The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Worker’s Position

The worker attended the hearing without a representative but was provided with the services of an interpreter.

The worker described the work incident and related symptoms. She explained why she believes her claim is acceptable.

She advised that on January 5, 1991 she was working the evening shift as a licensed practical nurse at an infirmary. She stated that at approximately 6:30 PM she was attending to a patient who weighed approximately 165 pounds. The patient resisted her assistance and pushed her so that both thumbs went back. She explained that it was reported that she injured one thumb when she saw the doctor because only one thumb was cracking.

The worker advised that she could not get an appointment with a physician until the 22^nd or 23^rd of January. She said that she saw the physician a few times but that he did not do much for her. She advised that he gave her a splint.

She advised that she applied for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits when it appeared that WCB would not be helping. She also advised that she has not worked since 1991. She has received benefits from an indemnity plan through her employment.

Regarding her injuries, she advised that her right hand is sore and noted that it is currently swollen and that the tips of all 10 fingers are numb. She advised that she also hurt her neck. In answer to questions the worker advised that she wore a neck collar. She stated that she wore the collar before the accident.

The worker noted that she wears bandages and items that she demonstrated to the panel and which appeared to be small splints for her fingers.

The worker advised that she worked for about one month after the incident. She then saw a physician who recommended that she work light duties. She did not tell her employer as she knew there were no light duties. She also advised that she had “a lot of problems.”

The worker advised that recently she has seen a physician at a sports injury clinic, a neurologist, a surgeon, and a physician who works as a counselor. She provided a report from the counselor dated September 26, 2006, a report from a neurologist dated September 18, 2006 and an MRI report dealing with the left wrist dated September 1, 2006. The neurologist’s report indicates the worker had complaints of bilateral hand numbness which had been going on for approximately four to five years. It noted there is evidence of a severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome worse on the left. The MRI report of the left wrist identifies moderate radiocarpal chondromalacia and notes there is no evidence of an inflammatory process or extensor tendinosis. The worker indicated that she thinks her current problems are due to the 1991 accident.

Analysis

The issue before the panel was whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. For the appeal to succeed the panel must find that the worker suffered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. The panel was unable to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker suffered personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

The work incident occurred on January 5, 1991. The worker continued to work for approximately one month. File information indicates that the worker did not report the incident to the employer or seek medical attention until January 22, 1991. This is also the date that she completed a WCB worker’s report of injury.

The evidence on file and that provided at the hearing indicates that before, during and after the alleged workplace incident of January 5, 1991 the worker had numerous medical complaints. Her initial complaint appeared to primarily relate to her right thumb, however the panel notes that the worker continued to work for approximately one month after the incident. At the hearing she advised that her left thumb was also injured but there is no mention of this in the early medical reports. She complained of pain in the neck as a result of the incident but advised that she had pain before the incident and wore a neck collar before the incident. The worker referred to numbness at the tips of her ten fingers but was uncertain when this started, while a neurologist in 2006 indicated a 4-5 year history. The worker also acknowledged that she may have worn the finger splints before the 1991 incident to protect her hands. With respect to her current medical problems the worker advised that she thinks the problems are from the 1991 incident. The panel notes that some of the worker’s complaints appear to have arisen before the incident while others appear to have arisen long after and there is no one medical complaint that has a continuity of medical care from January 1991 to be considered causally related to that incident. As such, the panel is unable to relate these complaints or any particular diagnosis to the January 5, 1991 incident and is therefore unable to find that personal injury by accident occurred.