The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Background

On October 11, 2005, while in the course of his duties, the worker fell four feet to the ground and landed onto his back. He saw his doctor the same day complaining of pain in his lower back, radiating to his right leg. He was diagnosed with a back strain, prescribed pain medication, and referred to physiotherapy. His physiotherapist questioned the diagnosis as the worker had complaints of pain and numbness in the back of his right knee and the sole of his right foot. The worker was nevertheless cleared to return to modified duties effective November 15, 2005.

On November 28, 2005, the doctor reported that the worker still had tenderness in his lumbar spine and right leg but that he could return to his regular duties, which he did on December 7, 2005.

Then, on January 23, 2006, the worker called his WCB case manager to tell her that he had quit his job and moved back home for health reasons. He added that he had pre-existing back problems that his compensable injury aggravated.

On March 13, 2006, the worker called his WCB case manager and claimed a recurrence of his October 2005 lower back injury. A medical report from his home town family physician revealed that the worker saw him on March 7, 2006 with complaints of low back pain and left sciatica. There was no evidence of paraesthesia or weakness in his left leg and straight leg raising was 90 degrees bilaterally.

Analysis

To accept the worker’s appeal we must find that the worker’s back complaints after his return to work on December 7, 2005 are related to his compensable injury. We are unable to make that finding.

The worker’s compensable injury was diagnosed as a back strain. Though there were some symptoms of a possible disc injury, this is not confirmed in the medical evidence. In fact the worker was cleared to return to his full time regular duties on December 7, 2005.

Though the worker says that he had to stop work because of his compensable injury, there are no medical reports that show that the worker sought further medical treatment for back pain, with the exception of his home town family physician. The complaints noted at that time are not however consistent with the worker’s initial right sided complaints. The symptoms in March 2006 were left sided complaints which we find are not causally related to the original compensable injury.

For these reasons, we are unable on a balance of probabilities to find that the worker’s recurrent back problems are related to his October 11, 2005 compensable injury.