Decision #24/07 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
This appeal arises from the Workers Compensation Board’s (WCB) decision to deny acceptance of the employee’s claim for injury.
The employee filed a claim with the WCB for a right forearm condition which she attributed to an increased workload that necessitated increased use of her computer mouse. The WCB adjudicator and Review Office denied the claim on the basis that the diagnosed condition was not related to the employee’s duties and it could not be established that the employee suffered a workplace injury.
An appeal panel hearing was held on November 8, 2006, at the request of a union representative, acting on behalf of the employee. The panel discussed this appeal on November 8, 2006 and again on January 9, 2007.
Issue
Whether or not the claim is acceptable.Decision
That the claim is not acceptable.Decision: Unanimous
Background
The employee filed a compensation claim on January 18, 2006 for difficulties she was experiencing with her right foreman which she related to her increased workload which necessitated the increased usage of her computer mouse. The date of accident was recorded by the employee as being December 23, 2005.
The employer reported that the employee used a computer and scanner up to 7.5 hours per day. Her desk dealt with a high volume of paper. The employee was curling her hand around the mouse and reaching forward from her chair to key and mouse and the incorrect ergonomic positioning of her body resulted in pain in her right forearm. The employer noted that the injury occurred over a period of time and that an ergonomic assessment had been completed.
Medical reports on file confirm that the diagnosis related to the employee’s right forearm was right lateral epicondylitis.
On January 24, 2006, the employee provided the WCB with the following information:
- an ergonomic assessment of her work station was done on January 12, 2006.
- she had been with the accident employer since 1990 and started a new position in June 2005. This resulted in an increased work load and the increased usage of a computer mouse.
- she held her mouse like a pen causing her hand to curve inwards while operating the mouse, pulling on the outside forearm of her right arm. She wasn’t aware that this was the incorrect way to hold the mouse. This had been corrected and she now uses a track ball mouse which holds her hand straight.
- she had no problems with her left hand or arm. She was not involved in any sports or hobbies. She drove a tractor or combine for her husband during combining and bailing season.
On February 16, 2006, a WCB medical advisor reviewed the file information at the request of primary adjudication. He indicated that repetitive and forceful grasping and twisting of the arm are the generally accepted causes for lateral epicondylitis. He confirmed that the employee’s tenderness and pain over the forearm and lateral epicondyle was consistent with the diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis. He noted that the employee’s mechanism of injury did not include forceful movements although it was repetitive.
On March 8, 2006, the claim for compensation was denied as the adjudicator was unable to relate the diagnosis of epicondylitis to the employee’s job duties. She indicated that the employee’s job duties did not involve any forceful movements and there was no resisted force required when using the mouse. On June 6, 2006, this decision was appealed by the employee’s union representative to Review Office. He provided argument that the employee’s improper work station/equipment design and a complete lack of safety training led to the development of her present condition.
On June 14, 2006, Review Office confirmed that the claim was not acceptable as the evidence did not establish that the employee suffered personal injury by an accident arising out of and the course of employment. It found that the employee’s improper workstation was not causal in the development of her right lateral epicondylitis. It noted from the ergonomic assessment findings that the employee had her right hand and wrist in an awkward posture angled to the left. It did not suggest that the position of the employee’s right hand involved the pulling of the hand backward. The ergonomic assessment did not support that the employee’s use of a mouse involved forceful movements or that her job duties involved the anatomical movements required for the development of the diagnosed condition.
On June 22, 2006, the union representative appealed Review Office’s decision and a hearing was arranged for November 8, 2006.
Following the hearing, the panel decided to arrange a work site visit to view the employee’s work station and performance of her job duties. The work site visit took place on December 8, 2006. On December 11, 2006, all interested parties were asked to provide final comment. On January 9, 2007, the panel met to render its final decision.Reasons
Applicable Legislation
The employee is employed by the federal government and accordingly her claim is adjudicated under the Government Employees Compensation Act (the GECA). The Act defines "accident" as including “… a wilful and an intentional act, not being the act of the employee, and a fortuitous event occasioned by a physical or natural cause.”
Subsection 4(1) of the GECA provides that compensation shall be paid to an employee who is caused personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment.
