The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Applicable Legislation:

The worker is employed by a federal government agency or department and his claim is therefore adjudicated under the GECA. The GECA provides that an employee who suffers a personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment is entitled to compensation.

Subsection 4(1) of the GECA states:

4(1) Subject to this Act, compensation shall be paid to

(a) an employee who

(i) is caused personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; or

(ii) is disabled by reason of an industrial disease due to the nature of the employment; ….

Pursuant to subsection 4(2)(a) of the GECA, a federal government employee in Manitoba is to receive compensation at the same rate and under the same conditions as a worker covered under the WCA.

The definition of accident under the GECA is:

“accident” includes a willful and an intentional act, not being the act of the employee, and a fortuitous event occasioned by a physical or natural cause.

The definition of industrial disease under the GECA is:

“industrial disease” means any disease in respect of which compensation is payable under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed respecting compensation for workmen and the dependants of deceased workmen.

Thus, for claims relating to federal employees in Manitoba, the GECA adopts the definition of “industrial disease” as it appears in the WCA. The disease for which compensation is payable under the WCA is termed “occupational disease” rather than “industrial disease”, but the difference in terms is of no consequence. The definition of “occupational disease” as contained in the WCA is as follows:

“occupational disease” means a disease arising out of and in the course of employment and resulting from causes and conditions

(a) peculiar to or characteristic of a particular trade or occupation; or

(b) peculiar to the particular employment;

but does not include

(c) an ordinary disease of life; and

(d) stress, other than as an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

Worker’s position

The worker was assisted by a worker advisor at the hearing. The position advanced on behalf of the worker was that he developed psychological difficulties related to his involvement in three separate events at work between March 2006 and July 2006. It was submitted that the evidence established the compensability of the worker’s claim either as an accident, within the meaning provided by the GECA, or alternatively as an industrial disease under that Act.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is whether or not the claim is acceptable. In order for the appeal to be successful, the panel must find that the worker is entitled to compensation pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the GECA because either

(a) he was caused personal injury by accident as per subsection 4(1)(a)(i); or

(b) he was disabled by reason of an industrial disease as per subsection 4(1)(a)(ii).

Based on the evidence before us, the panel is unable to find that there was an accident or an industrial disease within the meaning of the GECA. In making this decision, the panel relied on the following:

• There was no willful or intentional act by a third party which caused the worker’s psychological condition. At the hearing, the worker indicated that as a result of his involvement in the 3 incidents in 2006, he had been labeled by his co-workers and that this treatment caused him some distress. Although in some cases, personal or sexual harassment by co-workers may constitute an accident, the panel did not feel that the conduct of the co-workers in this case amounted to an accident, nor was it responsible for the worker’s psychological condition.
• The panel was unable to attribute the worker’s condition to any of the three events which occurred in 2006. While the events were no doubt stressful, none of the three individual events appeared to be the actual cause of the worker’s psychological condition. He did not display many of the usual symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in relation to the events, such as flashbacks, intrusive thoughts or reliving the events in his dreams. While his sleep was interrupted and he became hyper-vigilant after the first event, the panel’s impression is that this was more in reaction to the stress of having to deal with these types of situations at work, as opposed to a reaction to the trauma of the event itself.
• The panel found it notable that at the hearing, virtually all of the discussion was focused on the first of the three events, with very little time being spent in discussing the effects of the second and third events. The worker’s evidence was that his increased vigilance at work, social withdrawal, excessive drinking and sleep disruption commenced after the first event, and the severity did not change much after the second and third incidents. This would suggest that it was the job, and not the events themselves, that was troubling the worker.
• At the hearing, the worker denied having nightmares about the actual events but did describe a recurring dream which involved his employment and feeling pressure related to the demands placed on him in that workplace.
• When the worker finally discontinued working in March 2008, this was not due to a worsening of his symptoms or condition. The panel’s impression was that the worker discontinued work primarily as a result of his realization that the occupation he was in was not a good career choice for him. The job was not very well suited for his disposition and he was unhappy working there.
• The panel notes that stress related reactions which result from situations such as unsuitability of employment, inability to meet job demands, or labour relations conflicts are not conditions which are compensable in Manitoba under workers compensation legislation. A person who suffers from “burn-out” due to an inability to cope with a job is not suffering an injury caused by an accident.

In the present case, it is not the panel’s impression that the worker was unable to perform his required duties. In fact, he carried out his duties very competently and was found to have reacted properly and appropriately during all three critical incidents. Nevertheless, the panel believes that the job was not one which suited the worker. His personality and disposition did not fit with the culture of the workplace and the panel is of the view that this was what caused his psychological distress. The short term alcohol abuse was caused by job dissatisfaction rather than as a reaction to a fortuitous or traumatic event. As a result, we find that the worker’s claim is not acceptable. The worker’s appeal is denied.