The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

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

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

In March 2000, the claimant filed an application for compensation benefits with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which he related to his employment duties dating back to 1988 at a meat processing plant.

The family physician submitted a report to the WCB dated May 12, 2000 stating, in part, that the claimant first came to see him on August 24, 1999 with complaints of wrist numbness for five years.

On May 11, 2000, the claimant provided the WCB with a signed declaration outlining details regarding the onset of his symptoms, the job duties he had performed and the medical treatment he had received.

In a decision dated June 16, 2000, primary adjudication determined that the claim was not acceptable citing that it had been approximately 30 years since the claimant first noticed symptoms in his wrists, therefore a relationship between his carpal tunnel syndrome and accident as defined in Section 1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act (the Act) had not been established. Sections 17(1), 17(5), 19(2) and 109 were also quoted in the decision. In May 2002, the claimant disagreed with the decision to deny his claim and the case was forwarded to Review Office for consideration.

On June 14, 2002, Review Office confirmed that the claim was not acceptable. Review Office noted that the claimant's symptoms came on when he was working for the meat processing plant, however, he did not see a doctor for his symptoms while he was employed with that company. The diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome was not made until several years after the plant had closed. The claimant did not file a workers compensation claim following the confirmed diagnosis until seven months later in March 2000. On July 14, 2003, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Section 4(1) of the Act provides for the payment of compensation benefits to a worker where he or she sustains personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

"Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a worker, compensation as provided by this part shall be paid by the board out of the accident fund, subject to the following subsections."

In keeping with this section, the Panel must, initially, be satisfied that there has been an accident within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act. An accident is defined as, "a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause; and includes

1. A wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker,
2. any
   1. event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or
   2. thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment, and
3. an occupational disease

and as a result of which a worker is injured."

As the background notes indicate, the worker is contending that his employment duties performed with a now defunct employer led to his developing carpal tunnel syndrome. He worked with the accident employer from 1966 until its closure in 1988. The worker subsequently secured alternate sources of employment until 1998 when he last worked.

The worker asserts that his symptoms first developed while working with the suggested accident employer. We note, however, that the treating physician recorded the following comments in a letter to the WCB dated May 12, 2000: "[The claimant] first came to me August 24, 1999 seeking a new doctor. He complained of wrist numbness for five years." We further note that the worker did not seek medical attention for his condition while working for the employer in question and that the worker's carpal tunnel syndrome was not diagnosed until several years after the employer became defunct.

We find that there has been a lack of timely reporting by the worker in order to establish continuity of symptoms and the development thereof. In addition, the worker did not file a claim with the WCB until March of 2000. Section 19(2) of the Act clearly provides, in part, that "Subject to section 109, unless application for the compensation is filed (a) within one year after the day upon which the injury occurred; no compensation in respect of any injury is payable under this Part". We also find that this would not be an appropriate case in which to exercise our discretion under section 109.

Based on the preponderance of evidence there has been no accident as defined by the Act and therefore the claim is not acceptable. Accordingly, the worker'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 31st day of October, 2003