The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on June 27, 2001, at the request of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on June 27, 2001.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Background

On February 25, 1990, the claimant filed an application for compensation benefits indicating that he experienced symptoms of his chest pulling similar to a heart attack on February 5, 1990. The claimant described the injury as follows: “Employer handed incident sheet requiring formal investigation without employee consultation - prior statements in incident far from truth.”

An employer’s report of injury form dated February 9, 1990, indicated that the claimant alleged to be suffering from stress due to being issued a “Report of Incident” form for leaving work early without authorization on January 24, 1990.

The doctor’s first report of injury dated February 27, 1990, outlined the claimant’s history of injury as “anxiety attack at work because of impending ‘court martial’ at work”. The physician diagnosed the claimant with “anxiety” and considered him disabled from work for a total of 7 days.

Subsequent file information contained a statement from the claimant dated February 9, 1990, and a letter from the employer dated March 22, 1990. Briefly, the claimant indicated that he received an incident report from his supervisor on January 25, 1990, for leaving work early without authorization. The claimant felt that the employer should have investigated the reasons for his leaving work prior to issuing him the incident report. The claimant also indicated that the night before he did not sleep well on account of his machine, a front end loader, “had snapped an axle. I almost rolled over at the time. While I was getting the machine into the shop, the machine almost rolled over again with me in the cab.” The claimant contended that these events lead him to experience a physical feeling that he had never experienced before.

In a letter from the employer dated March 22, 1990, it was noted that the claimant was given a “report of incident” and 10 demerit points for leaving work early without notifying the proper authority. The employer stated that although the claimant maintained he had advised a mechanic that he was leaving early, the fact remained that the claimant violated a company rule, a rule that he was clearly aware of. The claimant disputed the actual time of his departure.

The employer also noted that the claimant referred to an equipment problem which could be construed as a stress causing incident. The claimant said that the axle on his machine had snapped and that he almost rolled over. The employer indicated that this situation was exaggerated by the claimant, i.e. it was not the axle which had broken but rather the axle housing. Information from the manufacturer of the machine suggested that a machine rolling over after sustaining this type of damage would be an unlikely event.

On April 19, 1990, the claimant provided a sworn statement to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) indicating that the information outlined in his February 9, 1990, statement was true and correct. He also provided further information to the WCB in the form of a further statement dated March 23, 1990.

On April 25, 1990, the WCB advised the claimant that his claim had been denied as it did not meet the requirements established for compensable psychological and stress conditions. On January 19, 2001, the claimant appealed this decision to the Review Office.

In a February 23, 2001, decision, Review Office determined that the evidence did not establish that the claimant sustained a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on January 24, 1990, and that his claim was not acceptable.

Review Office noted that the claimant received a report of incident on January 25, 1990, from his employer that the claimant alleged constituted a traumatic event which precipitated a stress reaction. Review Office further noted that the claimant immediately sought medical attention and a diagnosis of anxiety was made. Review Office found that the claimant’s psychological symptoms would not constitute personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and that they may have incurred in part as a result of labour relations issues.

Review Office indicated that in determining whether the claim would be acceptable, it took into consideration the provisions of WCB policy, section 44.20.60, Psychological Conditions. Review Office indicated that the provisions of this policy would not apply in this case. “It would seem apparent from the wording in the policy that the policy relates to psychological conditions resulting from serious or life-threatening events (emphasis ours). In our opinion the circumstances of this claim are such that this policy does not apply. Therefore we find that the claim is not acceptable and the claimant’s appeal is denied.”

In March 2001, the claimant appealed Review Office’s decision to deny his claim and requested that an oral hearing be convened. An oral hearing was later arranged for June 27, 2001. On June 22, 2001, the claimant submitted a number of reports for the Panel’s consideration.

Reasons

Section 4(1) of The Workers Compensation Act of 1990 (the Act) provides for the payment of compensation benefits to a worker where he or she sustains personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

“Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a worker, compensation as provided by this Part shall be paid by the board out of the accident fund, subject to the following subsections.”

In accordance with this section, the Panel must, initially, be satisfied that there has been an accident within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Act. That is, “a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause; and includes

(a) a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker, and

(b) any

(i) event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or

(ii) thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment, and

(c) conditions in a place where an industrial process, trade, or occupation is carried on, that occasion a disease, and as a result of which a worker is disabled.”

As the background notes indicate, the claimant filed a claim with the WCB on or about February 25^th, 1990. According to the claimant’s evidence, he had been operating a front-end loader when the axle broke and the vehicle threatened to roll over as it was being towed. The claimant was shaken up so much by this incident that he left work early and went home. The next morning when he returned to work his employer handed him “a demerit sheet for leaving early and not notifying them.” After receiving this incident sheet, it was then that the claimant had what he described as an anxiety attack. “…[T]he handing of the demerit sheet is what caused the anxiety.” The claimant advanced the argument that this anxiety attack was as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

We find that the incident involving the handing of the demerit report to the claimant by the employer did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Act. In addition, even if the foregoing incident could possibly have been considered an accident, the personal injury or psychological condition (anxiety) endured by the claimant does not fall within any of the criteria outlined in WCB policy 44.20.60.

Policy 44.20.60 deals specifically with psychological conditions and states in part as follows:

“Where information indicates a psychological condition is a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, the psychological condition attributable to the accident or its consequences shall be considered a personal injury by accident, for which compensation may be paid. This includes, but is not limited to psychological conditions incurred as a result of the following:

a) Organic brain damage from a traumatic compensable head injury.

b) A psychological reaction or condition which is a direct result of a serious compensable life-threatening injury/event (serious in this context means an accident that threatens life or direct involvement in a life threatening incident or event).

c) Psychosis resulting from exposure to harmful chemicals at the worksite.

d) Psychosis resulting from the use of drugs used in the treatment of a compensable injury.

It is clear to the Panel that the claimant’s “psychological reaction or condition” was definitely not as “a direct result of a serious compensable life-threatening injury/event”. Inasmuch as we are bound by the policies of the Board of Directors by virtue of section 60.8(6) of the Act, we find that there was no personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the claimant. Accordingly, the claim is not acceptable and 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 2nd day of August, 2001