The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB")that his claim for compensation was not acceptable.  A hearing was held on November 10,2015 to consider the worker's appeal.  

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Background

On December 5, 2011, the worker filed a claim with the WCB stating that he was directly exposed to cancer causing chemicals during the course of his employment between 1964 to 1969. The worker said he was filing the claim because he underwent multiple operations and because he was pumping the oil directly. The worker indicated that in December 1997, he saw an article in the newspaper saying that mineral oil contained cancer causing elements.

On February 7, 2012, a WCB adjudicator called the worker to discuss the claim. The worker stated that he did not have cancer. He had a heart condition and had to have a heart transplant. He had rheumatoid arthritis and a gall stone attack. He was relating these conditions to his exposure. The worker stated that he had to hook up hoses and make sure he did not overfill them and had to watch the pump. He had to pump oil 3 or 4 times a week, at 6 or 7 hours per day. There was no specific incident. The employer had faulty equipment and the hose burst and blew on his right side and you could still see the marks from the hot oil. He went to the hospital but no claim was made. The worker was not sure of the name of the mineral oil that was used to fill up the transformers. The adjudicator asked the worker to compile a list of all the doctors he saw for his conditions as well as a copy of the newspaper article he referred to in his initial report.

On May 23, 2012, the worker advised the WCB that a doctor who took care of him retired a long time ago and that the doctor who treated his arthritis had passed away. The worker indicated that the reason he was pursing his claim was because an MP "awhile back helped a whole pile of people get compensation for exposure to oil at the same company he worked for - some of these people got very sick and some of them passed away from cancer and other things." The worker advised that he would provide the WCB with the articles he was referring to.

On November 9, 2012, the worker advised the WCB that he was claiming for the oil burns to the right side of his body.

On January 30, 2013, the worker wrote the WCB stating:

"Almost every day I had to pump that mineral oil containing the PCB's in the hydro transformers. Often I had to climb inside the transformers to make sure everything was working smoothly. I was exposed to this mineral oil containing the PCB's every day and I am very fortunate that my parents told me to stop working there and come home and help with the farming. This oil was used until 1975, years after I had left, but I had been exposed to it even longer than the men that died. I am expecting a large settlement because I was exposed to the PCB's for so many years. While working there I got 3rd degree burns on the right side of my body, including my leg and head. Dr [name] was my doctor at the time of my accident, he worked at [name] Hospital."

File records showed that the worker did not provide the WCB with any medical information related to his medical conditions.

By letter dated February 6, 2013, the worker was advised by Compensation Services that his claim for compensation was denied as the WCB was unable to establish a relationship between his employment/exposure and his particular medical condition(s). The worker was advised that the article he provided the WCB referred to cancer and he did not have cancer. It was also confirmed to the worker that the WCB was unable to compensate him for the burns to his body. The decision was confirmed to the worker on February 19, 2013. The worker disagreed with the decision and an appeal was filed with Review Office.

On April 30, 2015, Review Office determined that the worker's claim was not acceptable. Review Office stated in its decision that Compensation Services located a claim for the worker for bodily injuries he sustained in 1966. The worker suffered second and third degree burns to the right side and legs when a hose came off a pump, resulting in hot transformer oil spilling onto him. The claim was inactive for over 40 years.

Review Office stated that it requested a narrative report from the worker's physician as no medical information had been received regarding the worker's medical conditions and their relationship to his exposure to mineral oil. A response from the physician had not been received.

Review Office concluded that the file evidence showed the only diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis. It found that the worker had been diagnosed with a medical condition that is an ordinary disease of life and not an occupational disease.

On May 24, 2015, the worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission as he disagreed with Review Office's decision. An oral hearing was then 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.

Section 4 of the Act provides in part:

4(1) Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of 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.

…

4(4) Where an injury consists of an occupational disease that is, in the opinion of the board, due in part to the employment of the worker and in part to a cause or causes other than the employment, the board may determine that the injury is the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment only where, in its opinion, the employment is the dominant cause of the occupational disease.

The term “occupational disease” is defined in Subsection 1(1) of the Act 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 an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

The Worker’s Position

The worker attended the hearing with his wife. It was submitted that the worker’s claim ought to be accepted as he was exposed to a cancer causing chemical which, in his opinion, caused or contributed to his current medical conditions which include rheumatoid arthritis, gall stones, kidney stones, aneurysm on his right leg, and heart condition.

The worker explained that, between 1964 and 1969, his employment involved, among other things, pumping mineral oil into transformers. The mineral oil contained PCBs, a product now known to be a carcinogen. On one occasion, the hose used to pump the oil burst, spilling hot oil on his right side resulting in first and second degree burns to parts of the right side of his body.

Years later, the worker noticed a newspaper article which mentioned that a number of workers had received compensation for cancer as a result of working with the same type of mineral oil to which the worker had been exposed. Although the worker acknowledged that he did not have cancer, he nevertheless submitted that he ought to be similarly compensated and attributes his current various medical conditions to his earlier exposure to mineral oil.

Employer’s Position

The employer did not participate in the hearing.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. In order for the worker’s appeal to be successful, the panel must find that one or more of his current medical conditions are causally connected to his employment, either as a result of a workplace accident or as an occupational disease. We are not able to find this to be the case.

The panel carefully reviewed with the worker each of his medical conditions, including his rheumatoid arthritis, gall stones, kidney stones, aneurysm behind his right knee and heart condition. Although the worker has suffered for some time from rheumatoid arthritis, the onset of most of his remaining conditions has been more recent. Over the last several years, he has undergone three operations as a result of his aneurysm, surgery related to his gallbladder and a quadruple bypass. The panel further reviewed with the worker the history of each of his medical conditions and his discussions with his treating practitioners and specialists regarding the cause of his conditions. Both the worker and his wife acknowledged at the hearing that none of the worker’s physicians were able to provide or identify a causal connection between any of his medical conditions and either the incident in 1966 when the worker was burned with oil or to general exposure to mineral oil containing PCBs. The worker did not file any reports or opinions from his doctors regarding his medical conditions and their relationship to his exposure to mineral oil. In the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence for the panel to conclude that any of the worker’s medical conditions form a basis for a compensable claim.

We therefore find that the claim is not acceptable and the worker’s appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

K. Wittman, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
P. Walker, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Kosc

K. Wittman - Presiding Officer

Signed at Winnipeg this 7th day of January, 2016