The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that he was not entitled to full wage loss benefits from October 7 to 20, 2015 or wage loss benefits beyond October 20, 2015. A hearing was held on September 5, 2019, then reconvened by videoconference on April 28, 2021, to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

1. Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits from October 7, 2015 to October 20, 2015; and

2. Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after October 20, 2015.

Decision

1. That the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits from October 7, 2015 to October 20, 2015; and

2. That the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after October 20, 2015, to November 18, 2015.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on July 15, 2015, reporting he injured his left elbow at work on July 13, 2015 in an incident he described as "I was lifting a…tank off the…machine when I felt a ripping sensation in my elbow."

The worker sought medical attention on the date of the incident. A Doctor's First Report of that visit noted the worker indicated he had burned his hand and had left elbow pain. The attending physician noted tenderness in the lateral epicondyle area, worse with pronation, and that the worker had "tennis elbow" in the same arm previously. The physician diagnosed the worker with a left elbow sprain and recommended he remain off work for 3 weeks. An x-ray of the worker's left elbow taken that same day did not identify a joint effusion or a fracture.

The worker saw his family physician on July 15, 2015, and indicated he had experienced sudden pain when he was lifting a tank and burned his right hand when he held a welding clamp. The family physician provided a diagnosis of "right hand: second degree burn: healed well; left elbow lateral epicondylitis."

The WCB contacted the worker on July 16, 2015 to discuss the claim. The worker confirmed he was lifting a tank weighing approximately 120 pounds when he felt a tear in his elbow. He said he tried to continue working, but was so distracted by the pain in his elbow that he grabbed a hot welding clamp and burned his hand. He reported the incident to the employer and left to seek medical treatment. The worker advised he had issues with his elbow approximately 15 years previously and was right-hand dominant. On July 22, 2015, the WCB's Compensation Services advised the worker that his claim was accepted and benefits were approved.

On August 4, 2015, the worker attended a follow-up appointment with his family physician, where he reported pain and weakness in his left arm and worsening pain when attempting some work. The physician reported findings of a tender lateral epicondyle, worsening tenderness on extension, and good resistance initially, which then weakened. The physician referred the worker for physiotherapy, and recommended light duties of no lifting, pushing or pulling using the left arm. On August 10, 2015, the employer advised the WCB that the worker had returned to work that day performing light work.

On September 1, 2015, the worker attended a further appointment with his family physician, who noted the lateral epicondyle was tender, passive range of motion was okay, and wrist extension against resistance was stronger and less painful than before. The physician recommended the worker remain off work until September 29, 2015 and attend physiotherapy.

In a conversation with the WCB on September 2, 2015, the worker advised that he had been off work since August 19, 2015, as his left elbow continued to bother him. He said he felt he was getting worse and saw his family physician on September 1, 2015, who placed him off work until September 29, 2015.

On September 29, 2015, the worker was seen again by his treating physician, who noted the worker reported decreased pain in his elbow and that he "…can do more physically but gets it sore easily; managing well working 3 days a week at his pace and according to his capacities." The physician recommended the worker continue working 3 days a week for another 2 to 3 weeks, with light duties as before.

On October 2, 2015, the WCB spoke with the employer, who advised that the worker had returned to work on reduced hours on September 15, 2015. On October 6, 2015, the employer advised that the worker's employment had been terminated.

On October 7, 2015, the WCB spoke with the worker to clarify when he returned to work. The worker said he felt he could return to work, so he asked his physician to clear him, and he returned to work on September 16, 2015 at 8 hours a day, 3 days a week, on light duties. The worker further confirmed that the employer terminated his employment on October 6, 2015.

On October 23, 2015, the WCB advised the worker that they had reviewed information from his employer regarding the reasons for his termination and were of the view that his termination was as a result of insubordination and not his injury. The worker stated he strongly disagreed and that he was fired because of his injury. By letter dated October 23, 2015, Compensation Services advised the worker that his claim was under review and wage loss benefits were suspended as of October 6, 2015.

