The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on November 24, 2003, at the request of a worker advisor, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on November 24, 2003.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

In January 2003, the claimant contacted the call centre at the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) to report difficulties she was experiencing to both her hands, wrists and arms due to the repetitive nature of her work duties. The claimant noted that her symptoms were more severe now than they were a year ago. Medical reports on file confirmed that the claimant's condition was diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Following a review of the claimant's work history/duties and after consulting with the WCB's healthcare branch, primary adjudication denied the claim on May 8, 2003. Primary adjudication cited that it was unable to establish that the claimant had been exposed to significant work related factors in the development of her CTS condition and therefore it was unable to determine that the claimant suffered a personal injury due to an accident arising "out of and in the course of" her employment.

On May 23, 2003, the claimant provided primary adjudication with additional information concerning her job duties. On May 30, 2003, primary adjudication indicated that the new information did not warrant a change to its previous decision. This decision was again confirmed by primary adjudication on July 15, 2003.

On August 8, 2003, the case was considered by Review Office at the request of a worker advisor. Review Office stated in its decision that there were many non-work related factors which were known to contribute to the development of CTS and that the claimant was affected by a number of these conditions, i.e. gender, age and smoking. Review Office also noted that it was argued by the claimant and her representative that the claimant's work tasks required repetitive flexion and extension, gripping and pulling and twisting of the wrists. Review Office accepted that the claimant's job was reasonably repetitive, however, her job did not involve a significant amount of mechanical stress and force. Review Office concluded that on a balance of probabilities, the claimant's CTS was not work related and did not meet the requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act. In September 2003, the worker advisor appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

This case involves a worker employed in a large fish processing plant. She submitted a claim for carpel tunnel syndrome (CTS), which she alleged she had incurred as a result of her work activities. Her claim for compensation was denied, which decision was upheld upon reconsideration by Review Office.

She has appealed that decision to the Appeal Commission. For her appeal to be successful, the Appeal Panel would have to determine that her CTS arose out of and in the course of her employment, as required by subsection 4(1) of the Government Employees Compensation Act. We have so determined.

In coming to our decision, we conducted a thorough review of the claim file, as well as holding a hearing at which we heard testimony from the claimant and her advocate.

In her testimony, the claimant described a number of aspects of her job, including:

• She works in a refrigerated area, which requires that she wear gloves and liners.
  
  
• The job is seasonal. She usually works about nine months a year.
  
  
• Within a week or two of the beginning of a layoff period, the signs and symptoms of her wrist problems would subside.
  
  
• Her job duties include:
  
  
  • Moving fish from a conveyor belt onto a weigh table and then into slots;
  • Using a knife, with pressure, to remove fins and/or heads from fish;
  • Filleting and/or gutting fish, using a knife, with pressure.
    
    
• In carrying out these duties, there is considerable extension and flexion of her hands. The motions involve twisting with some force.
  
  
• She holds the fish in her left hand and uses the knife with her right. We note that her CTS is more pronounced in her right wrist.

The first board medical advisor expressed the opinion that the job did not involve the high risk factors which typically lead to the development of CTS. After hearing the claimant describe the duties, we are of the view that her work did involve significant risk factors.

We also note that a second board medical advisor provided comments on this case, which we found persuasive. He noted that her diagnosis was bilateral CTS, right greater than left. And, he offered the opinion that "some of her duties might cause her CTS to be symptomatic."

Our consideration of the foregoing evidence has led us to conclude that - on a balance of probabilities - her carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to her employment.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

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 16th day of December, 2003