Decision #88/08 - Type: Workers Compensation

Preamble

The worker disagreed with the decision made by a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) case manager that he was entitled to an Independent Living Allowance (“ILA”) of $50.00 per month. The worker appealed the decision to Review Office. The Review Office ultimately determined that the worker should not have been provided with an ILA. The worker disagreed and filed an Application to Appeal with the Appeal Commission. A file review was then held on June 9, 2008.

Issue

Whether or not the worker is entitled to an Independent Living Allowance.

Decision

That the worker is not entitled to an Independent Living Allowance.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

The worker sustained multiple injuries in a work related accident that occurred on October 6, 1993. His claim for compensation was accepted based on the diagnosis of a compression fracture at the L4 area and compound bilateral ankle fractures. On April 10, 2007, an appeal panel found that the worker’s L5-S1 back problem was caused by his 1993 compensable accident “having likely developed as a result of the leg length discrepancy and significantly altered gait of the worker.”

In August 2006, the worker asked the WCB to pay for the installation of a new roof on his house as he could not do it himself because of his compensable injuries. He submitted a receipt in the amount of $1,485.00 from a roofing company which represented labour charges for the roof.

On November 15, 2006, primary adjudication advised the worker that he was entitled to $50.00 per month for a maximum period of six months. The purpose of the allowance was to provide workers with assistance in support of daily maintenance and housekeeping at their residence.

On November 20, 2006, the worker appealed the above decision to Review Office. The worker indicated that he would have been able to do the work himself if not for the injuries he suffered on October 6, 1993. He noted that he had done work around the house such as building a garage, painting, fences, electrical, etc. but could not repair his roof in a safe manner because of his ankle/leg injuries. Enclosed with his letter was a receipt from a roofing and shelving company for labour charges in the amount of $1485.00 and pictures of his house.

In a decision dated November 29, 2006, Review Office determined that the worker should not be provided with an ILA. Review Office made reference to WCB policy 44.120.30, Support for Daily Living, and stated that the worker was not a severely injured worker and did not meet the criteria for an injured worker as he indicated that he was able to perform day to day maintenance or housekeeping tasks around his home. Review Office pointed out that the purpose of the ILA policy was to assist with the day-to-day maintenance of a home such as snow removal and lawn cutting and that the worker’s request did not fall under this category. Review Office concluded that the worker should not have been provided with an ILA and that he was overpaid $300.00. Review Office indicated that the worker was not required to reimburse the WCB this amount as it is a WCB administrative error. On March 11, 2008, the worker appealed Review Office’s decision to the Appeal Commission and a file review was arranged. On April 30, 2008, the worker provided the appeal panel with a letter outlining his position on the issue under appeal.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and this panel are bound by The Workers Compensation Act (“the Act”) and by policies made by the Board of Directors of the WCB.

Subsection 27(20) provides:

Academic, vocational, rehabilitative assistance

27(20) The board may make such expenditures from the accident fund as it considers necessary or advisable to provide academic or vocational training, or rehabilitative or other assistance to a worker for such period of time as the board determines where, as a result of an accident, the worker

(a) could, in the opinion of the board, experience a long-term loss of earning capacity;

(b) requires assistance to reduce or remove the effect of a handicap resulting from the injury; or

(c) requires assistance in the activities of daily living.

In accordance with subsection 27(20), the WCB made Policy 44.120.30, Support for Daily Living, which is intended to coordinate the WCB’s approach to supporting workers’ participation in daily workplace and personal activities after an accident. Section D of this policy deals with assistance for independent living. It provides:

D. Independent Living

Purpose:

The WCB recognizes that a worker may face an increased safety risk if day-to-day housekeeping or maintenance of the worker's residence (e.g., snow removal, lawn care, general home repair) is not kept up. In many cases, it may be impossible to perform such tasks after the accident. Although family members often assist workers in performing these tasks, it is not always possible for family resources to provide extended periods of additional maintenance or housekeeping services.

Policy:

1. Type of Services

Includes an allowance for day-to-day maintenance and housekeeping at the worker's residence (e.g., snow removal, lawn care, general home repair, housekeeping, laundry, etc.).

2. Severely Injured Workers

The WCB will provide financial support for independent living to severely injured workers that reflects the reasonable level of need for the worker.

For severely injured workers, the WCB will provide support for independent living for as long as the compensable injury prevents day-to-day maintenance and housekeeping of the worker's residence.

3. Injured Workers

The WCB may provide injured workers support for independent living for a maximum of six months and at a level established by the WCB if the following conditions are met:

· The worker does not have any family resources to provide the service; and,

· Medical evidence shows that it is unreasonable for the injured worker to perform day-to-day maintenance or housekeeping tasks.

4. Arrangements

Workers are expected to make their own arrangements to obtain the services that will enhance independent living; however, in the event that private arrangements can not be made, the WCB may contact bonded service providers.

Worker’s Position

The worker provided a written submission. He stated that the decision of the WCB Review Office should be overturned. The worker indicated that he was seeking an ILA to pay for labour costs associated with repairs to the roof on his residence. He advised that he had received an ILA of $50.00 per month for six months but that the ILA was cancelled by the Review Office decision. He advised that he had asked for $1,485.00.

Regarding the repair to the roof, the worker advised that this was home maintenance and not a renovation. He stated that no one at his home could perform the job and that he could not perform the job because of the restrictions placed on him arising from his workplace injury. He noted his current restrictions and advised that when he does perform jobs around the home he has to deal with pain in his ankles and legs. He advised that before he was injured he did many jobs around the house. He asked for assistance with this job as it would be dangerous for him to do roof repairs.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is whether the worker is entitled to an ILA. For this appeal to be successful, the panel must find that the worker is entitled to an ILA in accordance with the applicable WCB policy. The panel found that the worker was not entitled to receive an ILA.

Under the policy, financial support for independent living is provided to workers who meet the definition of “severely injured worker” or “injured worker”. The definition section of the policy provides examples of workers who are considered “severely injured”. The panel has considered the worker’s injury and current functionality and finds that he is not a severely injured worker for the purposes of the policy, accordingly he is not entitled to receive a long term ILA. The panel also notes that the worker is able to perform day-to-day maintenance of his residence, and thus does not qualify for the short term ILA potentially available to “injured workers” under the policy.

The panel also finds that the replacement of the roof is not an expense covered under this policy. The policy is intended to cover the costs related to day-to-day housekeeping or maintenance of the worker’s residence and not major repairs such as replacement of a roof.

The worker’s appeal is denied.

Panel Members

A. Scramstad, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Kosc

A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer

Signed at Winnipeg this 22nd day of July, 2008

Back