The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that her claim for compensation was not acceptable. A hearing was held on July 9, 2014 to consider the matter.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

The worker filed a claim with the WCB for a left ankle sprain that occurred at work on February 7, 2014. The worker reported that she slipped in a hallway and fell to the floor twisting her left leg. She said the floor was not wet and thought that she tripped on her own shoe.

The employer's accident report stated that the worker was going down the second floor hallway on February 7, 2014 when she slipped and fell injuring her left leg/ankle. The worker was wearing footwear but the employer did not notice what type of footwear she was wearing.

On February 21, 2014, a WCB adjudicator spoke with the worker to obtain additional information related to the February 7, 2014 fall. The worker confirmed that she was wearing running shoes and that she tripped over her own shoe while walking. It was vinyl flooring and it was not wet. She was walking for the purposes of work and was not walking fast but was rushing.

By letter dated February 21, 2014, the worker was advised that the WCB was denying responsibility for the claim as her injury was the result of personal action unrelated to her employment and there was no contributing hazard of the workplace.

On February 28, 2014, the worker appealed the decision to deny her claim. The worker contended that the injury occurred during her regular scheduled work hours at her place of employment. She said her injury was not self-inflicted and that she lost two weeks of wages and also had to pay for physiotherapy. The worker felt that the term "tripped on my shoe" was misinterpreted.

On April 29, 2014, Review Office was unable to find that the worker suffered personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Review Office referred to WCB policy and stated that the evidence did not support that her injury was caused by a hazard resulting from the nature, conditions or obligations of her employment.

On May 1, 2014, the worker appealed Review Office's decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

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.

The worker’s position:

The worker was self-represented and attended the hearing with her son. The worker's Appeal of Claims Decision form outlined the following reasons for appeal:

• The injury occurred during my hours of employment.
• The injury occurred at the current place of my employment.
• I have my employer [name] as a witness to the event.
• I have expenses to pay due to the injury in question, which I would not have to pay for if I did not get injured at work (physiotherapy, etc.)
• What is the point of paying for compensation if I am not being covered when I injure myself at work?
• I believe they are twisting my words round due to my struggle with the English language and describing the events that took place at the time of injury.
• Finally, because I missed work and potential earnings due to the injury.

The employer’s position:

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis:

The issue before the panel is claim acceptability. For the worker’s appeal to be successful, we must find on a balance of probabilities that the worker's left ankle sprain arose out of the performance of her work duties during the course of her employment on February 7, 2014. We are able to make that finding.

An injury may be said to have "arisen out of employment" if the activity giving rise to it is causally connected to the employment. The injury must have been caused by some hazard which results from the nature, conditions or obligations of employment.

At the hearing, the worker's evidence was that on the day in question, she was performing her regular duties as a housekeeper. She was on the second floor of the residence when her employer called out to her and requested that she come to the spare bedroom. The worker had just come out of another bedroom at the time and it was as she turned around and headed towards her employer that she fell. The worker was not carrying anything in her hands at the time, but she was talking to her employer as she was turning. The worker characterized her pace as having a sense of urgency. The worker had quickened her pace and said that she was rushing to respond to her employer's request.

The location where the worker fell was an upstairs hallway. The floor was ceramic which had large tiles with some shine to them. There were grout lines between the tiles which caused some slight unevenness. The lighting was good and there was no moisture on the floor. There were no objects on the floor in the hallway.

The worker did not know what specifically caused her to fall. She only knew that she was turning around and talking to her employer when she suddenly tripped, fell and landed with her leg underneath her body. She immediately experienced severe pain in her left ankle.

The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the worker's sprained ankle arose out of her employment. When the injury occurred, the worker was rushing to respond to her employer's request for assistance. There was a sense of urgency which caused the worker to move in haste. Further, the ceramic floor was not entirely smooth and continuously even as there were grout lines between the tiles and the worker's evidence was that some of the tiles had been repaired in the past. The worker characterized the ceramic floor as "a tiny bit uneven." The panel accepts that even though the flooring was only slightly uneven, this condition may have contributed to her injury, given that she was in a rush.

The panel therefore finds that the worker's left ankle injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and her claim is acceptable. The worker's appeal is allowed.

Panel Members

L. Choy, Presiding Officer
B. Simoneau, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Kosc

L. Choy - Presiding Officer

Signed at Winnipeg this 18th day of August, 2014