The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on October 9, 2003, at the claimant's request. The Panel discussed this appeal on October 9, 2003.

Issue

Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the payment of wage loss benefits.

Decision

That the claimant is entitled to the payment of wage loss benefits.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

During the course of his employment on May 21, 2003, the claimant went into shock when a co-worker who was operating a forklift, dropped a bucket in front of him. On the same day, the claimant was taken by ambulance to the hospital and was diagnosed with resolved chest pain.

Subsequent medical reports on file consisted of progress reports from the attending physician along with the results of chest x-rays that were taken on May 21, 2003. On June 12, 2003, a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) adjudicator contacted the claimant to gather additional information surrounding the circumstances of the incident and details regarding his past medical history.

On June 12, 2003, the claimant was advised by his adjudicator that the WCB accepted that an incident occurred, however no benefits were payable. The adjudicator noted that on the day of the incident the claimant was treated for chest pain which resolved while he was still at the hospital. The medical information on file did not reveal that the claimant was disabled beyond the date of the incident by a condition related to the May 21, 2003 event. On June 19, 2003, the claimant appealed this decision to Review Office, stating that he should be entitled to two days of time loss that he missed from work.

Review Office, in a decision dated July 4, 2003, confirmed that the claimant was not entitled to wage loss benefits. Review Office noted that on the day of the accident, the claimant went to the hospital reporting anterior chest pain and the only finding was a slight increase in blood pressure. Review Office placed weight to the findings of the emergency physician whose diagnosis was resolved chest pain. Review Office indicated that the chest pain had resolved on the day of accident and the claimant's increased blood pressure was not considered an "injury". On July 22, 2003, the claimant appealed this decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was convened.

Reasons

As the background notes indicate, the claimant is seeking wage loss benefits for the two (2) days that he missed work following the traumatic episode at work. The evidence confirms that the claimant continued to experience symptoms of anterior chest pain associated with diaphoresis for two days after the incident. The treating emergency physician prescribed nitro spray for the claimant's condition and the family physician advised the claimant to take a couple of days off work. We note that the claimant's condition eventually improved so that he was able to return to full work duties. We find based on the weight of evidence that the claimant is entitled to the payment of wage loss benefits for the two (2) days that he missed from work. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal is hereby allowed.

Panel Members

R. W. MacNeil, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
L. Butler, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

R.W. MacNeil - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 4th day of November, 2003