Decision #86/02 - Type: Workers Compensation

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on June 20, 2002, at the request of a worker advisor, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on June 20, 2002.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On November 16, 2000, the claimant filed a claim with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome which she related to her work activities as a truck driver. On her application form for compensation, the claimant indicated that her hands were numb and hurting and that she needed an operation.

During a telephone conversation with the claimant on January 3, 2001, a WCB adjudicator documented the following:
  • The claimant was right hand dominant.

  • For about two years while employed by a trucking company that was now out of business, the claimant noticed difficulties with her hands. She did not mention her hand difficulties to the employer as she needed the work and did not know what she had. She did not see a doctor at this time.

  • Off and on, especially at night, the claimant would experience numbness in her hands. Initially she thought that the numbness was caused from sleeping on her hands. Both hands started to hurt about the same time.

  • The claimant previously worked at a mine and her job was to truck waste away from the mines. The work involved driving loaders along with pulling levers and some shoveling. The claimant did not realize at the time that the work was causing her problems but did notice that her hands would be worse at night after a busy day.

  • The claimant worked at another trucking company for about six months and her hands remained the same. She would run the loader and it would bother her right hand more than the left.

  • The claimant then started working with the present employer. Her work involved mostly driving. She would tie down her loads on the truck which involved the use of a bar which was much like a car jack. She would push down to tighten. There were about 20 straps per load and while in town, the claimant did about 4-5 loads per day. When out of town, she would do about 4 loads per week. The stick shift in the truck was no problem. The steering in the truck did not bother her but when the roads were icy, she tended to hold the steering wheel tighter and this caused her hands to be worse.

  • The right hand was worse than the left and she has numbness while brushing her teeth.

  • The day before her symptoms became worse, the claimant was hammering and moving pallets at work. Her symptoms were so severe that she had to see a doctor and then made a formal report to her present employer.
On January 3, 2001, the WCB adjudicator contacted the employer. The employer advised that it first became aware that the claimant had problems with her hands and wrists in October/November 2000. With respect to the claimant's work duties, the employer indicated that the claimant drove truck the majority of the time. She would strap 1-2 loads per day and the claimant would help out with "wrapping" about once or twice per week. This began the last week in November 2000. The claimant would also strap pallets of 1 metric ton bags on her load. There was about 20 straps per load and sometimes depending on weather she would have to tarp loads.

In a second telephone conversation with the employer on January 16, 2001, a WCB adjudicator noted that "wrapping" was not done often and was all automated. It only involved pushing a button. One time only on November 13th, the claimant worked on pallets. This was never done previously or was it part of her regular job.

In a decision dated February 5, 2001, primary adjudication determined that the claimant's problems with her hands at this point in time were not caused by her work duties with the present employer. As the claimant did not attend a doctor or make any report of problems that she was experiencing with her hands prior to working with the present company, the WCB could not accept that those problems would have been work related. Based on Sections 4(1), 1(1) and 17(5) of the Workers Compensation Act (the Act), primary adjudication found that the evidence did not establish that an injury occurred at work. On April 6, 2001 a worker advisor, appealed this decision to Review Office.

Prior to considering the appeal, Review Office sought the medical advice of a WCB orthopaedic consultant on April 24, 2001. In a response dated April 24, 2001, the WCB orthopaedic consultant diagnosed the claimant's condition as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with the right being more severe than the left. With respect to a cause and effect relationship between the claimant's work duties and the diagnosis, the consultant stated that some of the claimant's activities may cause her hands to be symptomatic. This, however, did not necessarily indicate that the activities were causal for her condition, i.e. night symptoms when not working and 'brushing teeth'.

On April 27, 2001, Review Office determined that the claim was not acceptable. Review Office felt that the duties of a truck driver were not producing the stress involved on the wrists that one would expect in order to lead to a conclusion that the median nerve was being compressed through the occupation. Review Office was unable to reach a conclusion that there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the claimant's occupation as a truck driver and her diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. On April 18, 2002, the worker advisor appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was then arranged.

Reasons

Section 4 (1) of the Workers Compensation Act (the Act) provides for payment of compensation benefits to a worker where he or she sustains personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
    "Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment is caused to a worker, compensation as provided by this part shall be Paid by the board out of the accident fund, subject to the following subsections."
In accordance with this section, the Panel must, initially, be satisfied that there has been an accident within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act. An accident is defined as,
    "a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause; and includes
    1. a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker,
    2. any
      1. event arising out of and in the course of, employment, or
      2. thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment, and
    3. an occupation disease
    and as a result of which a worker is injured."
As the background notes indicate, the claimant has been diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, right worse than left. The treating orthopaedic surgeon has clearly outlined that in his opinion the claimant's symptoms are directly related to her occupation as a truck driver. In a letter dated April 5th, 2002 to the claimant's worker advisor, he states as follows:
    "On the balance of probability, this claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome in right and left hands are the direct result of her employment as a truck driver. This would be caused by her truck driving over the past 11 years working approximately 70-100 hours per week. While she is driving, she had a steady vibration of the steering wheel that likely caused this. She has no other risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome other than her work with holding her hand steadily in one position for 11 years, working from 70-100 hours per week. This lady had no pre-existing condition that would have caused her carpal tunnel syndrome, as she had none of the risk factors that I listed in question No. 1, to cause carpal tunnel syndrome besides her truck driving. It should be noted that one of the risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome is constant vibration, such as vibrating tools. Certainly this lady fits the description of this, as she held on to a vibrating steering wheel for 11 years at the rate 70-100 hours per week, a phenomenal amount of work in an 11-year-period."
The claimant, whom we found to be extremely credible, testified at the hearing that most of her driving was over extremely rough roads and trails, which also necessitated shifting gears. She further testified that part of her job duties required her to operate heavy front-end loaders, which also caused considerable hand vibration.

We find in accordance with the weight of evidence and on a balance of probabilities that the claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of her employment as a truck driver. Therefore, the claim is acceptable and the claimant's appeal is hereby allowed.

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 4th day of July, 2002

Back