The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

On March 22, 2001, the claimant submitted an application for compensation benefits in relation to a right knee injury that occurred at work on March 1, 2001.

In a telephone conversation with a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) adjudicator on April 18, 2001, the claimant indicated that on the day of his accident his right knee was fine. He fell off a forklift when his shoe slipped on the steel causing his right knee to twist and give out. The claimant attended a local hospital for treatment and then he returned to work on March 5, 2001. When he returned to work, the claimant said he performed much of his regular duties, but his right knee continued to bother him. He had not sustained any new accidents or injuries. His supervisor was aware of his ongoing difficulties. The claimant worked until March 20, 2001 when he was fired for lack of good performance. The claimant believed that he had been fired because of his work related injury. The adjudicator advised the claimant that if he wished to pursue this allegation, then he could contact the labour board, but the WCB would not become involved in this type of dispute.

With respect to prior difficulties, the claimant reported that when he was 16 years old, he experienced a growth spurt in very a short period of time. He grew over a foot tall in a few months time and as a consequence his knees were giving him problems as they were adapting to his increased size.

Medical information consisted of a hospital report dated March 1, 2001. The notes indicated the claimant thought that he twisted his right knee climbing on a fork lift at about 10:20. “Has bad knees and feet and feels just aggravated problem. Pain to lateral side right knee.” The Doctor’s First Report dated March 1, 2001, specified that the claimant twisted his right knee at work. The diagnosis rendered was a sprained right knee and the claimant was prescribed medication and instructed to reduce activity.

On April 4, 2001, the WCB accepted the claim for compensation and the claimant was paid benefits to March 5, 2001.

The claimant was next seen by his attending physician on April 19, 2001, who reported no change in diagnosis. The claimant was off work between March 20 and 28, 2001. Recommendations were made for the claimant to continue work activities at a reduced pace and that he should avoid heavy lifting and knee twisting activities for six weeks.

On June 19, 2001, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist (physiatrist) reported that the claimant had problems with tenderness under the knee caps prior to the work injury, but x-rays taken in December 2000 and March 2001 revealed no significant bony abnormalities. Following assessment of the knee, the specialist opined that the claimant strained his lateral collateral ligament and recommendations were made for physiotherapy treatments.

In a telephone conversation on July 10, 2001, the claimant advised a WCB adjudicator that he was claiming time loss from March 21, 2001 onwards due to problems he was having with his knee. The claimant believed that he had been fired from his job because he was unable to keep up with the work pace due to his injury. The claimant said his supervisor was aware of his ongoing knee difficulties as he continued to work from March 4 to 21, 2001.

On July 12, 2001, a WCB adjudicator spoke with the claimant’s former supervisor. She stated that when the claimant was hired he advised the employer that he had problems with his knee. Prior to the accident of March 1, 2001, the claimant was seeing a physician for knee problems. The supervisor indicated that when the claimant returned to work on March 5^th he worked his regular duties. She was not aware that the claimant had been having any problems with his knee beyond the usual. The supervisor indicated that the claimant was fired because of his work performance and not because of his knee.

In a letter dated July 12, 2001, the claimant was informed of the WCB’s decision that it would not accept further responsibility for his claim. The letter stated that the claimant’s employer confirmed that prior to starting work with the company he had problems with his right knee which the claimant confirmed. When the claimant returned to work on March 5, 2001, the employer indicated that the claimant continued to work and did not indicate his right knee was bothering him. The employer also confirmed that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was not related to his right knee injury.

It was the opinion of Claims Services that the claimant likely sustained a muscular injury as a result of his March 1, 2001 accident and that the weight of evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant had recovered from his work injury. In accordance with Section 39(2) of the Workers Compensation Act (the Act) , no further wage loss benefits were payable. On September 5, 2001, a worker advisor appealed this decision and submitted updated medical information dated August 23, 2001, for consideration.

On September 14, 2001, the worker advisor was advised that the additional medical information had been reviewed and that no change would be made to the July 12, 2001 decision. The case was then forwarded to Review Office for further consideration.

A November 21, 2001 physiatrist’s report stated that the claimant may have mechanical disruption in the knee and may have a meniscal tear on the medial side. A referral to an orthopaedic surgeon was suggested with the possibility of performing arthroscopy to better assess what was going on with the claimant’s knee.

Prior to considering the worker advisor’s appeal, Review Office obtained a copy of the claimant’s record of employment as well as an outline of his work activities.