Employee’s Position
The employee attended the hearing with a union representative who made a submission on behalf of the employee. The employee answered questions posed by her representative and the panel. The panel also visited the worksite and observed the employee perform and demonstrate elements of the job.
The employee’s representative noted that the employee changed jobs in June 2005. He noted that no ergonomic assessment was performed of the new work location until the employee reported an injury. The representative advised that the new position involved almost exclusively document scanning. This resulted in a large amount of time spent using the computer mouse. He stated that unknown to the employee and her supervisor, proper methods of doing work were not used.
The representative submitted that “Directly related to the improper workstation design, improper equipment for the job and a complete lack of safety training or training in correct work procedures, the claimant developed lateral epicondylitis…”
The representative referred to literature dealing with the risk factors for tennis elbow. He submitted that the work was not being performed properly and therefore more forceful movements were involved. He also submitted that repetition without force or with minimal force can result in the same extent of injury. He concluded that excessive force is not required for the condition to develop where there is repetitive motion.
The employee stated that 80 to 90 percent of the job involved the use of a computer mouse. At the hearing the employee advised that she incorrectly held the computer mouse. She said she held it like a pen or pencil. She advised that she did not know the proper way to hold a mouse until the ergonomic assessment was done. At the worksite visit she demonstrated how she held the mouse when her symptoms first arose. The employee’s supervisor, who was present at the worksite visit, disagreed with the employee’s demonstration and suggested that she curved her wrist more than shown in the demonstration, but the employee disagreed with this assertion.
The employee described the job duties. A small portion of the job involved ordering supplies on the internet. The main duty involved scanning documents. She described the process she followed to scan documents. The employee also demonstrated the scanning process at the worksite visit. She stated that the majority of scanning involved batches (more than one document) of documents which she placed in the scanner. Once scanned the documents were electronically filed in two places. The mouse was used in this process. She would also type in invoice numbers. While documents were being scanned, the employee had no other activities, unless the phone rang which was unusual. She stated that clicking the mouse was continuous. She advised that she was very busy because there was a backlog of scanning to complete.
With respect to the ergonomic assessment that was conducted, the employee advised that this resulted in her switching to a ball track mouse which forced her arm to go straight. Changes in the keyboard and armrests were made and were helpful.
The employer was not represented at the hearing. The employee’s supervisor was present during the jobsite visit.
Analysis
The issue before the panel was whether the employee’s claim is acceptable. For the appeal to be successful the panel must find a causal relationship between the employee’s job duties and her medical condition. The panel was not able to make this finding.
The employee has been diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis. The employee’s representative submitted that repetition, even without force, is the key factor in developing this condition. He submitted that the employee’s duties involving the use of the mouse were highly repetitive. After a careful analysis of the employee’s duties, the panel is not able to find that the employee’s duties are highly repetitive. The panel also finds that the employee’s duties do not involve significant use of force.
The panel has considered the detailed job description provided by the employee at the hearing and the subsequent demonstration of duties by the employee at the worksite. The employee told the panel that the job mostly involved scanning documents and creating files with the use of a computer. As explained and demonstrated to the panel, the employee would place documents on the scanner, usually in batches, the employee would then use her mouse to start the scanning process, once completed the employee would use the mouse to create files on the computer. She may also use the keyboard to enter invoice numbers to be used in the filing process. This process would be repeated over and over given there was a backlog of scanning in this job which the employee was directed to clear up. However the panel finds that the scanning process provides a variety of duties which occur in sequence including placing documents on scanner, using the mouse to start scanning and file documents, using keyboard to enter invoice numbers, removing documents from scanner and collecting more documents to commence the sequence again. The process involves a variety of movements, permits breaks between the use of the mouse, and as a result is not highly repetitive. As well, the movements did not generally involve significant use of force.
The panel finds that the employee’s job duties are not highly repetitive and do not involve factors that are associated with the risk of lateral epicondylitis.
The panel notes that the employee’s workstation was not ergonomically correct and that she held the mouse in an awkward manner but finds that the these factors did not cause the development of her condition.
Having concluded that the job is not highly repetitive, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the employee’s condition is not related to her employment.
Panel Members
A. Scramstad, Presiding OfficerA. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Kosc
A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer
Signed at Winnipeg this 22nd day of February, 2007