Decision #16/03 - Type: Workers Compensation

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on January 22, 2003, at the employer's request. The Panel discussed this appeal on January 22, 2003.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

The claimant submitted a claim for workers compensation benefits indicating that his employment duties of cutting cases with his hands cocked in one position caused his carpal tunnel condition.

The employer provided the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) with a letter concerning the claimant's employment history and a brief description of his job activities, i.e. stocking shelves, ordering, relines, etc. The employer noted that the claimant's job duties were somewhat repetitive but they did not require an awkward wrist posture or excessive force. The claimant alternated between job duties and activities in order to avoid any prolonged period of the same duty. There had been no change in his job duties over the past 7 years. The employer noted that the claimant was employed as a bartender and that his hobbies consisted of golfing. The employer was of the view that golfing and bartending were more likely the cause of the claimant's present condition.

On July 18, 2001, the claimant attended the offices of the WCB and spoke with an adjudicator. The claimant advised that he always stocked shelves and did heavy lifting. He would use both hands to open boxes using an exacto knife. His dominant right hand held down the box and his left hand ripped open the box. The claimant indicated that he performed no other activities outside of work. He also advised the adjudicator that he hadn't bartended since October or November 2000.

Following receipt of medical information and after consultation with a WCB medical advisor, primary adjudication notified all parties on December 5, 2001 that the claimant's bilateral wrist difficulties were related to his job duties and that surgery and associated time loss for the right wrist was accepted by the WCB. On December 6, 2001, the employer advised the WCB that it intended to appeal this decision pending file disclosure.

On June 14, 2002, Review Office considered an appeal submission by the employer dated May 30, 2002 along with attached medical information dated May 26, 2002. Review Office also sought the opinion of a WCB orthopaedic consultant who responded to Review Office's questions in a memo dictated on June 13, 2002.

Review Office was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a rescinding of the acceptance of the claim. Review Office was of the opinion that the claimant's job description could produce CTS and that the claimant's background was negative for other potential known risk factors. On October 9, 2002, the employer appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was held on January 22, 2003.

Reasons

This case involves a grocery clerk who incurred carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), which he felt was caused by his work activities. His claim for compensation was accepted and benefits were paid accordingly.

His employer challenged this acceptance, arguing that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as required by The Workers Compensation Act. Review Office upheld the adjudicator's decision. The employer then appealed to this Commission.

The issue before the Panel was claim acceptability. For the appeal to succeed, we would have to determine that the claim did not result from a workplace accident. We did not 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 employer, the claimant and his representative.

There was no argument that the claimant suffers from bilateral CTS. He has had surgeries on both hands to treat problems arising from this problem. The appellant - the employer - argued that there were a number of non-occupational risk factors at play, which outweighed the occupational factors as a cause of the CTS. Among these are:
  • the claimant's age;

  • some lab results which indicate that there might be other medical problems at play;

  • the fact the claimant is a golfer, fisher and works part-time as a bartender;

  • his carpal tunnel is unusually small.
The employer also presented evidence from an Alberta physician, who had reviewed the file, which stated that the small carpal tunnel was "the most important etiological factor in the development of [the claimant's] CTS …." It was his opinion that this anatomical factor was more likely the cause of the CTS than his general work duties as a grocery clerk.

In response, the worker's representative noted that the work duties required a number of repetitive actions that could well lead to the development of CTS.

In respect of the evidence before us, we note that there has been no diagnosis of medical problems which might predispose the claimant to CTS. Furthermore, based on his testimony, he is a very occasional golfer, rarely fishes and has not worked as a bartender for some time.

We placed considerable weight on the evidence of the board orthopaedic consultant, who disagreed with the opinion of the Alberta physician. In his opinion, the Alberta doctor drew an incorrect conclusion from the operative report of December 2001. The comments made by the operating surgeon "do not necessarily indicate a congenitally small carpal tunnel." He further noted that, even if this interpretation were correct, a small carpal tunnel is at the bottom of the list of risk factors. In this consultant's opinion, the claimant's work activities "could give rise to an established carpal tunnel syndrome becoming symptomatic."

Based on this evidence placed before us, we have concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the worker's carpal tunnel syndrome is causally related to his workplace activities.

Accordingly, the claim is acceptable and the appeal dismissed.

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 13th day of February, 2003

Back