The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that a deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week is appropriate. A videoconference hearing was held on June 20, 2023 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week.

Decision

It is not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week.

Background

The worker filed a claim with the WCB for an injury to his left talus and ankle that occurred at work on November 14, 2014 when a ladder he was climbing slipped, causing the worker to fall to the ground. The worker's claim was accepted by the WCB for a fracture of the left talus on November 25, 2014. The worker underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture on November 15, 2014, and further surgery to the left ankle and talus on February 26, 2016, including removal of hardware and screws. Additional treatments, including physiotherapy and pain medication, were approved.

On April 20, 2016, the WCB contacted the worker to discuss his claim. The worker advised he had ongoing and increasing pain in his ankle after the surgery and described the pain as a burning sensation, followed by a feeling of someone stabbing him in the foot over and over, then a feeling similar to electrical shocks in his foot. As the worker expressed feeling overwhelmed with the pain, the WCB suggested psychological counselling to help him deal with the compensable injury.

On June 1, 2016, the worker attended an initial assessment with a psychologist. A September 16, 2016 report was received from the worker's treating psychologist after the worker attended four sessions. The psychologist opined the worker met the criteria for Somatic Symptom Disorder, with predominant pain, and Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.

Due to ongoing pain complaints, the worker attended a call-in examination with a WCB orthopedic consultant on October 12, 2016. The orthopedic consultant reviewed the diagnostic imaging and agreed the imaging supported the talar fracture had united and identified no significant abnormalities. The consultant went on to note that even though the fracture had united, the painful symptoms persisted at the site of the injury, and opined that the worker's current symptoms were related to the workplace accident. The consultant recommended restrictions of no prolonged standing or walking more than ten minutes; no repetitive stair climbing; and no ladder climbing, to be reviewed in six months.

Following the call-in examination, the worker met with his WCB case manager who advised she would be contacting a WCB vocational rehabilitation consultant to start an early intervention vocational rehabilitation plan as it was felt the worker's restrictions would likely become permanent and the worker would not be able to return to his pre-accident employment.

A Vocational Rehabilitation Initial Assessment report was completed on October 27, 2016. The WCB vocational rehabilitation consultant recommended further vocational and academic assessment to develop a vocational rehabilitation plan for the worker. In January 2017, the worker began a tutoring program to upgrade his academic training. A Vocational Rehabilitation Progress Report was placed on the worker's file on March 17, 2017, noting the worker's progress towards upgrading his education, to lead towards post-secondary training.

On March 22, 2017, at the request of the WCB, the worker attended a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) with a WCB physiotherapy consultant. The physiotherapy consultant placed a memorandum on the worker's file on the same date, indicating the worker did not participate in the required FCE activities and the worker indicated he avoided climbing stairs, crouching, squatting, kneeling and crawling, only stood on his right leg to retrieve items from the floor, and avoided lifting, carrying, pushing or pulling. The WCB physiotherapy consultant noted that as it was apparent the results would be incomplete/not able to be interpreted, the FCE was stopped and "No meaningful data was obtained."

A Vocational Rehabilitation Plan was developed for the worker under National Occupation Classification (NOC) 2282, User Support Technician to start on August 21, 2017 and end in November 2018 after a 17-week job search period. The worker began training for NOC 2282 on August 21, 2017. Regular status updates and progress reports were received by the vocational rehabilitation consultant.

On November 29, 2017, the worker attended a further call-in examination with the WCB orthopedic consultant, who provided restrictions for the worker of no standing or walking more than 15 minutes; minimal walking over rough ground; no ladder climbing or repetitive stair climbing; and no squatting or crawling, and recommended the restrictions be made permanent.

On April 10, 2018, the worker's Vocational Rehabilitation Plan was amended to extend the end date to December 22, 2018. On July 10, 2018, the worker discussed his claim with the WCB. The worker advised he was experiencing increased difficulties with pain and stress due to personal issues. The WCB recommended the worker return to counselling with the treating psychologist.

In a further discussion on July 17, 2018, the worker advised the WCB that he had not been attending his training program due to pain, and the WCB advised there would be no change to the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan which was set to be completed in December 2018.

