The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on March 2, 2000, at the request of the claimant.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Background

On July 20, 1999, the claimant signed an application for compensation benefits indicating that he had chronic pain in both knees, which he attributed to his employment activities over the years. The claimant stated, “this is an injury which is an accumulation of years of kneeling on concrete floors and the occasional fall while installing steel studs, drywall and taping.” The last date worked by the claimant was recorded as January 1988. It was also noted that the claimant has prior claims with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for a 1982 back injury, a 1985 neck injury and a 1985 left leg injury.

Medical information was obtained from the claimant’s family physician dated April 28, 1998. He reported that the claimant complained of periodic sore knee caps over a 1-2 year interval. “The knee pain in both knees increases with walking stooped; which he tends to do due to his sore lower back, which prevents him from ‘straightening up’ which he has been unable to do over an eight month interval. Also the right knee has tended to give way and has locked on at least two occasions.” The physician considered the right knee condition was chondromalacia patellae with possible lateral meniscus tear. The left knee condition was most likely that of periodic chondromalacia patellae with no clinical findings at present.

X-rays of both knees taken May 4, 1998, read as follows:

“On both sides on the patellar views there is slight widening of the patellofemoral compartment medially and on the left there is a few mms lateral shift of the patella. Lateral patellofemoral angles open laterally. No other abnormality was seen.”

In a letter dated July 15, 1999, a WCB adjudicator wrote to the claimant indicating that there was no change in the July 7, 1998, decision at which time the claimant was informed a relationship could not be established between the 1987 accident and his bilateral knee problems.

On November 23, 1999, the employer was contacted regarding whether he was aware of any knee problems being experienced by the claimant. The employer indicated that the claimant had never reported any problems with his knees and that he had not spoken with the claimant since 1987.

On November 24, 1999, the claimant was notified by Rehabilitation & Compensation Services that the information on file did not establish that he suffered an accident at work and that his claim was not acceptable. Rehabilitation & Compensation Services indicated there was insufficient evidence to establish a relationship between the claimant’s knee difficulties and an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. On November 25, 1999, the claimant appealed the decision to Review Office.

In a decision dated December 3, 1999, Review Office noted that the claimant had an active WCB claim for a back injury sustained in 1987 and was currently in receipt of vocational rehabilitation services and benefits. Also, it was noted that the claimant had not worked for 12 years and that he was now claiming for knee problems, which he related to his past employment in the drywall industry.

Following consideration of all the information on file including the opinion expressed by the attending physician in his report of April 28, 1998, Review Office was unable to accept responsibility for the claimant’s bilateral knee complaints. Review Office found it difficult to conclude that a causal relationship existed between the claimant’s bilateral knee problems and his past employment given that he had not worked for many years. It had not been established that the claimant sustained personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and therefore the claim was not acceptable. The claimant appealed this decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was convened.

Reasons

An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) examination of the claimant’s knees performed on May 14^th, 2000 strongly suggests the existence of patellar femoral joint osteoarthritis. The treating orthopaedic surgeon offered the following opinion with respect to the claimant’s condition in his May 23^rd, 2000 report:

“The diagnosis therefore based on the clinical exam and the MRI findings is early patellofemoral osteoarthritis affecting just the femoral side at this time. I do not know the specific etiology of this. It is most likely due to wear and tear given that he is 51 years old.”

In our view, the preponderance of evidence does not support the claimant’s contention that his bilateral knee difficulties are as a result of his working duties over time. We find that the claimant’s knee conditions are not, on a balance of probabilities, work related. Accordingly, the claim is not acceptable.

Panel Members

R. W. MacNeil, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

R. W. MacNeil - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 8th day of September, 2000