The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held via teleconference on December 8, 2003, at the request of a worker advisor, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on the same day.

Issue

Whether or not the condition of chronic anxiety is related to the accident of October 31, 2000.

Decision

That the condition of chronic anxiety is not related to the accident of October 31, 2000.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

The claimant sustained chemical burns to his right ear, eye and face from an ammonia spill during the course of his employment as a long distance truck driver on October 31, 2000. The claimant was then treated at a hospital emergency facility with a diagnosis of "facial anhydrous ammonia".

In a follow-up report dated November 9, 2000, the attending physician reported that the claimant had residual erythema along with some swelling, but the anhydrous ammonia burn was continuing to improve. He felt that the claimant would be able to return to full duties by November 13, 2000. The claim for compensation was accepted by the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) and the claimant was paid wage loss benefits during his absences from work.

With respect to the issue under appeal, the claimant contacted the WCB in February 2002 to state that he had been experiencing some anxiety about driving and that he was not sure if it was related to the October 2000 compensable injury. The claimant mentioned that he had been involved in a motor vehicle accident about a year ago and that he had hit the ditch in his work truck. He did not lose time from work and did not file a claim with respect to this incident.

On March 28, 2002, a WCB adjudicator met with the claimant after the claimant wrote a letter to the WCB dated March 19, 2002. The claimant said that he was suffering from anxiety and was particularly "paranoid and fearful" about truck driving conditions which he related, in part, to post-traumatic stress from the October 31, 2000 compensable accident. The claimant further indicated that he did not tell his employer about his fear of driving because he did not feel the employer treated their workers fairly or supported them.

Medical information was obtained from the claimant's treating physician dated November 9, 2001. The claimant presented to the physician's office requesting something for his chronic anxiety. The physician stated, "Last couple of years felt that he has this anxious feeling, unexplained reason. When he goes to work or tries to attempt to do anything he just feels anxious." In a follow-up report dated February 28, 2002, the physician noted that the claimant becomes very anxious thinking of his work and that the medication prescribed was not really helping. The physician expressed his opinion that the claimant should seriously consider changing occupations because his job was really causing him lots of stress and anxiety. A referral was made to a psychiatrist.

In an April 4, 2002 report, the treating psychiatrist commented that the claimant was suffering from a stress-induced condition that required psychotropic drug treatment. It was the psychiatrist's opinion that it may not be advisable for the claimant to drive semi-trailers.

On April 9, 2002, the claimant was advised by his case manager that the WCB was unable to relate his chronic anxiety to his compensable injury of October 31, 2000 and that no responsibility could be accepted for any ongoing treatment or medications. The case manager reached her decision based on comments made by the treating physician who stated that the claimant's symptoms had been present for a "couple of years, unexplained reasons".

In a submission dated April 29, 2002, a worker advisor asked the WCB to reconsider its decision of April 9, 2002. The worker advisor noted that a few months after the compensable injury, the claimant hit a patch of icy road with his tandem truck while on route back from the United States and spent 10 hours in the ditch. He was alone at the time. The claimant had also struck a deer during this time period. After these incidents, the claimant began to experience anxiety and panic attacks.

In a submission dated April 29, 2002, a worker advisor asked the WCB to reconsider its decision of April 9, 2002. The worker advisor noted that a few months after the compensable injury, the claimant hit a patch of icy road with his tandem truck while on route back from the United States and spent 10 hours in the ditch. He was alone at the time. The claimant had also struck a deer during this time period. After these incidents, the claimant began to experience anxiety and panic attacks.

Following review of the psychiatrist's report, the case manager wrote to the worker advisor on June 3, 2002, stating that no change would be made to the previous decision. The case was then forwarded to Review Office. On June 5, 2002, the claimant provided Review Office with additional medical information.

On July 18, 2003, Review Office determined that the condition of chronic anxiety was not related to the accident of October 31, 2000.

Following review of all the evidence, Review Office agreed with the case manager's decision of April 9, 2002. Review Office stated, in part, that without a doubt, the claimant's complaints of anxiety would not have a relationship to the incident of October 31, 2000, that being the facial burns incident. Review Office pointed out that the actual incident of being sprayed in the face did not seem to have any relationship to the claimant's claim for anxiety, which would make sense because the claimant was not in the course of driving a vehicle at the time of that incident as it had occurred during an unloading scenario.

Review Office commented that there were numerous references to psychosocial issues on file which had been evident in the claimant's past life and which could have logically played a role in his physical and mental health. Review Office did not believe the evidence substantiated that the claimant had an anxiety condition brought on by the two incidents mentioned in his claim, i.e. the driving in the ditch or hitting a deer.

In July 2003, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision and a non-oral file review was requested. In September 2003, the claimant submitted further evidence for the Appeal Panel's consideration.

On October 16, 2003, a non-oral file review took place. At this time it was determined that an oral hearing or a hearing via teleconference would better assist the Panel in its deliberations given the nature of the issue under appeal. Subsequently, an oral hearing was conducted via teleconference on December 8, 2003.

Reasons

A thorough review of the evidence has led us to conclude that the claimant is for the most part generally anxious about long distance truck driving because of difficult weather conditions including fog, snow, wind and ice; also because of the threat of hitting animals; and as well because of the driving habits of other truck drivers on the road. We equate this chronic/generalized anxiety to "stress" as it is defined in The Workers Compensation Act (the Act), which precludes stress from being an occupational disease except as an acute reaction to a traumatic event. We find that the claimant's psychological condition does not qualify as an accident.

As to the claimant's submission that the unanticipated discharge of the liquid ammonia was a life threatening event, we note, however, that he returned to full time driving approximately 10 to 12 days following the incident. The claimant's job duties were changed such that he was no longer required or expected to deal with hazardous chemicals. He did not seek medical attention for approximately one year despite his having experienced several uneasy situations while on the road.

We find based on the weight of evidence that the claimant's psychiatric difficulties are not directly related to the compensable injury. The claimant's generalized anxiety is in all likelihood related to long distance driving rather than the accidental ammonia discharge, which resulted in burns to his facial area. We further find that the evidence does not suggest that the compensable incident resulted in post traumatic stress disorder on the part of the claimant.

In conclusion, the condition of chronic anxiety is not related to the accident of October 31^st, 2000. 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 19th day of January, 2004