At a meeting with the worker on November 29, 2018, the worker's WCB case manager agreed to extend the worker's Vocational Rehabilitation Plan to January 8, 2019 to allow the worker time to complete his retraining program. On January 11, 2019, the case manager advised the worker that his Vocational Rehabilitation Plan was amended to extend the end date, following the job search period, to May 3, 2019.

On February 1, 2019, the WCB was advised that the worker had successfully completed his retraining course. A Vocational Rehabilitation Deem Summary was completed on March 18, 2019, which noted the worker was considered fully employable in NOC 2282, and recommended he be deemed capable of working within that NOC and his wage loss benefits be reduced by the starting wage in that NOC effective May 3, 2019.

On May 29, 2019, the WCB received a Discharge Report from the worker's treating psychologist, who noted the worker had attended six further sessions since their last update on September 19, 2018 and had been actively involved in treatment. The psychologist noted the worker last attended on January 24, 2019, at which time he described "…continued benefit in developing or reviewing cognitive-behavioural strategies to assist him in managing mood and anxiety symptoms related to his pain and disability." The psychologist indicated the worker also reported "…continued depressive symptoms and anxiety related to stress surrounding his ongoing physical symptoms and involvement in rehabilitation, with these sometimes being difficult to manage and with continued disruption of his daily function due (sic) pain and pain-related emotional distress."

During a meeting with the WCB on May 30, 2019, the worker indicated he had not completed the certification portion of the course he had taken and requested an extension from the WCB to complete the required courses. On July 3, 2019, the worker contacted the WCB to advise he had to retake an examination which was required for his certification. In addition, the worker had noted he had recently stopped taking opioid medications he had been taking for a long time at his own expense and was experiencing difficulties as a result, and the WCB case manager suggested the worker be referred to a second psychologist who specialized in addiction treatment to assist with reducing or limiting pain medications. The worker agreed with the referral, and on July 10, 2019, the WCB referred the worker to a second psychologist.

On August 21, 2019, the WCB received a report from the worker's second treating psychologist, who noted the worker had ongoing "…depressive symptoms and anxiety related to stress, associated with ongoing physical symptoms (e.g. chronic pain)." In summary, based on the worker's clinical presentation, reported symptoms, and a review of his past medical history and other related information, the psychologist opined that the worker met the criteria for Somatic Symptom Disorder, with Pre-Dominant Pain, as well as Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The psychologist recommended continued psychological treatment, including the use of cognitive behaviour therapy.

On October 24, 2019, at the request of the WCB, the worker attended a call-in assessment with the WCB's Pain Management Unit, consisting of a joint interview conducted by a WCB medical advisor and a WCB psychological advisor. In his Medical Assessment Notes relating to that examination, the WCB medical advisor noted that there was an apparent lack of benefit to pain and function with the worker's use of opioids. The medical advisor further noted the worker's Acetaminophen usage was higher than the recommended maximum daily dose, and the maximum daily dose was recommended for short-term/acute use only and not for long-term use as in the worker's case. The medical advisor recommended the worker discuss a 12-week opioid weaning program with his treating family physician, and provided further recommendations for adjustments to the worker's medications, to be discussed with his family physician, including the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication to benefit the worker's pain and function.

In her Psychological Assessment Notes related to the October 24, 2019 examination, the WCB's psychological advisor opined that there did not appear to be "…a psychological condition that would preclude [the worker's] participation in some form of paid employment, although on a graduated and/or part-time basis initially." The advisor further opined that based on the reports of the treating psychologists, there did "…appear to be Somatic Symptom Disorder with significant disability focus and a reported sedentary lifestyle," and that functional clarification with respect to the worker's capabilities might be beneficial.

On May 11, 2020, the WCB received a final discharge report from the worker's second treating psychologist, who again opined that the worker presented with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood and Somatic Symptom Disorder, with pre-dominant pain. The psychologist further opined that the worker had reached maximum medical improvement and would not benefit from an extension of treatment. The worker's current general prognosis was noted to be poor. Under recommendations, the psychologist noted "From a psychological stand point, there are no psychological factors to preclude [the worker's] future return to employment. He does not present with symptoms of mental disorders and he denied having suicidal thoughts or intent."

