The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

This case involves a firefighter who has been diagnosed as suffering with clinical depression and phobic anxiety. He attributes the onset of these problems to a house fire, in which two persons were killed and two of his fellow firefighters were injured.

His claim for compensation was not accepted, which decision was upheld on reconsideration by Review Office. He then appealed to this Commission.

For his appeal to be successful, the Panel would have to determine that his medical problems are causally related to the workplace incident, which he says precipitated them. We were not able to make that determination.

In coming to our decision, we conducted a thorough review of the claim file, as well as holding an oral hearing at which we heard testimony from the claimant, his advocate and representatives of the employer. Subsequent to the hearing, we referred the claimant to a psychiatrist for an independent medical examination.

The following findings of fact are relevant to our consideration:

• The claimant was employed for about 25 years as a firefighter by the federal government. For the past six years, the job has also involved duties as ambulance attendant.

• On February 28 or March 1, 2001 (the file is contradictory), at 3:00 a.m., the claimant was called to a house fire, in which a father and son were killed and two firefighters injured.

• The claimant, in previous testimony on file and before us, reported that he did not respond to the callout. He noted that he lives 23 minutes from the site of the fire and, so, it would be too late by the time he got there.

• He further testified, on file and before us, that, given his already existing anxiety and stress, he could not face going to a fire where he already knew there to be casualties. He feared for his own safety.

• He did not return to work after this incident. On July 6, 2001, he filed a claim for compensation, stating the area of injury as "mental stress."

We note from the medical evidence on file that the claimant has a long history of anxiety and panic attacks and hypertension. He reported to his family doctor that his panic attacks first started about sixteen years prior to this incident. In the months leading up to the incident, he saw his doctor on a number of occasions in respect of these problems. In October 2000, he suffered a severe anxiety attack, which lasted for four hours.

We also note that the claimant was very unhappy with his work situation. He testified that he had quite enjoyed his job for many years, until recent changes. About six years ago, the role of ambulance attendant was added to his job. He did not like doing this role at all. In addition, he felt that the fire/ambulance service was understaffed, thus adding to the workload of all of his co-workers.

The employer's representative testified before us that there are labour relations problems, dating back, at least, to the addition of the ambulance role to the firefighters' tasks. A request for additional compensation for the added role had also been denied, as was a request for additional staff. Added to that was a new requirement for firefighters/ambulance attendants to meet minimum physical fitness standards, described by the employer's representative as "draconian." He believed that a number of the longstanding employees including the claimant, would not be able to meet these standards. He testified that these three factors contributed to a very low morale in the firehall.

The claimant's family doctor encapsulated this, writing: "…. We have a gentleman predisposed to anxiety finding himself in a stressful job who underwent a traumatic experience with an exacerbation of his symptom."

In the months after the fatal fire, the claimant's attacks increased, in number and duration. The issue before the Panel is whether or not his medical condition, and its origin, meets the requirements of the relevant statutes.

We should note that, as a federal government employee, this claimant is covered by the Government Employees Compensation Act (the GECA). Section 4 of GECA provides the following:

(1) Subject to this Act, compensation shall be paid to

(a) an employee who

(i) is caused personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or

(ii) is disabled by reason of an industrial disease due to the nature of the employment; and

(b) the dependants of an employee whose death results from such an accident or industrial disease.

(2) The employee or the dependants referred to in subsection (1) are, notwithstanding the nature or class of the employment, entitled to receive compensation at the same rate and under the same conditions as are provided under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed respecting compensation for workmen and the dependants of deceased workmen, employed by persons other than Her Majesty, who

(a) are caused personal injuries in that province by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment; or

(b) are disabled in that province by reason of industrial diseases due to the nature of their employment.

(3) Compensation under subsection (1) shall be determined by

(a) the same board, officers or authority as is or are established by the law of the province for determining compensation for workmen and dependants of deceased workmen employed by persons other than Her Majesty ….

In section 2, the GECA defines "industrial disease" as:

"means any disease in respect of which compensation is payable under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed respecting compensation for workmen and the dependants of deceased workmen …."

What the federal statute calls "industrial disease" is called "occupational disease" in the WCA of Manitoba. In subsection 1(1), it is defined as:

"means a disease arising out of and in the course of employment and resulting from causes and conditions

(a) peculiar to or characteristic of a particular trade or occupation; or

(b) peculiar to the particular employment;

but does not include

(c) an ordinary disease of life; and

(d) stress, other than an acute reaction to a traumatic event…"

Board Policy 44.20, Disease/General, further defines stress as:

"Referring to stress, an acute reaction is a reaction that creates a condition in the worker that is clearly discrete from the condition previous to the event. The traumatic event is an identifiable physical or psychological occurrence, occurs in an identifiable time frame that is normally of brief duration, is not a series of minor occurrences, and is capable of causing serious physical or psychological harm consistent with the acute reaction."

In assessing the above-noted sections of the two statutes, we find that, for the claim to be accepted, the worker's condition must meet the test set out in Board Policy 44.20.

In applying the requirements of this policy to the claimant, we note that his condition is not clearly discrete from prior conditions: he had been suffering from anxiety and panic attacks for some time.

Furthermore, based on the medical assessments, his current condition was not caused by a single traumatic incident: it resulted from his general working conditions, as well as the fatal fire. The psychiatrist who conducted the independent medical examination wrote: