Decision #134/02 - Type: Workers Compensation

Preamble

A non oral file review was held on October 15, 2002, at the claimant's request.

Issue

Whether or not a relationship exists between the need for medical treatment effective September 10, 2001 and the compensable injury of September 4, 2001; and

Whether or not a relationship exists between the claimant's reduced work capabilities effective September 10, 2001 and the compensable injury of September 4, 2001.

Decision

That a relationship exists between the need for medical treatment effective September 10, 2001 and the compensable injury of September 4, 2001; and

That a relationship exists between the claimant's reduced work capabilities effective September 10, 2001 and the compensable injury of September 4, 2001.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

During the course of his employment as a packing supplier on September 4, 2001, the claimant stated he was stacking heavy metal racks with his lead hand when later in the day he experienced pain in his lower back. The claimant stated that he told the lead hand about his back pain and was going to see if the pain worked itself out before going to see a chiropractor for treatment. For the rest of the week, the claimant held off seeing the chiropractor but still experienced pain. He did not do any type of straining activity over the weekend of September 7 to 9, 2001, but did feel back pain on Sunday night when helping another man in the church congregation move three, stacked high chairs. This was when the claimant decided that he needed to see a chiropractor for treatment.

The claimant indicated that he saw his chiropractor on September 10, 2001 and that he resumed work at 11:00 but still felt sore. The next day he spoke with his supervisor about his back pain as he felt that he needed more treatment and rest. The supervisor instructed him to fill out an accident report. When seen again on September 11, 2001, the chiropractor advised the claimant to stay off work for 2 to 3 days. On September 13, 2001, the chiropractor told the claimant that he could perform modified duties for a couple of days.

On September 28, 2001, a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) adjudicator contacted the claimant's supervisor. The supervisor indicated that the claimant had reported his injury to the lead hand on September 4, 2001. The claimant mentioned that his back was not too bad and that he was not going to see a doctor. The claimant performed his regular duties from September 4 to 7, 2001 and did not mention any back pain or difficulties for that week. The claimant then came in to work on Monday with increased pain which he reported was from moving chairs.

The Chiropractor's First Report dated September 11, 2001 noted that the claimant was seen for treatment on September 10, 2001. The chiropractor described the September 4, 2001 accident as "lifting glass shelves and felt strain in low back which persisted over week and worsened thru wknd." The diagnosis rendered was a lumbosacral and left sacroiliac strain. The chiropractor noted that the claimant was disabled from work but could return to regular duties as of September 17, 2001.

On October 17, 2001, primary adjudication denied the claim for a back injury on September 4, 2001 and determined that no responsibility would be assumed for the claimant's time loss from work between September 11 to 13, 2001 or for any medical costs associated with the claim. Primary adjudication acknowledged that the claimant experienced back symptoms while at work on September 4, 2001, however, he performed his regular work activities and did not seek medical treatment until September 10, 2001, when his condition was exacerbated following an incident outside of work. On November 14, 2001, the claimant appealed this decision to Review Office.

On December 7, 2001, Review Office determined that there was no evidence to establish a relationship between the claimant's work capabilities and medical treatment effective September 10, 2001 and the workplace injury of September 4, 2001. Review Office took note of the claimant's appeal letter in which he stated that the pain he experienced following the September 4, 2001 work injury was 'not a knock down excruciating pain, it was a persistent dull ache that I hoped would go away'. The claimant further stated that he had no increased pain when he was stacking the chairs at church but 'it just became evident that the ache was not going to reside without further rest and/or treatment'.

Review Office noted that the chiropractor found the claimant to have limited range of motion and 'severe muscle spasm'. Review Office felt that the report of severe muscle spasm was not consistent with the worker's description of the initial back pain as a 'persistent dull ache'. Even though the claimant sustained a low back injury on September 4, 2001 while lifting and stacking heavy metal racks at work, he had no medical treatment until September 10, 2001. This led Review Office to believe that the severe muscle spasms reported by the chiropractor on September 10, 2001 was not related to the previous incident on September 4, 2001. On July 23, 2002, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision to the Appeal Commission and a non-oral file review was arranged.

Reasons

As noted in the Background, this case involves a worker who injured his back, while at work on September 4, 2001. His claim for compensation was not accepted. Upon reconsideration, Review Office upheld that decision. He then appealed to this Commission.

For his appeal to be successful, the Panel would have to determine that there is a causal link between his need for medical treatment and his loss of earning capacity and the September 4th injury. We did come to that determination.

In coming to our decision, we made a thorough review of the claim file.

We found the following findings to be relevant to our conclusion:
  • The worker did experience pain to his back during his work shift on September 4, 2001, which he reported to his lead hand. He also informed the lead hand that he didn't feel it was sufficiently serious to see a doctor.
  • He continued to work the rest of that week, reporting that the pain persisted. The pain continued through the weekend.
  • On Sunday, he attempted to help move some chairs at his church. In his view, the pain he experienced while doing this confirmed to him that his back was not healing as quickly as he had expected.
  • The board interpreted the chair moving incident as an intervening event, which caused him to seek treatment from a chiropractor on Monday and to experience a loss of earning capacity in the following few days.
  • His chiropractor recorded the precipitating event as being the workplace incident, when he strained his lower back while lifting heavy glass shelves.
Pursuant to subsection 4(1) of The Workers Compensation Act (the Act) a worker is entitled to benefits where the worker incurs personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

We are of the view that the claimant did meet these criteria. He did experience pain to his back while performing his work duties. This was duly reported to his immediate supervisor, as required by the Act.

The claimant argues that the chair incident did not further the injury to his back; rather, it was a warning to him that his injury was not healing as quickly as he expected and that he should seek medical treatment. We find some support for the claimant's position in that he had experienced a number of previous minor injuries to the same area of his back. Those injuries had resulted in either no time loss or very minimal time loss. He expected that the pattern in this case would be the same. It turned out to be different, although the resultant time loss was still rather brief.

However, it doesn't really matter to our conclusion whether the chair incident was an exacerbation or a warning. What matters is that he did incur an injury as a result of a workplace accident. We have concluded - on a balance of probabilities - that his need for medical treatment and his reduced work capabilities as of September 10, 2001 were causally related to his workplace injury of September 4, 2001.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

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 26th day of November, 2002

Back