The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Applicable Legislation

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by The Workers Compensation Act (the “Act”), regulations and policies of the Board of Directors. Subsection 4(1) of the Act provides:

4(1) Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a worker, compensation as provided by this Part shall be paid by the board out of the accident fund, subject to the following subsections. (emphasis added)

The worker’s position

The worker was represented by a worker advisor who made a presentation on the worker's behalf. The worker answered questions asked by his representative and the panel.

It was submitted that the worker had suffered a work-related sprain/strain type of injury when he had lifted a large heavy object and felt immediate symptoms. The symptoms abated somewhat but did not fully resolve and by the next morning became debilitating, causing him to seek medical treatment.

The worker answered questions from his advocate about the mechanism of injury. The worker's evidence was that he did various repairs on semi trucks including the occasional changing of brake shoes. On February 1, 2011 just prior to lunch, he had removed two tires that together weighed 100 lbs. and a brake drum from an axle and had finished changing the brake shoes on one side. As he prepared to replace the brake drum, he was crouched down on the floor as close to the axle as possible.

The worker described the process to remount the new drum:

"It looks more like a bowl…about a foot high and 22 inches long. Because it’s a round object you need to hug it, lift it and then you throw it onto your axle… Once its settled on your axle, then you still need to lift it a little bit to adjust it to throw it onto your studs…Squatting as much as I can, but you are bent forward."

The worker stated that when leaning forward to place the drum onto the hub, he felt a pulling sensation and warm feeling in his low back. The pain was centered in the middle of his back and close to the tail bone. The worker described it as "like lifting weights when muscles burn after awhile."

The worker indicated that he did a second drum replacement on the other side of the vehicle about one hour later and felt the same pulling and warm symptoms while lifting the second drum. The symptoms were "pretty much the same" and subsided somewhat when he stretched it out and did less physical activity for the remainder of his shift.

The worker said that for the rest of the afternoon he was doing a grease job all around the truck where there are grease nipples and underneath while lying on a garage creeper and did no more strenuous lifting duties. He characterized them as very light in comparison to the brake job.

The worker answered questions from his advocate about his usual medical functioning level. He indicated that he has always had stiffness in his back and neck on a regular basis from being a mechanic working on heavy equipment and the materials. He stated that this time it was a different kind of pain.

The employer's position

The employer did not participate in the hearing.

Analysis

The issue before us is claim acceptability. In order for the appeal to be successful, the panel must find that the worker’s back injury arose out of the work duties and during the course of the worker’s employment on February 1, 2011. On a balance of probabilities, we are able to make that finding.

In response to questions about his activities for the evening of February 1, 2011 the worker indicated that he felt his regular stiffness with no severe symptoms the rest of the day and after work. He said he went home, ate a small meal, showered and did stretching exercises at home in preparation for his floor hockey game. He then attended a family and friends non-contact floor hockey game at a local gymnasium which involved just running and shots on net. At the start of the game he noted, "I had my regular stiffness and that was it." He later went home and went to bed about 11:00 p.m.

The worker's evidence was that on Wednesday morning, his day off, he was watching television for about one hour when he attempted to rise from the chair. He stated that he "first felt the same pulling sensation and warm feeling as the day before but everything froze up and I was stuck in a 45 degree angle…I felt a very sharp pain, a 10 out of 10 and couldn't do anything at all, just lay on the floor." He said that he took some over the counter pain medications and he lay on the floor to stretch out his back with his feet on an ottoman for the remainder of the day. As well, he had trouble going to the washroom and eventually went to bed at 10:00 p.m.

The worker indicated that the next day he was very stiff and sore, he had a hard time getting around and was limping. He went to work and was doing a grease job but after an hour his pain was 8 out of 10 and he decided to attend his chiropractor for treatment. He stated that after a week and a half of treatment, his back loosened up and he began to feel pretty good. He returned to work on light duties at full hours changing lights, grease jobs, sweeping and helping out for one week then returned to his regular duties.

The worker's evidence, when asked to describe the brake drum, was; a solid steel one foot high by 22 inch long drum resembling a bowl; the bowl portion was one half inch thick with a two inch wide ring around the top portion that was one inch thick. Further, the worker stated that prior to his appeal hearing he had weighed the brake drum and found it to be 90 lbs, not the 50 lbs he had estimated when he reported his injury.

In response to the panel's questions, the worker indicated that he was always a physically active person, a former weightlifter, that he played ice hockey regularly on Sundays as well as indoor floor hockey on Tuesdays. Neither of his non-contact hockey activities were in an organized league but were made up of family members and close friends where everyone chipped in to pay for ice or gymnasium rentals. Since his injury, he has stopped playing hockey and just acts as the organizer.

In analyzing the evidence both on the file and at the hearing, the panel finds that the act of lifting and reaching forward with a 90 lb object had caused the acute muscle sprain as diagnosed by his treating chiropractor on February 3, 2011. The panel finds that the worker was a physically fit and active person prior to the compensable injury and that on the day of injury he was also active, however, subsequent to the sprain he was in a measure of discomfort.

The panel finds that following the apparently mild symptoms on February 1, 2011 the worker suffered a slow onset of the full extent of the muscle sprain. This sprain manifested the next morning after a night's rest and when he attempted to arise after sitting in a chair for one hour.