The worker subsequently appealed the October 23, 2015 decision to Review Office, and on December 30, 2015, Review Office determined the worker was entitled to partial wage loss benefits beyond October 6, 2015. Review Office noted the employer had indicated they terminated the worker's employment for insubordination. Review Office found that prior to October 6, 2015, the employer had accommodated the worker 3 days a week due to his compensable injury, and that the accommodation ended with the termination of his employment. Review Office determined that although the worker did not refuse an offer of suitable work, dismissal created parallel circumstances.

Review Office went on to find that since the termination of the worker's employment was for non-compensable reasons, the weekly loss of earnings from the 3 shifts he had been working was also non-compensable. Review Office concluded that the worker was entitled to partial wage loss benefits after October 6, 2015 consistent with what he was receiving at the time of his termination.

On January 8, 2016, a WCB medical advisor reviewed the worker's file in conjunction with the worker's case manager, and opined that had the worker's employment not been terminated, it would have been anticipated that he would have been capable of increasing to full hours of modified duties at approximately 3 weeks after the September 29, 2015 physician assessment, and of progressing to unrestricted duties after a further 3 to 4 weeks.

On January 8, 2016, Compensation Services advised the worker that a review of his file had been completed, pending results of an investigation by the WCB's Compliance Services regarding his termination, and they had determined he was entitled to partial wage loss benefits from October 7 to 20, 2015. Compensation Services further advised the worker that he was not entitled to wage loss benefits beyond October 20, 2015 as he would have been capable of performing modified duties at regular hours as of October 21, 2015, with a return to full duties and hours effective November 18, 2015.

The WCB's Compliance Services conducted an investigation into whether the employer committed discriminatory action when the worker's employment was terminated on October 6, 2015, and outlined their findings in an Investigation Findings Report dated March 16, 2017. Based on their investigation, Compliance Services determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude the employer terminated the worker's employment as a form of reprisal for the worker having filed a WCB claim or having carried out a duty under The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act").

On January 25, 2018, the worker's representative requested that Review Office reconsider Compensation Services' January 8, 2016 decision. The representative submitted that the worker was entitled to full wage loss benefits beyond both October 6 and October 20, 2015, as his employment was likely terminated for reasons related to his claim/compensable injury and he continued to suffer from the effects of his compensable injury and resulting loss of earning capacity well past those dates. The employer provided a submission in support of the WCB's decision, and the worker's representative provided a response to that submission.

On May 7, 2018, Review Office determined that the worker was not entitled to full wage loss benefits from October 7 to 20, 2015, and was not entitled to wage loss benefits beyond October 20, 2015. Review Office found it appropriate to pay the worker partial wage loss benefits as if he had continued in a gradual return to work. Review Office further found that the evidence supported the worker's injury was improving and the medical reports recommended he continue increasing his hours and duties over the next few weeks. Review Office concluded that had the worker's employment not been terminated, he would have gradually increased his hours to full hours with no restrictions.

On May 30, 2018, the worker's representative appealed the Review Office decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was arranged and held on September 5, 2019. Following the hearing, the panel requested further submissions from the parties with respect to the worker's loss of earning capacity and entitlement to wage loss benefits in relation to his compensable injury, notwithstanding his termination, and the hearing was reconvened and continued by videoconference on April 28, 2021.

Additional information was requested by the panel following the continuation of the hearing. The requested information was received and shared with the parties for comment, and on October 28, 2021, the appeal panel met to discuss the case further and render its final decision on the issues under appeal.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the Act, regulations made under the Act and policies of the WCB's Board of Directors.

Section 37 of the Act provides that where, as a result of an accident, a worker sustains a loss of earning capacity or an impairment, or requires medical aid, compensation is payable.

Subsection 39(1) of the Act provides that wage loss benefits will be paid "…where an injury to a worker results in a loss of earning capacity…" Subsection 39(2) provides that the WCB will pay wage loss benefits until such time as the worker's loss of earning capacity ends, or the worker attains the age of 65 years.

Subsection 22(1) of the Act addresses a worker's obligation to co-operate and mitigate, and states:

22(1) Every worker must

(a) take all reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate any impairment or loss of earnings resulting from an injury; 

… 

(c) co-operate with the board in developing and implementing programs for returning to work, rehabilitation or disability management or any other program the board considers necessary to promote the worker's recovery.

Subsection 22(2) sets out the consequences of a failure to co-operate and mitigate, as follows:

22(2) If a worker fails to comply with subsection (1), the board may reduce or suspend the compensation payable to the worker.

