The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

A non-oral file review was held on January 10, 2006, at the request of a worker advisor, acting on behalf of the worker.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On April 4, 2005, the worker filed a claim with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for a hernia condition which would require surgery. He related his condition to his employment activities as a flooring installer which included lifting heavy carpets and vinyl rolls.

A Doctor's First Report showed that the worker was treated on March 23, 2005 for groin discomfort. The diagnosis rendered was bilateral inguinal hernia.

On April 4, 2005, the worker advised a WCB adjudicator that he had no prior hernia problems, however he had attended his family physician in 2002 complaining of discomfort on his right side, and swelling which was at that time small and reducible. He did not make a claim with the WCB as he thought his condition would resolve. The worker could not recall a specific work related event that precipitated the development of his right groin symptoms in 2002. He did recall that in approximately February 2005 he was lifting a 15 foot carpet that was bulky and that thereafter his right groin symptoms increased. At approximately the same time the worker also began to experience a slight burning pain to his left side.

On April 21, 2005, the worker's family physician provided the WCB with a narrative report outlining his treatment of the worker dating back to 1993. In his report, he noted that the first occasion on which the worker complained of discomfort in his abdomen was on January 28, 2002. He complained at that time of "swelling in his right groin region for several weeks which he attributed to lifting heavy loads at his job as a carpet layer and floor man. . . On physical examination, a small non-tender, reducible right inguinal hernia was present in the patient's lower quadrant of the abdomen." He concluded his report by expressing the opinion that "there is a causal relationship between the patient's symptomatology and work-related history in January of 2002 and the development of his right inguinal hernia."

On April 29, 2005, a WCB adjudicator advised the worker that his claim for compensation was denied. The adjudicator stated that the worker had been unable to identify a specific work related event that led to his symptoms. He therefore concluded that there was no relationship between the worker's work duties and the development of his bilateral abdominal symptoms. On August 10, 2005, a worker advisor appealed this decision on behalf of the worker. The worker advisor contended that the workplace duties had caused the worker's right inguinal hernia.

In a decision dated September 8, 2005, Review Office confirmed the decision of the adjudicator. Review Office dismissed the opinion of the worker's general physician which related the worker's condition to his job duties as "entirely speculative" and noted that 'Many hernias have no known precipitating event leading to the commencement of the signs and symptoms."

On November 2, 2005, the worker advisor appealed Review Office's decision of September 8, 2005 and requested a non-oral file review.

Reasons

The decisions of both the adjudicator and Review Office are not consistent with the evidence before this Panel. The worker's treating physician had unequivocally stated in a report to the WCB in April 2005 that the worker's condition was related to his work duties. It was a condition for which the worker first consulted him in January 2002. At that initial consultation, some three years before a WCB claim was ever advanced, the worker attributed his condition to the heavy lifting required of him as a carpet layer. His job duties were ones that were clearly capable of causing his medical condition, and we find on a balance of probabilities that they did so. We therefore find that the worker sustained an accident as defined by subsections 1(1) and 4(1) of The Workers Compensation Act. Accordingly, the worker's appeal is hereby allowed.

Panel Members

K. Dangerfield, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

K. Dangerfield - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 1st day of February, 2006