Decision #25/07 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
This case deals with whether the worker’s claim for injury is acceptable.
The worker reported that he felt a twinge in his back while at work on March 10, 2006. He completed his shift, went home to rest and when he awoke had numbness in both feet. The worker applied to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) but his claim was not accepted. He appealed to Review Office which determined that the evidence did not establish that a work related injury occurred. The worker then appealled to the Appeal Commission.
An appeal panel hearing was held on August 2, 2006, at the worker’s request. The panel discussed this appeal following the hearing on August 2, 2006, November 21, 2006 and on January 25, 2007.
Issue
Whether or not the claim is acceptable.Decision
That the claim is not acceptable.Decision: Unanimous
Background
On March 20, 2006, the worker contacted the call centre at the WCB to file a claim for a lower back injury that he related to his employment activities as a labourer. Specifically, the worker indicated that after an incident at work on March 10, 2006, he came home from work and went to bed. When he awoke later he could not feel his toes on both feet. When he went to work on March 12, he told his boss that he wasn’t feeling good but he worked the rest of his shift.
The worker described his work duties. He said he moves windows that weigh approximately 100 lbs. or less along a table approximately waist height. He grabs the windows from either the left or right and he pulls them along the table and flips them over to put pieces onto them. He is constantly twisting while lifting and turning windows. He felt a little pinch in his left hip area at 3:00 a.m on March 10, 2006.
The employer’s accident report indicated that the worker did not know at first what caused his lower back pain and thought it could be related to a 2000 claim. The worker then related it to flipping a window while being assisted by another employee on March 10, 2006. This was reported to the employer on March 13, 2006.
On March 22, 2006, the worker advised his adjudicator that he felt fine at the start of his shift and there had been no changes in his job duties. He was flipping a 50-75 pound unit over from right to left when he felt a small twinge. He was a bit sore for the remainder of his shift but he did not think anything of it and did not mention it to any co-workers. He then went home to bed and when he got up, both his feet were numb. He thought his feet were sore from standing and did not think anything of it. His feet remained numb all weekend but he still did not feel that he needed to seek medical care.
Medical information revealed that the worker attended a chiropractor for treatment on March 14, 2006. It was reported that the worker flipped a unit and felt a twinge. The worker also attended his family physician on March 16, 2006 and reported that he hurt his back while flipping a unit.
The worker attended a medical facility for treatment on March 17, 2006. The report revealed that the worker may have twisted his back at work but could not recall a specific injury.
On April 10, 2006, the worker’s claim for compensation was denied as the adjudicator could not establish that the injury was work related given that the worker did not formally report a work related injury until March 15, 2006 despite the seriousness of his symptoms and he did not seek medical treatment until March 14, 2006. The adjudicator noted that the worker initially was not sure how he hurt himself but thought it may have occurred while flipping a unit.
On April 21, 2006, Review Office confirmed that the claim for compensation was not acceptable as the evidence did not establish that a work related injury occurred. Review Office noted that the worker told his group manager on March 12, 2006 that he had felt a twinge in his back while lifting a window unit on March 10, 2006. When the worker saw his first doctor, he did not remember any specific incident which might have caused an injury. He also stated in his application for benefits that he had merely told his group manager that he was not feeling well. The worker also made enquires whether his back or leg problems could be considered as a recurrence of a previous compensable injury. On May 8, 2006, the worker appealed the decision and the case was forwarded to the Appeal Commission.
Following a hearing that was held on August 2, 2006, the appeal panel opted to request additional medical information prior to rendering a decision as to the claim’s acceptability.
In a report dated September 25, 2006, a neurologist advised that the clinical diagnosis of the worker’s condition was a spinal cord lesion and that he was awaiting MRI results.
On January 2, 2007, the neurologist reported on the MRI scan. He said the worker had an underlying condition. The specialist also commented that the worker hurt his back after heavy lifting and bending on March 13 and he was unable to get out of bed the next day. He commented that the symptoms may represent an aggravation of his abnormal findings on the spinal cord, which was seen on the recent MRI scan.
The medical information that was received by the panel was provided to the interested parties for comment. On January 25, 2007, the panel met to render its final decision.Reasons
Worker’s Position
At the hearing, the worker explained the circumstances surrounding his claim and answered questions posed by the panel.
The worker explained that on March 10, 2006, he was working with windows when he felt a twinge in his back. He advised that he completed his shift and went home. He stated that he was not feeling very good and that his legs were sore. He laid down and when he got up later in the day he had no feelings in his legs. He advised that he had never experienced this symptom before. He advised that he went into work late on March 12, 2006 and reported his injury to his supervisor. He told his supervisor he did not know how or what had happened but that he was flipping windows on March 10, 2006.
The worker advised that he had a back injury in 2000 and thought the new symptoms which commenced on March 10, 2006 might be related to the 2000 injury.
The worker described his medical treatment and advised that he first saw a chiropractor and is now seeing his family doctor and a neurologist who has scheduled an MRI scan. He advised that he still has numbness in his whole left leg and half way down his right leg to around his knee.
Subsequent to the hearing the panel requested information from the worker’s family doctor and neurologist. Replies were received including a report from the neurologist dated January 2, 2007.
Employer’s Position
The employer was represented by two staff persons. An employer representative noted, in accordance with the employer’s records, that the worker told his supervisor that he did not know how he was injured but that it could be related to a previous injury in 2000. The representative also noted that the employer has a stringent policy requiring that accidents get reported when they occur.
Analysis
The issue before the panel is whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. For the appeal to be successful, the panel must find that the worker suffered personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The panel was not able to make this finding.
The panel obtained additional information from the worker’s neurologist regarding the worker’s MRI scan result and diagnosis. The panel notes and relies upon the neurologist’s report dated January 2, 2007. In this report, the neurologist advised that the worker has abnormal findings on his MRI scan. He advised that the worker’s left sided numbness is mostly related to a possible finding on the MRI scan. He stated that if this is not the case, the worker still has enhancing veins, which may be causing symptoms of numbness and decreased feeling in the legs. He also notes a lesion at the L-3 level. He advises that the worker has an underlying medical condition. Based on this report, the panel finds that the diagnosis of the worker’s back complaints are systemic in nature. In hindsight, based on continuity of symptoms, the panel finds that the worker’s pain complaints relate to this systemic condition rather than an acute workplace injury.
While the panel accepts that the worker had had an incident at work on March 10, 2006 when he felt a twinge in his back, the evidence does not establish that the worker suffered personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. Other than a little bit of pain at the time he felt the twinge in his back, there were no immediate symptoms. There is no injury attributable by the worker to the twinge the worker felt in his back. The numbness in his legs which he felt when he got out of bed on March 10, 2006, is more likely, caused by the non-work related medical condition as diagnosed by the neurologist. The panel notes the neurologist’s opinion that “…it is fair to state that the findings on the scan relate with his symptoms, which in turn render him disabled from returning to his job”.
Panel Members
A. Scramstad, Presiding OfficerA. Finkel, Commissioner
L. Butler, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Kosc
A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer
Signed at Winnipeg this 22nd day of February, 2007