Subsection 19.1(2) of the Act deals with discriminatory action. Subsection 19.1(2)(b) provides, in part, that "No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall take or threaten to take discriminatory action against a person for…exercising any right or carrying out any duty in accordance with this Act or the regulations."

Subsection 19.1(3) deals with the matter of onus and provides, in part, that if, in a prosecution or other proceeding under the Act, it is established that discriminatory action was taken against a person after he or she exercised any right or carried out any duty in accordance with the Act or the regulations, the employer is presumed to have taken the discriminatory action contrary to subsection (2). The employer may rebut the presumption by showing that the action taken was not related to such conduct.

"Discriminatory action" is defined in subsection 19.1(5) as including "…any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that adversely affects a worker's employment, including a transfer, demotion, layoff or termination."

WCB Policy 43.20.25, Return to Work with the Accident Employer (the "Return to Work Policy"), outlines the WCB's approach to the return to work of injured workers through modified or alternate duties with the accident employer.

WCB Policy 44.10.30.60, Co-operation and Mitigation in Recovery (the "Co-operation and Mitigation Policy"), elaborates on the responsibilities of workers and the WCB in ensuring compliance with section 22 of the Act. The Policy notes that the Act requires that workers take all reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate any impairment or loss of earnings resulting from a workplace injury. The Policy provides that an injured worker is required to participate reasonably in their return to work, rehabilitation, disability management and other programs.

Worker's Position

The worker was represented by a worker advisor, who provided two written submissions in advance of the hearing, and made oral presentations at the hearing and the continuation of the hearing. The worker responded to questions from his representative, and the worker and his representative responded to questions from the panel.

The worker's position, as set out in his Appeal of Claims Decision form, was that:

…the employer terminated him because he sustained a workplace injury…When terminated, the worker was still dealing with the effects of his compensable left elbow injury, which caused an ongoing loss of earning capacity and need for medical aid.

The worker's representative submitted at the hearing that the worker is entitled to additional wage loss benefits because he experienced a loss of earning capacity beyond October 7, 2015 and beyond October 20, 2015 due to the termination of his employment.

The worker's representative argued that Compensation Services and Review Office relied entirely on the investigation by the WCB's Compliance Services into the termination of the worker's employment, concluding that the employer did not terminate the worker for claim-related reasons. The representative outlined a number of concerns they had with the Compliance Services investigation, arguing that it was both incomplete and unbalanced in favour of the employer, and asked that the panel attach little weight to the conclusions reached by the Compliance Services investigators.

The worker's representative conceded that the panel does not have to determine whether the employer had "just cause" to terminate the worker's employment. The representative stated that in their view, what must be determined is whether the termination occurred for reasons related to the worker's claim and/or injury. It was submitted that for this, the burden of proof rests with the employer, and the employer had not satisfied that burden. The representative submitted that this was effectively a "he said/she said scenario," where the employer claims the termination had nothing to do with the worker's claim or injury and the worker asserts that it did.

With respect to the medical evidence on file, the worker's representative noted that the accepted compensable injuries were a left elbow sprain and lateral epicondylitis. The representative submitted that at the very least, the epicondylitis persisted well beyond October 2015, as supported by reports from the worker's physician that were submitted in advance of the hearing, and by the November 2015 opinion of the WCB medical advisor. The representative noted that it was not until April 5, 2016 that the worker's treating physician observed recovery and approved a return to unrestricted work. The representative stated that the worker was therefore seeking full wage loss benefits from October 7, 2015 through to April 5, 2016.

Employer's Position

The employer was represented by their Human Resource Manager and by the employer's CEO. The employer's representative also provided a written submission in advance of the hearing and made oral presentations at the hearing and at its continuation.

The employer's position was that the worker was not entitled to further wage loss benefits beyond October 6, 2015, as his employment was terminated as of that date for insubordination, and his appeal should be dismissed.

The employer's representative submitted that the worker's employment was terminated on October 6, 2015 for multiple counts of insubordination towards his supervisors and plant manager, as indicated in their files. The representative noted that the employer encourages and values open communication and mutual respect, and views insubordination as a serious offence.

