The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on October 2, 2003, at the request of a union representative, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on October 2, 2003.

Issue

Whether or not the claimant's symptoms after April 2001 are related to his compensable injury of April 12, 2001.

Decision

That claimant's symptoms after April 2001 are not related to his compensable injury of April 12, 2001.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On April 12, 2001, the claimant was lifting a 50 lb. powered saw to shoulder height when he felt pain in his left lower back. Initial medical information diagnosed the claimant's condition as "minor musculoskeletal pain - rule out repetitive injury" as a result of the accident and anti-inflammatory medication was prescribed as a form of treatment. The claim was accepted by the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) and benefits were paid to claimant up until April 24, 2001 when he returned to his regular duties.

In December 2001, the claimant contacted the WCB to report that he was still experiencing ongoing difficulties with his back which he related to his compensable accident of April 12, 2001. The claimant advised the adjudicator that he had one previous compensable back injury in 1996 as well as a few other non-compensable back injuries. The claimant asked the WCB to pay for his medical treatment relative to his back condition.

Following receipt of medical information from the claimant's treating physician, primary adjudication referred the case to a WCB medical advisor to comment on the current diagnosis and its relationship to the April 12, 2001 compensable accident. The medical advisor's response is dated March 25, 2002.

On April 11, 2002, primary adjudication determined that the claimant's current back difficulties were unrelated to his April 12, 2001 compensable injury which was considered to be a minor back strain. The WCB was, therefore, unable to assume responsibility for any medical treatment beyond April 16, 2001 or for time loss from work beyond April 20, 2001. On December 16, 2002, the claimant disagreed with the decision and the case was forwarded to Review Office for consideration.

On April 11, 2003, the Review Office considered the claimant's appeal along with a submission received from the employer's representative dated February 26, 2003. Review Office ruled that the claimant's symptoms after April 2001 were not related to his compensable injury of April 12, 2001. Review Office found that the weight of evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant's ongoing back difficulties were a result of his pre-existing back condition. Review Office arrived at its decision by considering the diagnoses expressed by the claimant's healthcare providers, a WCB medical advisor and a WCB orthopaedic consultant. Review Office noted that there was no medical evidence to support a relationship between the claimant's ongoing symptoms or his bulging discs, to the compensable accident. In June 2003, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

As the background notes indicate, the claimant sustained an injury on April 12th, 2001 that was clinically diagnosed as "minor musculoskeletal pain - rule out repetitive injury". The claimant remained off work for his next scheduled four day work shift prior to his resuming full pre-accident duties on April 25th, 2001. Following the above incident, we note that the claimant did not undergo or seek any active medical treatment until August 17th, 2001 when he attended his treating physician with entrance complaints of back pain. The physician referred the claimant to physiotherapy for "treatment, education, home exercises".

In arriving at our decision, we, of course, considered all of the evidence, but preferred to attach greater weight to the comments recorded by a WCB medical advisor in a memorandum to file dated March 25th, 2002:

• Based on available info to file injury of April 12/01 appears to be that of minor L/S [lumbosacral] strain.
• Current Dx [diagnosis] appears to be chronic mechanical low back pain likely secondary to pre-existing conditions.
• On balance of probability current dx [diagnosis] is unlikely direct result of injury of April 12/01.
• Clmt [claimant] has congenitally narrowed spinal canal - pre-existent also has hx [history] of L/S [lumbosacral] injuries dating from 1986.
• CT scan notes presence of bulging discs which in all likelihood may have been present prior to injury of April '01 - and could account for ongoing LB [low back] injury complaints.
• Mechanism of injury - April '01 seems minor & would have expected recovery from same in usual time frames - 4-6 weeks.

We find based on the preponderance of evidence that the claimant's symptoms after April 2001 are not, on a balance of probabilities, related to his compensable injury of April 12, 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 29th day of October, 2003