The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on July 15, 2002, at the request of a union representative, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on July 15, 2002.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Background

In May 2001, the claimant submitted a claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) which she related to her employment activities as a home support worker.

In order to adjudicate the claim, primary adjudication obtained information from both the claimant and the accident employer concerning the type of job duties that were performed by the claimant along with details concerning work history and medical treatment to date. A Workers Compensation Board (WCB) medical advisor was then asked to review the case and to provide his opinion as to whether or not the claimant's job duties contributed to the development of CTS.

In a decision dated August 13, 2001, primary adjudication noted that the claimant's job duties involved mopping, vacuuming, washing bathrooms, dusting and folding laundry in addition to meal preparation and carrying meal trays to her clients. The opinion expressed by the WCB medical advisor was that the level of work activity and repetitiveness would not be strenuous enough to account for the development of CTS. The medical advisor noted that numerous pre-existing factors were involved. Based on Sections 4(1) and 1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act (the Act), it was the opinion of Rehabilitation and Compensation Services that the duties performed by the claimant would not have led to the development of CTS and that her claim for compensation was not acceptable.

On January 16, 2002, the claimant's union representative appealed primary adjudication's decision to deny the claim and a report from a neurologist dated October 15, 2001 was provided to Review Office for consideration.

On February 1, 2002, Review Office confirmed the decision to deny the claim for CTS. Following a review of all the evidence on file and based on a balance of probabilities, Review Office found that the claimant's CTS was not work related and did not meet the test required by Section 4(1) of the Act. On April 10, 2002, the union representative appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Chairperson Sargeant and Commissioner Finkel

This case involves a home care worker who suffers from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), which she alleges was caused by the nature of her work. Her claim for compensation was denied by the initial adjudicator. This decision was upheld on reconsideration by the Review Office. The claimant then appealed to this Commission.

For her appeal to be successful, the Panel would have to determine that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, as required by The Workers Compensation Act. We were unable to make that determination.

In coming to our decision, we conducted a full review of the claim file, as well as holding an oral hearing, at which we heard testimony from the claimant, as well as from her union representative and an employer representative.

We note that, in January 2001, the claimant was disabled from work, as a result of an injury to her shoulder. While there is no link between the shoulder injury and this claim, it was while she was off work recovering from that injury, that she was diagnosed as having carpal tunnel syndrome.

She testified before us that she first noticed the symptoms of CTS the previous year, but originally thought they were related to other, non-compensable health problems.

As noted in the “Background” section of these reasons, the nature of the claimant’s work was quite varied. She performed a variety of different tasks throughout the day. And, for the most part, she was able to control the pace at which she performed her task. (This is not to say that she didn’t have to do her tasks at more-or-less given times. But, her work was not like an assembly line or checkstand, where the pace of work is governed by the need to meet certain performance standards.)

As a general rule, the type of work tasks that lead to CTS are those that are highly repetitive, place significant force on the forearm and place the forearm and wrist into awkward positions. While the claimant’s tasks may have placed some force or awkwardness on her arms and wrists, such instances were infrequent and not highly repetitive.

A WCB medical advisor who was consulted for an opinion on this claim expressed the view that the “claimant’s level of work activity and repetitiveness is not strenuous enough to account for development of CTS.” He also noted that there were a number of pre-existing factors involved, which are often causes of CTS. These include gender, age and the fact she is a smoker.

Based on the foregoing, we have concluded that – on a balance of probabilities – the claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not caused by her workplace activities.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
B. Leake, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller
T. Sargeant,

T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 9th day of September, 2002