The employer's representative submitted that there was sufficient evidence to support that the worker had a history of insubordination during his employment, which was shown through a disregard for safety, authority, policies and people. It was noted that the worker's behaviour continued after numerous opportunities to improve, but ultimately led to his termination when his behaviour did not change.

It was submitted that the employer cannot continue to employ anyone who continually jeopardizes others through their disregard for safety, affects the well-being of others and negatively impacts operations. The employer's representative added that they could respect the fact that the termination would have put a level of financial strain on the worker. The representative submitted, however, that they were strongly of the view they did everything they could to support the back to work program up until the point of termination, and that the worker was not entitled to further benefits beyond that date.

Analysis

Issue 1: Whether or not the worker is entitled to full wage loss benefits from October 7, 2015 to October 20, 2015.

The worker's employment was terminated by the employer on October 6, 2015, while the worker was engaged in a graduated return to work program. The worker has received partial wage loss benefits for the period of time from October 7 to October 20, 2015, consistent with the benefits he was receiving under the graduated return to work program when his employment was terminated. The worker is seeking an increase in his benefits, to full wage loss benefits, for that period of time.

For the worker's appeal on this issue to be successful, the panel must find, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker suffered a further loss of earning capacity between October 7 and October 20, 2015 as a result of his July 13, 2015 workplace accident. For the reasons that follow, the panel is able to make that finding.

The panel notes that the worker's claim was initially accepted for a left elbow strain injury, with findings of lateral epicondylitis being subsequently reported. The panel is satisfied that the medical evidence supports the worker had not materially recovered from his compensable injury by October 6, 2015, when his employment was terminated.

The employer has maintained that the worker's employment was dismissed for insubordination. The panel notes that it is not the function of the Appeal Commission or this panel to determine whether the termination of the worker's employment was justified or appropriate. The Appeal Commission is not a specialist in labour relations, and there are other forums which deal with such matters. The panel is limited to reviewing the facts of the case to determine whether the worker's loss of earning capacity subsequent to the termination of his employment on October 6, 2015 was causally related to his July 13, 2015 workplace accident.

In this regard, the panel is satisfied that the termination of employment should not automatically, or on its own, be considered an intervening event which breaks the causal link between a subsequent loss of earnings and a worker's compensable injury. In the panel's view, it would not be appropriate to treat termination as parallel to, or the same as, quitting or refusing an offer of suitable work, as this would have the effect of conferring on an employer the power to terminate loss of earnings benefits and/or a return to work process or program. Conferring such a power or effect on an employer would give the employer authority over benefit entitlement which, in the panel's view, is not consistent with the historic principles of workers compensation as referred to in the preamble to the Act or with the purpose or intent of the Act.

The panel notes that the function and jurisdiction of the WCB and the Appeal Commission is to consider and determine responsibilities and entitlements under the Act. Such responsibilities and entitlements must be viewed from the perspective of the Act. The worker's rights, and actions and conduct should therefore be considered in determining whether the intervening event broke the chain of causation between the worker's compensable injury and his subsequent loss of earnings. In a case where the worker was engaged in a return to work process and their employment was terminated, the panel has an obligation to consider whether the worker was reasonably participating and co-operating in the return to work program at that time, as contemplated under the Act and the Co-operation and Mitigation Policy.

In addressing the issues in this case, the panel first considered whether the termination of the worker's employment itself was related to his workplace injury. While the worker has argued that the termination of his employment was related to the workplace injury, the panel is unable to make that finding.

Whether or not the employer discriminated against the worker contrary to section 19.1 of the Act was investigated by Compliance Services in respect of this claim and addressed in their report. The panel acknowledges Compliance Services' conclusion, following their investigation, that there was not enough evidence to support that the employer discriminated against the worker or terminated his employment because he exercised a right or carried out a duty in accordance with the Act and regulations.