In a letter to the worker dated January 20, 2021, the WCB noted that the worker had been referred for psychological services in July 2019 and in May 2020, the worker's treating psychologist discharged the worker from treatment, indicating there were no psychological factors to preclude the worker's future return to employment. The WCB noted that a similar opinion was provided following assessment by the WCB's Pain Management Unit on October 24, 2019. The WCB advised the worker that his file would therefore be referred to a committee to determine if his Vocational Rehabilitation Plan was appropriate. On February 10, 2021, the WCB's Deem Committee agreed with the recommendation that the earning capacity for NOC 2282 should be implemented and the worker's wage loss benefits reduced equivalent to the earning capacity for that NOC.

On February 18, 2021, the WCB received a report from the worker's treating family physician indicating the worker had a telephone visit on February 8, 2021 regarding increased anxiety and feeling depressed. The physician noted the worker complained of having anxiety attacks three times a day, as well as low mood, irritability, withdrawing from family and friends, difficulty with sleep, lack of interest and low energy. The physician noted the worker was started on medication to help with his anxiety and depression and referred to a psychiatrist. The physician opined that the worker was not able to return to work due to his mental health and required further psychiatric assessment and management.

On March 1, 2021, the WCB advised the worker that effective February 23, 2021, being the date of completion of the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan, his wage loss benefits would be reduced based on the earning capacity in NOC 2282.

On June 3, 2021, the worker's representative requested that the WCB reconsider the March 1, 2021 decision to reduce the worker's wage loss benefits, noting the worker's treating healthcare providers supported his inability to work and he had not been provided with adequate notice of the reduction. On June 24, 2021, the WCB advised the worker that they agreed with the representative's position regarding the notice provided and an additional one week payment of full wages, from February 23 to March 2, 2021, was provided.

On July 21, 2021, the WCB advised that they had determined the worker had recovered from the effects of the November 14, 2014 workplace injury and surgery, and any ongoing physical or psychological difficulties would no longer be related to his claim. The WCB advised that the worker would therefore not be entitled to wage loss benefits after July 28, 2021, and his file would be closed.

On July 23, 2021, the worker's representative expressed several concerns with respect to the WCB's decision, and on July 26, 2021, the WCB agreed to extend the worker's entitlement to wage loss benefits pending further review and investigation.

On September 29, 2021, the WCB requested review of the worker's file by a WCB psychiatric consultant and a WCB orthopedic consultant. On October 14, 2021, the WCB's orthopedic consultant opined that the information on the worker's file "…does not support the existence of any ongoing compensable issues of a post-traumatic nature." The orthopedic consultant noted the worker did not have a pre-existing condition that might account for the worker's ongoing complaints, and the restrictions outlined on file were based on the worker's subjective complaints. The consultant opined that further investigations and/or additional treatments would not likely provide useful information in terms of addressing the worker's complaints.

On October 21, 2021, the WCB's psychiatric consultant confirmed the treating psychologist's diagnoses of Somatic Symptom Disorder with predominant pain and Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The psychiatric consultant noted that while there is an inadequate anatomic or structural basis for the experienced pain in a somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, "…the pain is genuinely experienced by the individual who is diagnosed with this condition." The consultant noted that in a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, "…there is no psychiatric contraindication for engaging in vocational activities." The consultant also noted, however, that an "…individual diagnosed with this condition needs to be accommodated for those times when the pain experience is beyond their coping capacity. The variableness of the pain in somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain and its effect on function precludes determination of minimum weekly/monthly work hours."

On February 15, 2022, the worker attended a virtual video call-in examination with another WCB psychiatric consultant with respect to the possibility of an opioid use disorder. Following that examination, the WCB psychiatric consultant opined that the worker's opioid use disorder was in sustained remission and was not medically accounted for in relation to the November 14, 2014 workplace accident.

On April 27, 2022, the worker attended a further call-examination with a WCB physical medicine and rehabilitation consultant and the WCB's Chief Medical Officer. In their Examination Notes, the physical medicine and rehabilitation consultant and Chief Medical Officer opined that based on their review of the medical information on the worker's file and their April 27, 2022 examination of the worker, "…the overall nature of [the worker's] reported symptoms involving his left ankle/foot, the degree of impairment he reports in relation to same as well as the degree of sensitivity around the left foot and ankle that he indicated on today's examination are beyond that which is reasonably structurally/anatomically accounted for in relation to the November 14, 2014 left talar fracture and associated surgeries for same." It was noted that this evaluation appeared to be consistent with the July 20, 2018 assessment by the worker's treating orthopedic surgeon that no reason could be identified for the worker's reported pain. It was further noted that in a telephone discussion with the worker's treating family physician on May 30, 2022, the Chief Medical Officer recommended an updated MRI be ordered for the worker's left foot.

The worker underwent an MRI of the left foot and ankle on July 19, 2022. On August 30, 2022, after reviewing the results of the MRI and chart notes from the worker's treating family physician, the WCB physical medicine and rehabilitation consultant and Chief Medical Officer confirmed their opinion as expressed in their April 27, 2022 examination notes, and opined that in relation to the July 2022 left foot and ankle MRI findings, the permanent restrictions recommended by the WCB orthopedic consultant on October 10, 2018 remained unchanged.

On September 14, 2022, the WCB provided a further decision letter to the worker dated September 9. In summary, the WCB acknowledged the worker had permanent restrictions for his left ankle injury, based on which he had received vocational rehabilitation, and determined that from a patho-anatomic perspective, he was still capable of working within NOC 2282. With respect to secondary psychological conditions, the WCB accepted that the worker had Somatic Symptom Disorder, which continued, and Adjustment Disorder, which had resolved. The WCB further determined that appropriate treatment had been provided and neither of these psychological conditions required restrictions, and that the worker had appropriately been deemed capable of working full-time at the current earning capacity in NOC 2282.

On October 14, 2022, the worker's representative requested that Review Office reconsider the WCB's decisions, including the decision that it was appropriate to deem the worker capable of working full time within NOC 2282. The representative submitted that the WCB's determination that the worker was capable of working full-time in NOC 2282 was not supportable or justified. The worker's representative also noted that further treatment, including a trial of medication and further therapy was recommended by the WCB psychiatric consultant, which had not been taken into account when determining the worker was capable of working full-time.

On November 24, 2022, Review Office determined that a deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week was appropriate. Review Office found that based on the evidence on file, the worker was at the very least capable of performing the job duties associated with NOC 2282 on a part-time basis, and concluded that a return to work at 20 hours per week was appropriate, given the tools/techniques that had been provided to the worker for symptom management, and would allow for the times the worker found his symptoms precluded him from performing the work activities associated with that NOC.

On March 8, 2023, the worker's representative appealed the Review Office decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), regulations made under the Act, and policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors. The provisions of the Act which were in effect as at the date of the worker's accident are applicable.

Subsection 4(1) of the Act provides that compensation shall be paid where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Subsection 27(20) of the Act deals with compensation in the form of academic, vocational and rehabilitative assistance to injured workers, and provides as follows:

Academic, vocational, rehabilitative assistance 

27(20) The board may make such expenditures from the accident fund as it considers necessary or advisable to provide academic or vocational training, or rehabilitative or other assistance to a worker for such period of time as the board determines where, as a result of an accident, the worker 

(a) could, in the opinion of the board, experience a long-term loss of earning capacity; 

(b) requires assistance to reduce or remove the effect of a handicap resulting from the injury; or 

(c) requires assistance in the activities of daily living.

WCB Board Policy 43.00, Vocational Rehabilitation (the "VR Policy"), explains the goals and describes the terms and conditions of academic, vocational, and rehabilitative assistance available to a worker under subsection 27(20) of the Act. It is noted that such assistance is referred to as vocational rehabilitation and "…is intended to help a worker achieve maximum physical, psychological, economic and social recovery from the effects of a work-related injury or illness."

Part B of the VR Policy provides, in part, as follows:

I. Goals and Objectives 

1. The goal of vocational rehabilitation is to help the worker to achieve a return to sustainable employment in an occupation which reasonably takes into consideration the worker's post-injury physical capacity, skills, aptitudes and, where possible, interests. 

2. The WCB will help the worker as much as possible to be as employable as she or he was before the injury or illness. Once this is done and when necessary, the WCB will provide reasonable assistance to the worker so that she or he actually returns to work. However, services may not always continue until the worker actually returns to work. 

…

WCB Policy 44.80.30.20, Post-Accident Earnings – Deemed Earning Capacity (the "Deem Policy"), describes when a worker will be deemed capable of earning an amount that he or she is not actually earning and how the deemed earning capacity will be determined. The Deem Policy states, in part:

Generally speaking, the WCB will deem an earning capacity in one of two situations: in the context of vocational rehabilitation or in the context of a recurrence following a voluntary reduction in earnings unrelated to the compensable injury.

In the context of vocational rehabilitation, the Deem Policy provides, in part, as follows:

1. DEEMED EARNING CAPACITY AND REHABILITATION: 

a) Deemed earning capacity will typically be demonstrated in the context of vocational rehabilitation activity. Generally, vocational rehabilitation is designed to maximize the worker's post-accident earnings and keep the loss of earning capacity to a minimum. Detail on the goal and process for vocational rehabilitation within the WCB is provided in WCB policy 43.00, Vocational Rehabilitation. 

b) The decision to use deemed earning capacity will be secondary to the more important consideration of developing and completing an effective vocational rehabilitation plan. Deemed earning capacity will generally be used as a last resort after all reasonable or available vocational rehabilitation/ re-employment options have been exhausted. 

…

3. REQUIREMENTS FOR WCB TO DEMONSTRATE DEEMED EARNING CAPACITY: 

a) The WCB must demonstrate (through vocational assessment, plan development, and documentation) that the worker is capable of competitively finding, competing for, obtaining, and keeping employment in the occupation or group of occupations on which the earning capacity is based. 

b) The WCB must demonstrate that the worker has the physical capacity, education, skills, aptitudes, interests, and personal qualities needed to obtain and keep employment in the occupation or group of occupations in the labour market. 

c) The WCB must demonstrate that work exists for the occupation or group of occupations on which the earning capacity is to be based. …

4. DEEMED EARNING CAPACITY FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF A PLAN: 

a) Deemed earning capacity will be used in the loss of earning capacity calculation when: 

i. The worker has completed the training part of the vocational rehabilitation plan designed to help the worker obtain new skills or improve current skills; 

ii. The worker has been given reasonable job search assistance (i.e., separate from the training part of the plan); 

iii. The information the plan was based on, including labour market analysis, has not substantially changed; 

…

Worker's Position

The worker attended the hearing by teleconference, and was represented by a worker advisor, who made an oral presentation on his behalf. The worker and his representative responded to questions from the panel.

The worker's position was that a deemed earning capacity based on the worker being able to work 20 hours per week on a consistent and ongoing basis is not realistic or medically supported, and should not have been implemented in this case.

The worker's representative submitted that the worker is not medically capable of sustained employment of any kind at any weekly number of hours based largely on his compensable psychological condition. The representative noted that while the WCB relied primarily on the WCB psychiatric consultants' October 2021 and February 15, 2022 opinions, the psychiatric consultant had stated in her October 2021 opinion that it was essentially impossible to determine a minimum number of weekly or monthly hours the worker would be capable of working. The representative submitted that this would also extend to a minimum number of daily hours, as it would not seem possible to determine a minimum number of hours the worker would be able to work in a day or from day to day, given the variable and unpredictable nature of the worker's psychological condition in particular. The representative noted the family physician had also opined in February 2021 that the worker was not capable of any form of work based on his mental health status.

It was submitted that Review Office's decision was their own. Unlike other decisions, where deemed earning capacities have been based on provided medical opinions, no medical professional had opined that the worker would be capable of working 20 hours per week. The representative's suggestion that the worker could work 20 hours per week was almost like a compromise scheme where Review Office found the worker was not totally disabled from all forms of work, but was not capable of working 40 hours per week on a sustained basis, and simply split the difference, selecting the midway point between zero and 40. Such an approach was speculative and unscientific, and Review Office provided no real explanation as to how they determined the worker could work 20 hours, as opposed to some other number of hours, per week.

The worker's representative noted that Review Office did not have access to information the WCB psychiatric consultant did not have access to, and based on the available information, the consultant did not say the worker was capable of working 20 hours per week. The representative submitted that Review Office's determination was therefore not only somewhat arbitrary or random, but also contrary to the psychiatric consultant's opinion that they could not predict the number of minimum weekly or monthly hours the worker would be capable of working given the variableness of the worker's condition.

The worker's representative also submitted that realistically, even if the worker had tried to secure employment, it is unlikely he would have been competitive against other candidates who did not have the same medical conditions or limitations as the worker, and highly unlikely an employer would have hired him in the circumstances. Further, or alternatively, if Review Office was suggesting the worker could compete for and secure a user support technician job working 20 hours per week, the WCB did not establish there was a sufficient labour market to support the current earning capacity, as the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan and earning capacity assessments were based on full-time work, and there was no breakdown as to what portion of the available jobs at that time were part-time as opposed to full-time.

In conclusion, it was submitted that the worker suffers from psychological conditions that render him either totally disabled or not employable on a sustainable basis, which will hopefully change in the future, but until that time, the deemed earning capacity which is currently in effect is unrealistic and at least in some ways unreasonable. The representative therefore requested that the panel reverse the Review Office decision and accept that the worker should have no deemed earning capacity at all.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is whether or not it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week. For the worker's appeal to be successful, the panel must find, on a balance of probabilities, that it is not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity for the worker based on 20 hours per week.

Based on our review and consideration of all of the evidence which is before us, the panel is satisfied that it is not appropriate to implement a deemed earning capacity for the worker based on 20 hours per week.

The panel notes that the issue on appeal is a narrow one, based on a specific deemed earning capacity of 20 hours per week.

The worker has an accepted claim for a left foot injury and related surgeries arising out of his November 14, 2014 workplace accident, and permanent restrictions related to that injury. The worker also has accepted psychological conditions of Somatic Symptom Disorder with predominant pain and Adjustment Disorder which are related to the workplace accident and injury.

The panel finds that the worker's permanent physical restrictions and accepted psychological conditions are barriers to his employment, and that the impact of those barriers on the worker's employability were not adequately or properly assessed or taken into consideration in identifying and implementing a deemed earning capacity of 20 hours per week for the worker.

In this regard, the panel finds that there is an absence of medical or other evidence to support a decision that the worker was capable of working 20 hours per week on a consistent or ongoing basis.

The panel places particular weight on the October 21, 2021 opinion of the WCB psychiatric consultant. The panel notes that the consultant stated with respect to somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, that "…there is no psychiatric contraindication for engaging in vocational activities" and that "engaging in meaningful productive activities, including work is encouraged." Having said that, the consultant went on to stipulate that:

At the same time, in light of the variability of the pain experience, the individual diagnosed with this condition needs to be accommodated for those times when the pain experience is beyond their coping capacity. The variableness of the pain in somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain and its effect on function precludes determination of minimum weekly/monthly work hours.

In the circumstances, the panel is unable to find an evidentiary basis for the determination that the worker was capable of working 20 hours per week. The panel is therefore satisfied that the implementation of a post-accident deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week was not appropriate.

Finally, the panel notes that while the worker's representative has argued that the worker's psychological conditions render him totally disabled or not employable on a sustainable basis, such that the worker should have no deemed earning capacity at all, the panel is unable to accept that argument or make such a determination based on the available evidence.

Based on the foregoing, and on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that it is not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity based on 20 hours per week.

The worker's appeal is therefore allowed.

Panel Members

M. L. Harrison, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 18th day of August, 2023