The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

A non-oral file review was held on August 22, 2002, at the employer's request.

Issue

Whether or the employer is entitled to cost relief.

Decision

That the employer is not entitled to cost relief.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

In January 2001, the claimant submitted an application for compensation benefits indicating that her work duties as a custodial aid (i.e. squeezing wash cloths, mopping & washing floors, moving desks, chairs, etc.) produced numbness and soreness in her fingers and wrists of both hands commencing in May 2000.

Medical information revealed that the claimant attended a physician on June 22, 2000 and was diagnosed with tendonitis/tenosynovitis. When assessed again on January 10, 2001, the claimant was diagnosed with tenosynovitis of the fingers. File information also revealed that the claimant had been experiencing diabetes and thyroid problems for about 20 years.

On February 23, 2001, an advocate for the employer objected to the payment of benefits. The advocate noted that the claimant filled out a notice of injury form that her hands were sore and stiff since May 2000. No time prior to January 5, 2001, did the claimant complain of any difficulties nor did she miss time from work until January 11, 2001 when she filed her compensation claim.

Following consultation with a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) medical advisor on March 5, 2001, primary adjudication accepted the claim for compensation and wage loss benefits were paid commencing January 10, 2001. The medical advisor noted that repetitive gripping activities could cause the stenosing tenosynovitis/tendonitis.

On October 5, 2001, the employer's advocate appealed the acceptance and duration of the claim. The advocate was of the opinion that there was no cause and effect relationship between the claimant's disabilities and her part-time employment. In a further submission dated November 12, 2001, the advocate requested cost relief as it was noted that the claimant previously had problems with her wrists as well as other risk factors associated with a repetitive strain injury.

In a letter dated January 14, 2002, rehabilitation and compensation services determined that the employer was not entitled to cost relief as a WCB healthcare advisor had determined that there were no pre-existing conditions delaying the claimant's recovery.

On May 6, 2002, the employer wrote to the WCB requesting reconsideration of its decision regarding the issue of cost relief. On May 17, 2002, rehabilitation and compensation services confirmed that the employer was not entitled to cost relief. On May 29, 2002, the employer appealed this decision to Review Office.

On May 31, 2002, Review Office considered the employer's appeal based on WCB policy 31.05.10 entitled Cost Relief/Cost Transfers. Review Office found that the claimant's difficulties were not caused by pre-existing conditions or significantly prolonged by these pre-existing conditions. Review Office stated that the policy did not allow for cost relief attributable to delays in adjudication, medical treatment, or untimely delays in reporting and providing information. It was ultimately determined that the employer was not entitled to cost relief. On July 9, 2002, the employer appealed Review Office's decision and a non-oral file review was arranged.

Reasons

The Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba (the Act) provides for cost relief in a number of circumstances. WCB policy 31.05.10 describes the circumstances under which cost relief is provided to eligible employers, and how those relieved costs are subsequently shared by other employers. In the particular case at hand, the employer advances the argument that "the WCB has erred in not providing cost relief to [it], in accordance with policy, when Ms. [the claimant's] well-documented pre-existing conditions have unquestionably contributed to and prolonged this claim."

Part 3.a)(i) of policy 31.05.10 states that cost relief is available to eligible employers in the following circumstances: "Where the claim is either caused by a pre-existing condition or is significantly prolonged by the pre-existing condition." The evidence establishes that the claimant had been diagnosed with diabetes and a thyroid condition prior to her compensable injury (tendinitis in fingers). In support of its position, the employer submitted a series of medical articles dealing with repetitive strain injuries and associated contributing factors. While these articles may be somewhat persuasive, we nevertheless prefer to accept the evidence of the WCB medical advisor, which is contained in a memorandum to file dated December 13th, 2001. The WCB medical advisor categorically states that the claimant's pre-existing conditions could not have caused her compensable conditions. In addition, he goes on to state that the claimant's "prolonged time loss is related to waiting for surgical treatment."

We find based on the evidence and in accordance with WCB policy that the worker's compensable condition has neither been caused by nor significantly prolonged by her pre-existing conditions. Accordingly, the employer is not entitled to cost relief and its 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 2nd day of October, 2002