A considerable amount of time was spent by the parties in the course of the file and at the hearing dealing with the Compliance Services investigation and report.The panel acknowledges the concerns expressed by the worker's representative with respect to how that investigation proceeded and its conclusions. The panel notes that section 19.1 is a separate provision which is focused on an employer's actions and deals with whether an employer has committed an offence and is subject to an administrative penalty as a result of discriminatory action. The findings from the Compliance Services investigation were not under appeal or at issue on this appeal. Section 19.1 has no direct bearing on, nor is it determinative of, whether a worker is entitled to ongoing wage loss benefits following the termination of their employment

A significant amount of evidence was presented and reviewed at the hearing with respect to the history of the worker's employment with the employer and his return to work following the workplace accident. Based on our review of the evidence, on file and as provided at the hearing, the panel is not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the employer's decision to terminate the worker's employment was influenced by the workplace injury or that the worker's compensable injury was a factor in his dismissal.

The panel notes that while section 49.3 of the Act provides that employers who fall within the scope of that section have further obligations with respect to re-employing injured workers, no issue was raised in this instance with respect to such re-employment obligations, as the requirements for the application of that section were not met in this case. 

The panel is of the view, however, that this is not the end of the matter. As indicated previously, the panel also has an obligation in addressing the issues in this case is to consider the worker's actions within the context of the Act, and in particular, the worker's duty under section 22 of the Act to participate and co-operate in his return to work, given that loss of earnings benefits are payable to an injured worker provided he is co-operating in a return to work.

While it might be argued from an employer's perspective that a worker would have ceased to co-operate when their employment was terminated, the panel is of the view that the Act must be interpreted more broadly. If being terminated, as a result of the employer's decision, means a worker has not co-operated, the worker arguably has no ability to demonstrate the opposite. In the panel's view, this would seem to be too narrow an interpretation for a no-fault system.

The focus therefore should be on the nature of the worker's conduct and actions prior to termination and whether he complied with his obligations under the Act. The panel notes that a worker can frustrate the duty to participate and co-operate in a number of ways which could result in a suspension of benefits, such as by refusing suitable modified work, absenting themselves from the workplace, or engaging in such serious misconduct as theft or assault.

In the instant case, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker did not fail to co-operate in the return to work process. There is no dispute that the worker was participating in modified duties. The worker indicated in his evidence that he thought everything was fine; that there was never any indication that anything was wrong and he was taken completely unaware when he was told his employment was terminated. While the employer has relied on a claim of insubordination, particularly with respect to a failure to follow the required procedure for ordering parts, the panel notes that this was a recent change in what was being required from what had previously been done. The panel further notes that there are inconsistencies in the evidence, including with respect to when this system was to start and whether the worker had in fact failed to follow the required procedure once it was implemented.

The employer also relied on one written warning on the worker's employee file and other incidents prior to the date of the workplace incident, in respect of which they said the worker had been given what they considered to be verbal warnings which were noted on his employee file. The worker's evidence was that he had not felt these were warnings and was not aware of them being noted on his file. The employer's representative indicated at the hearing that they had had previous and ongoing concerns with respect to the worker, and finally determined that "it was time to part ways and this was how we decided it was best to part ways." The panel is not satisfied that any such previous concerns represent a pattern of conduct which, in conjunction with the worker's actions or conduct during the return to work program, indicated he was not reasonably participating or co-operating in that program.

In the circumstances, the panel is unable to find that the worker's actions or conduct were of such a nature or extent as to frustrate the return to work process or break the chain of causation between the worker's compensable injury and his loss of earning capacity. The panel is not satisfied, therefore, that the worker contravened or failed to comply with his obligations under the return to work process.

The panel has previously found that as of October 6, 2015, the worker had not yet materially recovered from the effects of his workplace accident. With the termination of his employment, the worker was therefore at a disadvantage in terms of being able to seek alternate employment and earn income at his pre-accident rate or earnings or to mitigate the effects of his compensable injury.

The evidence indicates that the worker had restrictions as a result of his compensable injury and had been working on a graduated return to work basis, 3 days a week on modified duties for the 3 weeks prior to the termination of his employment. The panel is satisfied, based on the available evidence, that the worker's condition was gradually improving, and notes that the medical reports were recommending he increase his hours and duties over the next few weeks.

