The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on November 15, 2005, at the worker's request. The Panel discussed this appeal on the same day.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On March 22, 2004, the worker filed a claim with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for "inhalation/exposure" that he related to his employment activities as a finisher. The worker believed that the cause of his injury was related to the air quality in the building where he worked, the paint/chemical vapors and some paints containing lead. He noted that he wore a filter mask at work. In approximately January 2004, he experienced nausea, dizziness, headaches, memory loss and abdominal pain. Prior to this, the worker indicated that he was fatigued since being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in 2002. The worker first noticed symptoms while doing pin striping and applying decals onto trailers. The worker said he experiences pain in the joints of his hands, thumbs, elbows and knees. He indicated that his achilles tendons on both legs were sore from kneeling and he had some shortness of breath and sleep apnea since approximately June 2003.

In an undated letter to the WCB (faxed on 05/04/2004), the employer's plant manager stated that the worker was employed as a salesman from January 2, 2002 until July 17, 2003 and at the time of his claim he was working in the front office. In the spring of 2002, the worker was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and went on chemotherapy which affected his performance. The plant manager indicated that Workplace Safety and Health (WS&H) had been through the plants numerous times and reported good air quality. Included with the submission were copies of WS&H inspection reports from 2001 and 2003.

On March 29, 2004, March 30, 2004 and July 30, 2004, a WCB case manager documented conversations that he had with the worker regarding work history/job duties, health information, etc. Medical information was also obtained from the worker's family physician, a rheumatologist and respiratory specialist and an occupational health physician.

In a decision dated July 30, 2004, the WCB case manager outlined his opinion that the claim for compensation was not acceptable. The case manager commented that he reviewed the WS&H inspection reports from 2001 and 2003 and there were no reports of problems with either the painting or finishing area regarding ventilation. Based on this information and the fact that the worker's symptoms developed at a time when he was not working in the finishing department, the case manager felt there was insufficient information to establish that the worker's medical conditions were related to paint or chemical exposure in the course of his employment. On September 12, 2004, the worker appealed this decision to Review Office.

On February 4, 2005, Review Office confirmed the case manager's decision that the claim was not acceptable. Review Office agreed with the opinion expressed by the treating rheumatologist. Based on a review of all the information which included the worker's submission of September 12, 2004, Review Office felt there was insufficient evidence to support that the dominant cause of the worker's health problems were related to his employment. On September 9, 2005, the worker appealed Review Office's decision and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

The issue before the Panel was whether the worker's claim is acceptable. For the appeal to succeed the Panel must find a causal relationship exists between the worker's workplace exposures and his medical conditions. The Panel, on a balance of probabilities, was not able to find such a relationship.

Evidence and Argument at Hearing

The worker attended the hearing with his wife who assisted him with his presentation. The employer did not participate in the hearing.

The worker described the work environment at this manufacturing facility. He worked in the finishing area and sales office during the approximately three years of employment with this employer. He testified that for much of the time there were no doors on the paint booth and that he worked with paints and other chemicals without proper protection. He advised that WS&H issued an order to the employer regarding non-compliance with WS&H requirements.

The worker advised the Panel that prior to commencing employment with the accident employer he was healthy and had no medical conditions. He testified that shortly after beginning work he began to have problems. His feet began hurting so he changed work boots but this did not resolve the problem. He went to his doctor who diagnosed his condition as rheumatoid arthritis. He stated that he believes this condition was 100% triggered by the environment and working with paints, solvents, cleaning agents, welding smoke and grinding dust.

He also developed memory problems and was diagnosed with sleep apnea which he related to his employment. The worker's wife stated their position on causation as follows:

"So even though nothing that I have here says this particular diisocyanate produces rheumatoid arthritis, it all relates to the same thing, where your immune system is compromised and certain immune processes begin in your body, and I believe that this is the cause of his rheumatoid arthritis and the development of the respiratory problems, because there was nothing for respiratory problems or any indications whatsoever of an arthritic problem before he began working there, and the longer he worked there the worse he seemed to get."

Analysis

The Panel agrees that the workplace was not optimal, and there were WS&H issues which would lend to a number of potential worker health issues. The worker however presents with a number of medical conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and sleep apnea in particular) that are not, on a balance of probabilities, causally related to the types of exposures that the worker had in the workplace.

In arriving at this conclusion we rely upon the opinion of the worker's treating rheumatologist set out in a report dated April 1, 2004. The rheumatologist stated that:

"Rheumatoid arthritis is an idiopathic autoimmune disease. Therefore, there would be no known cause in this gentleman's or any other person's case of rheumatoid arthritis."

We also note that the occupational health physician commented in a report dated May 7, 2004 , "With respect to rheumatoid arthritis, I could find no data clearly associating rheumatoid arthritis with solvent exposure." We also note this same physician commented that the worker's solvent exposure coupled with symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis may have been what tipped [the worker] over and led to the development of symptomatic obstructive sleep apnea. The physician states that the worker's sleep apnea would improve with weight loss. While the physician has speculated on a possible link, we are not able to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker's sleep apnea is related to his work with the accident employer.

The appeal is declined.

Panel Members

A. Scramstad, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 14th day of December, 2005