Decision #79/01 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
An Appeal Panel hearing was held on May 15, 2001, at the request of a union representative, acting on behalf of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on May 15, 2001.
Issue
Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision
That the claim is not acceptable.
Background
On September 12, 2000, the claimant submitted an application for compensation benefits indicating that his foot condition was caused from his work activities as nursing assistant II. The claimant’s description of injury was as follows:
“Approx. 1 month ago I was working mostly night shifts. Now I work mostly day shifts. I believe strongly the transition caused this injury because I’m on my feet much more, working mostly day shifts. I’m a nursing assistant in the float pool, so I get assignments which can be very busy which means a lot of walking on hard floors.”
Medical information on file showed that the claimant was first seen by his attending physician on August 22, 2000. The physician noted that the claimant had a painful right first metatarsal and the pad on the bottom of his foot was tender with walking. There were no remarkable visual abnormalities. The claimant’s shoes looked old and worn and he was advised to obtain newer footwear. The physician stated that the claimant had changed from working nights to days which required him being on his feet for a longer periods of time. When next seen on September 7, 2000, the physician noted that the claimant had purchased good shoes but was still having pain. The claimant’s foot condition was diagnosed as plantar fasciitis.
During a telephone conversation with the claimant on September 14, 2000, a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) adjudicator documented that the claimant worked 8 to 10 shifts in a 2 week period. During the week of September 5, 2000, the claimant noticed problems with his feet and attended the nursing station on several occasions. The claimant indicated that he had no prior foot problems and there was no specific incident. The claimant wore running shoes (Brooks) at work.
On September 22, 2000, the WCB determined that the current evidence on file did not support that the claimant developed plantar fasciitis as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. On November 27, 2000, this decision was appealed by a union representative and the case was forwarded to the Review Office for consideration.
In a decision dated December 15, 2000, Review Office stated that the cause of plantar fasciitis was multifactorial according to available medical literature. The claimant was a 0.6 position employee who recently changed from a night shift to a day shift. Review Office noted that the evidence also showed that the claimant’s foot wear was old and worn when he first saw his doctor and that this was one of the recognized factors for causing the condition. Review Office denied the claim for benefits as it was felt that the worker’s medical condition did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Review Office’s decision was later appealed by the union representative and an oral hearing was arranged.
Reasons
The claimant in this case is a health care aide who has been diagnosed with bilateral plantar fasciitis, and is asserting that this condition arose from his work activities. He is appealing earlier decisions at the adjudication and review office levels of the Workers Compensation Board which said there was no causal link between his medical condition and his job.
In order for the appeal to succeed, we must find that the claimant’s injuries or medical condition arose – on a balance of probabilities -- out of and in the course of his employment as a health care aide, as required by Section 4(1) of The Workers Compensation Act.
In reaching our decision, we had the opportunity to review the file documentation, and to hear submissions from representatives of both the claimant and the employer, and, of particular importance in this claim, to ask questions directly of the claimant.
We note that the primary argument advanced by the claimant and his representative was that the injuries arose after he changed from night shifts to day shifts, and this would have led to much more walking and less rest, leading in turn to the development of this medical condition.
After consideration of all the evidence, we have concluded that the claimant’s plantar fasciitis condition did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Medical evidence and articles provided to the panel indicate that the causes of plantar fasciitis are multi-factorial, ranging from anatomical deficiencies to other stressors, including running, sudden increase in activity, obesity, inadequate shoes or prolonged standing or walking, and can arise suddenly or gradually.
In assessing potential work-related causes of this condition, we placed considerable weight on the questioning of the claimant regarding the change in shifts, and we find that the evidence does not support the kind of increase of work duties that would result in the development of bilateral plantar fasciitis. We note that the claimant was always assigned a blend of busy and quiet wards when he worked night shifts, and that this distribution of shifts remained the same after he switched to days. We also note that the claimant continued to work the same number of hours per week, before and after the shift changes. Even after extensive questioning, we were unable to quantify in a meaningful way, the kind of increase in walking stresses that would allow us to establish a causal link between his medical condition and his employment. Medical information on the file from an occupational health nurse also notes that the claimant had inadequate footwear at the time of his first complaints for this medical condition.
Based on these findings, we conclude that the claimant’s bilateral medical condition, on a balance of probabilities, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and thus there is no “accident,” as required by the Act, to establish a claim. Accordingly, the claimant’s appeal is denied.
Panel Members
T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Miller
T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 12th day of June, 2001