The panel is further satisfied that had the worker's employment not been terminated, he would have been able to gradually increase his hours to full-time hours with restrictions by October 20, 2015, and full-time hours with no restrictions by November 18, 2015. In this regard, the panel accepts and places significant weight on the January 8, 2016 opinion of the WCB medical advisor, who reviewed the worker's file and opined that:

Assuming [the worker] was appropriately mitigating the effects of his injury by attending physiotherapy or more importantly performing regular home exercise directed at his elbow condition, gradual resolution of the condition would be anticipated. Had his employment not been terminated, it would have been anticipated that he would have been capable of increasing to full hours of modified duties at approx. 3 weeks after the Sept 29 2015 physician assessment. After a further 3-4 weeks, it would be expected that he would have been capable of progressing to unrestricted duties.

In conclusion, the panel is satisfied that the chain of causation between the workplace accident and the worker's loss of earnings was not broken, and that the worker's loss of earning capacity following the termination of his employment was causally related to his workplace accident and injury.

Based on the foregoing, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker suffered a further loss of earning capacity from October 7, 2015 to October 20, 2015 as a result of his July 13, 2015 workplace accident and injury, and that he is entitled to full wage loss benefits for that period of time.

The worker's appeal on this issue is allowed.

Issue 2: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after October 20, 2015.

For the worker's appeal on this issue to be successful, the panel must find, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker suffered a loss of earning capacity after October 20, 2015 as a result of his July 13, 2015 workplace accident. For the reasons that follow, the panel is able to make that finding.

The panel has previously found, under Issue No. 1 above, that the worker's condition was gradually improving and he would have been expected to progress to functional recovery and full unrestricted duties within 6 to 7 weeks after the September 29, 2015 physician assessment, or as of November 18, 2015.

The panel notes that the worker's representative has suggested that the WCB medical advisor's January 8, 2016 opinion that the worker would have been capable of returning to unrestricted duties within 6 to 7 weeks was speculative. The panel is unable to accept that suggestion. The representative argued that the medical advisor's opinion was based in part on an assumption that the worker was appropriately mitigating the effects of his injury by attending physiotherapy and was performing regular home exercise directed at his elbow condition. The panel notes, however, that although the evidence shows that the worker was not attending physiotherapy after October 7, 2015, the WCB medical advisor had indicated that treatment at a physiotherapy clinic was not required, and that performance of simple home exercises on a daily or every other day basis was sufficient. The worker further advised at the hearing that he had copied the exercises he was doing at physiotherapy, as well as exercises he had been doing following his injury 15 years earlier, and continued performing those exercises on a daily basis. In the circumstances, the panel is satisfied that the medical and other evidence supports that the worker would have functionally recovered within that 6 to 7 week period of time.

The panel is further unable to accept the worker's position that he continued to suffer a loss of earning capacity through to April 5, 2016 as a result of his compensable injury. While the worker suggested that he had suffered an additional or subsequent injury on October 5, 2015 which resulted in a worsening of his condition, the panel is unable to make that finding. In this regard, the panel finds that there is a lack of medical or other evidence to support that such an injury occurred. Information on file indicates the worker did not advise the WCB until January 12, 2016 that he had reinjured himself on October 5, 2015, the day before the termination of his employment, while installing a large motor. The panel finds it significant that even though the worker attended an offsite meeting with his case manager on October 14, 2015, there is no indication in the file notes of that meeting that the worker reported a re-injury/new injury to the case manager at that time.

The panel is satisfied that the worker was well aware of the WCB processes and would have reasonably known of his obligation or need to report such a re-injury or new injury in a timely manner and the possible detrimental impact of a delay in reporting. The panel is further satisfied that even if the worker had suffered such a re-injury as subsequently described, he would have been acting outside his restrictions at that time.

The panel further notes that while a progress report from the worker's family physician for an examination on October 8, 2015 indicates that the worker was complaining that "his condition has deteriorated," the report goes on to state that "we don't know what made it worst (sic) but it seems to be related to his work." The panel is not able to account for such a worsening of the worker's condition, or deterioration of his condition as reported in the October 8, 2015 doctor's report, in relation to the July 13, 2015 workplace injury.

Based on the foregoing, and on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the worker suffered a loss of earning capacity after October 20, 2015, through to November 18, 2015, as a result of his July 13, 2015 workplace accident, and is entitled to wage loss benefits for that period of time, the extent and amount of which are to be determined by the WCB.

The worker's appeal on this issue is allowed, in part.

Panel Members

M. L. Harrison, Presiding Officer
P. Challoner, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

M. L. Harrison - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 13th day of December, 2021