The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

A non-oral file review was held on September 12, 2003, at the request of legal counsel, acting on behalf of the claimant.

Issue

Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits for recurrent time loss from work commencing March 23, 2001.

Decision

That the worker is not entitled to wage loss benefits for recurrent time loss from work commencing March 23, 2001.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

In a report to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) dated November 26, 2000, the claimant indicated that he pulled his right groin muscle and lower back when he helped his employer lift a 350 lb. spring, during the course of his employment as a parts assistant. Subsequent to the injury, the claimant was treated at a local hospital where he was diagnosed with a right groin injury. The claimant was also assessed by his family physician and the diagnosis rendered was a back injury with 2 degrees nerve entrapment (radiculopathy).

Following a review of the medical reports on file along with information that was obtained from the claimant on December 1, 2000, the claim was accepted by the WCB and benefits were paid from November 16, 2000 to January 8, 2001, when the claimant returned to work.

On March 28, 2001, the claimant contacted the WCB to indicate that his groin was bothering him since last week. The claimant said he had returned to work with a different employer and had been doing lighter duties such as washing trucks and no lifting. The claimant denied any new accidents or injuries and denied any prior hernias. The claimant related his current difficulties to the November 2000 work injury.

A report was received from the treating physician dated April 5, 2001. The physician summarized that the claimant had variable symptoms of right groin and lower back pain and a referral was made to a general surgeon. The claimant was advised to remain off work until he was seen by the surgeon.

In a report to the attending physician dated April 10, 2001, the general surgeon commented that he could not detect a hernia. He felt the claimant's pain was muscular in origin and that it would be worthwhile checking with an orthopaedic surgeon regarding a disc lesion.

On May 15, 2001, a WCB case manager advised the claimant's solicitor that the treating physician could not confirm the claimant's present diagnosis. There were no objective findings to confirm that the claimant had any injury other than the initial diagnosis of a right groin injury. The case manager concluded that based on the weight of evidence, the right groin injury had resolved and therefore wage loss benefits could not be reinstated.

On June 5, 2001, counsel for the claimant submitted new information from a physician who had seen the claimant on May 11, 2001. The physician diagnosed the claimant with a right adductor strain/tendonitis, a L.M. strain and a sacroiliac ligament sprain. Following consultation with a WCB medical advisor on June 6, 2001, the solicitor was advised that no change could be made to the previous decision dated May 15, 2001.

In a submission to the Review Office dated August 28, 2001, the solicitor provided a report from the treating physician dated June 12, 2001 for consideration. The solicitor noted that the physician maintained that the claimant's injuries were consistent with his work place injuries that occurred in August, September and November of 2000.

On September 14, 2001, Review Office determined that the medical evidence did not support that the claimant's time loss from work in March 2001 could reasonably be associated with the November 2000 work injury. Review Office noted that this injury was diagnosed as a muscular strain and the claimant was found capable of returning to work on January 8, 2001. The claimant did not seek further medical attention for groin complaints until the end of March 2001, at which time he complained of pain in the right lower groin area of one week's duration. It was believed by Review Office that the claimant had recovered from the effects of his November 2000 work injury and that his recurrent time loss from work could not reasonably be associated with this injury. Review Office suggested that new compensation claims should be filed for possible groin injuries sustained at work in September 2000 and March 2001 and that these claims should be adjudicated with respect to their compensability on their own merits.

On May 1, 2002, the solicitor submitted a number of medical reports ranging from January 28, 2002 through to April 23, 2002 and asked Review Office to reconsider its decision of September 14, 2001. On May 24, 2002, Review Office determined that the new information provided by the solicitor did not alter any of its previous decisions. On June 26, 2003, the solicitor appealed Review Office's decision and a non-oral file review was arranged.

Reasons

After thoroughly taking into consideration all of the evidence, we find that the claimant's physical difficulties in March 2001 were not a recurrence of his November 16th, 2000 compensable injury. In coming to this conclusion, we took note in particular of the following:

- On January 4th, 2001, the claimant was cleared by his treating physician to return to work;

- The claimant did in fact return to work for approximately 3 months before his being laid off in March 2001;

- The claimant did not seek any medical attention during the above referred to 3 month period.

We find based on the weight of evidence that the worker is not entitled to wage loss benefits for recurrent time loss from work commencing March 23, 2001. Accordingly, the claimant's 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 10th day of October, 2003