The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

A non-oral file review was held on February 25, 2002, at the request of the claimant.

Issue

Whether or not the claimant is entitled to a personal care allowance.

Decision

That the claimant is not entitled to a personal care allowance.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

In June 1975 the claimant injured his left eye during the course of his employment as a labourer. File information also showed that the claimant has been blind in his right eye since birth. The Workers Compensation Board (WCB) accepted the claim for compensation and the claimant was awarded a 50% permanent partial impairment award.

On November 21, 2001, the claimant's spouse inquired whether or not the WCB would consider a possible "care givers allowance." The spouse advised that they had been separated for 25 years and she was back to take care of her husband. She noted that her husband suffered a stroke, had prostate cancer and was considered to be legally blind.

In a decision by primary adjudication dated December 6, 2001, the claimant was advised that the WCB was unable to accept responsibility for an attendant allowance. The adjudicator noted that attendant's allowance was payable by the WCB where a serious compensable injury or disability precipitated the need for an attendant. The adjudicator understood that the claimant may be in need of attendant care, but the reasons for this requirement was unrelated to the 1975 work injury. In a subsequent appeal, the claimant's spouse argued that the claimant may have other problems, but his main handicap was that he could not see to do things for himself.

On December 21, 2001 the case was considered by Review Office. Review Office noted that WCB policy 44.120.30, Support for Daily Living, requires that there be a direct relationship between the need for assistance and the compensable injury. The evidence did not support a need for assistance related to the compensable injury. Review Office considered the need for assistance was related to the infirmaries associated with the claimant's advanced age (currently 82 years old). In January 2002, the claimant's spouse appealed Review Office's decision and a non-oral file review was held on February 25, 2002.

Reasons

This case involves a worker who suffered an injury to his left eye in a workplace accident in June 1975. This injury resulted in a serious loss of vision in that eye. His claim for compensation benefits was accepted and benefits were paid accordingly.

His spouse's request for a "care giver's allowance" was denied. That decision was upheld by Review Office. The issue before the Panel was whether or not the claimant is entitled to such an allowance.

As noted in the Background, this issue is covered by WCB Policy 44.120.30, Support for Daily Living, which reads in part:

Financial support for personal care attendants may be paid by the WCB where a serious compensable injury or disability creates a need for attendant services.

For the appeal to be successful, the Panel would have to determine that the principal reason the claimant requires assistance for daily living is because of his compensable injury. We were not able to make that determination.

In coming to our decision, we made a thorough review of the claimant's file.

We noted that the claimant is now 82 years; that he has suffered a stroke; and that he has prostate cancer. As a result of his compensable injury, he is legally blind.

We also note that, in the aftermath of the accident, his visual acuity was rated at 20/200 uncorrected, 20/80 corrected. His current ophthalmologist reported that, when he first saw him in 1996, his left eye was still at 20/200. In 2001, this same doctor reported that "vision in his left eye corrected to 20/60 -2, slightly reduced from 20/50 -1 in 1997." He also reported that his intra-ocular pressure remained constant.

For approximately 25 years from the time of the accident, the claimant was able to manage his daily living needs in spite of his visual limitations. According to the medical evidence on file, his vision has not deteriorated over those years. For these reasons, we have concluded that his inability to manage his daily needs is due to the other medical problems he is suffering. We are unable to establish that his injury created the need for attendant services.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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 15th day of March, 2002