed a claim with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) on July 17, 2001 for injuries to both wrists that he related to his employment activities as an enforcement officer. The claimant stated that the use of a computer keyboard over a period of time may have been a contributing factor in the cause of his carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and that decompression surgery had been performed on April 2, 2001.

The Employer's Report of Injury or Occupational Disease form dated July 31, 2001 indicated the following:
    "An ergonomic assessment of Mr. [the claimant's] office - related work tasks was conducted on May 18, 2001 by a professional ergonomist. Based on this assessment plus no obvious other non-work related activities of Mr. [the claimant], it is reasonable to conclude that the injury is work related. The assessment report makes 13 recommendations which should ensure that the problem does not reoccur or get worse. Copy of report is attached. Employee had surgery on 2/4/01 and returned to work 6/4/01."
Medical information revealed that the claimant was first treated on July 13, 1998 complaining of finger numbness. Nerve conduction studies dated October 16, 1998 noted mild to moderate bilateral CTS.

On August 28, 2001 the claimant informed a WCB adjudicator that he had been employed in his current position for 9 years. He was right hand dominant and did not have any prior problems with his back, neck shoulder or arms. The claimant began to experience symptoms such as numbness in his ring and pinky fingers and a little in his middle fingers of both hands. He also experienced a dull pain about 6 inches up from his wrist into his forearm. The claimant agreed with the information contained in the Ergonomic Assessment, which had been provided by his employer. He stated that there would have been some changes in his work over the years, but he could not relate the onset of his symptoms to any of these changes. The claimant did not have any thyroid problems, high blood pressure or diabetes and weighed 165 lbs.. He did not report any problems to his employer until he returned to work following his surgery. Nor did he mention his problems to any of his co-workers.

In a decision letter dated October 4, 2001, the claimant was advised that his claim for compensation had been denied as the WCB was unable to establish that he had been exposed to significant work related factors, which would account for the development of his CTS. On October 15, 2001, the claimant appealed the decision to Review Office.

On November 9, 2001 Review Office noted the claimant's contention that he developed bilateral CTS as a result of the computer work, which he did during the course of his duties as an enforcement officer. The ergonomic assessment carried out by the employer provided a detailed description of the claimant's job duties. It suggested that the claimant spent approximately 25% of his working hours using his computer. Review Office was aware that the known causes for CTS included many non-occupational factors and that the medical community was divided regarding the role of many occupational activities in the development of this condition.

Review Office sought the opinion of a WCB orthopaedic consultant. He was of the view the file evidence did not establish that the amount of time the worker spent using his computer would be significant enough to support the argument that his work was the causative factor in the development of his condition. The consultant noted the claimant's duties appeared to be varied and were not particularly repetitive over periods of time. Review Office believed that the worker's employment duties had not been found to be causative in the development of his CTS and therefore ruled that the claim was not acceptable. On September 5, 2001, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was scheduled.

Reasons

The eligibility for compensation benefits by federal employees is governed by the Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA) and the Government Employees Compensation Regulations (GECR) which are both administered by agreement in Manitoba by the Workers Compensation Board (WCB). In the GECA, an accident is defined as "a wilful and an intentional act, not being the act of the employee, and a fortuitous event occasioned by a physical or natural cause."

According to Section 4(1) of the GECA, compensation shall be payable to
  1. an employee who
    1. is caused personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or
    2. is disabled by reason of an industrial disease due to the nature of the employment.
The GECR provide that, "an employee who is disabled by reason of a disease that is not an industrial disease but is due to the nature of his employment and peculiar to or characteristic of the particular process, trade or occupation in which he is employed at the time of the disease was contracted ...[is] entitled to receive compensation at the same rate as [he/she] would be entitled to receive under the Government Employees Compensation Act if the disease were an industrial disease ...".

In 1993, the Board of Directors of the WCB instituted policy 44.05.10 in order to clarify and/or to expand the definition of accident contained in the GECA. This particular policy provides:
    "The following principles will apply when interpreting GECA. The definition of 'accident' in the GECA will be given a broad interpretation. Therefore:

    1. The phrases 'personal injury by an accident' will be interpreted to mean 'personal injury by accident'.

    2. The interpretation of 'accident' will encompass both accidental cause and accidental result. That is, the injury itself may be considered the 'accident'.

    3. The gradual onset of a personal injury, including an injury resulting from a gradual process or repetitive injurious motion, will be considered an 'accident'."
As the background notes indicate, the worker was diagnosed with 'mild to moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome' following an electroneurophysiologic examination in October 1998. He submits that his use of a computer keyboard over a long period of time has lead to the April 2nd, 2001 decompression surgery.

While we appreciate that carpal tunnel syndrome can arise out of and in the course of one's employment, we nevertheless also realize that this condition can develop idiopathically. In this regard, we took into consideration certain comments made by a WCB medical advisor on October 25th, 2001:
    "Occupational as well as non-occupational activities can cause an established carpal tunnel syndrome to be symptomatic, and indeed one can have symptoms even without activity, such as may occur at night. Therefore, it does not follow that any of the activities are necessarily causal for the condition of carpal tunnel syndrome. For example, the commonest cause for the development of a carpal tunnel syndrome is non-specific tenosynovitis of the flexure tendons within the carpal tunnel. This can be created through constant keyboarding, but the file does not indicate this is the case with this claimant whose work activity appears to be varied and not particularly repetitive over prolonged periods of time."
We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence on file and note that no causal connection has been identified by the medical care givers over a three year period to suggest that the claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome is related to his work duties. An examination of the claimant's job duties do not lead us to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that such activities have resulted in his developing carpal tunnel syndrome. In particular, although we acknowledge that there were certain ergonomic limitations with respect to the claimant's work station, his duties were self paced and afforded him a variety of tasks at and away from his computer. We find that these duties would not, on a balance of probabilities give rise to carpal tunnel syndrome.

In our view, the claim is not acceptable. There is insufficient evidence to establish that an accident, as defined under the GECA, the GECR and/or WCB policy 44.05.10, did in fact occur as a consequence of the claimant's performing his work duties. Accordingly, the 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 19th day of February, 2002

Back