The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that their claim is not acceptable. A hearing took place on April 9, 2025 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

The worker provided a Worker Incident Report to the WCB on June 25, 2024, reporting an injury that occurred at work on June 8, 2024, which they reported to their manager on June 18, 2024. The worker described that when lifting an item onto a cart, they felt a strain in their lower abdomen and groin area and later noted a lump of increasing size as days passed, which caused discomfort. The employer also provided a report to the WCB on June 25, 2024 confirming the mechanism of injury and that the worker reported the incident on June 18, 2024. The employer reported the worker’s last day of work was June 13, 2024 and that the worker sought medical treatment on June 17, 2024.

The walk-in clinic physician’s chart notes confirm assessment of the worker on June 17, 2024, at which time the worker had swelling at the right inguinal area to the right side of their scrotum, which was increasing. The physician diagnosed an inguinal hernia and referred the worker to a surgeon for further treatment. When the worker followed up on June 19, 2024, another walk-in clinic physician noted the diagnosis of inguinal hernia with increasing symptoms and recommended the worker remain off work until evaluated by the surgeon. The surgeon assessed the worker on July 4, 2024, noting their complaint of a lump in their right groin with intermittent pain for approximately a month after lifting a heavy item at work. The surgeon diagnosed a large right inguinoscrotal hernia and referred the worker for surgery. The surgeon also provided a sick note backdated to June 16, 2024, noting the worker should remain off work until the surgery and for 6 months afterward.

In conversation with the WCB on July 17, 2024, the worker confirmed the mechanism of injury and advised that each item they were moving on June 8, 2024 weighed approximately 25-30 pounds and that they did not twist when lifting. The worker further confirmed that after lifting the second or third heavy item, they felt a cramp in their groin area, causing them to stop and adjust, before continuing to work to the end of their shift. The worker indicated there were no witnesses to the incident and that they worked two more shifts before they began to feel very uncomfortable, and noticed the lump had enlarged such that they felt they should seek medical treatment. The worker advised that on seeking medical treatment, they learned they had a scrotal hernia, likely from lifting. The worker noted they did not have any prior hernia or pain in that area and described current symptoms of pressure on their testicle when sitting or walking, with sitting becoming uncomfortable after a while and some relief when laying down. On July 26, 2024, the worker advised the WCB that surgery was scheduled for August 6, 2024.

On August 27, 2024, the WCB advised the worker that the claim was not acceptable as it could not establish the worker sustained an injury at work, noting the worker continued working their shifts in the following days and did not immediately seek medical attention or advise the employer of their injury. As such, the claim was not acceptable.

The worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision. The worker’s submission outlined a timeline of the events after the injury. The worker submitted they did not delay in seeking medical treatment or advising the employer of their injury but did so when they knew the extent of their injury after seeing the physician. On November 13, 2024, the employer provided a submission in support of the WCB’s decision to deny the worker’s claim to Review Office. On December 16, 2024, Review Office upheld the WCB’s decision that the worker’s claim was not acceptable, finding the worker delayed in reporting the incident to their employer and continued to work their regular duties in the days following. Review Office noted the worker took vacation and sick time during that period but did not report their injury and found that when the worker did seek medical treatment, they did not report lifting heavy items at work, that their injury occurred recently, or that the lump they found had shifted in the days following the June 8, 2024 workplace accident.

The worker’s representative appealed the Review Office decision to the Appeal Commission on December 19, 2024 and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the provisions of The Workers Compensation Act (the “Act”), regulations under the Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors.

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid. The Act defines “accident” in s 1(1) as follows:

(a) a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, 

(b) a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker, or 

(c) an event or condition, or a combination of events or conditions, related to the worker's work or workplace, 

that results in personal injury to a worker, including an occupational disease, post-traumatic stress disorder or an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

Section 17 of the Act requires that a worker give notice of an injury caused by an accident to their employer as soon as practicable and no later than 30 days after the accident occurs.

Worker’s Position

The worker appeared in the hearing, represented by a union representative who made an oral submission in support of the worker’s appeal and relied upon a written submission provided to the appeal panel and the employer in advance of the hearing. The worker offered testimony through their answers to questions posed by their representative and by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position is that the evidence confirms the worker sustained an injury to their abdomen and groin as a result of an incident at work on June 8, 2024, and as such, the WCB should accept the claim.

The worker’s representative noted that although the WCB found the worker unreasonably delayed both in reporting the incident to the employer and in seeking medical treatment for their injury, the worker reported the incident to the employer immediately after seeking medical treatment when it became clear that the worker’s self-treatment was not sufficient. This took place within 10 days of the accident, which does not amount to unreasonable delay in reporting or in seeking medical attention.

The representative further noted that the worker’s description of how the injury occurred at work during their shift on June 8, 2024 is consistent with the descriptions outlined in the medical reporting, and submitted the comment in the report from the walk-in clinic physician of June 17, 2024 that the worker had groin symptoms “for long time” are not specific and should not be relied on given the other evidence.

Employer’s Position

The employer was represented in the hearing by its workers compensation coordinator, who provided an oral submission outlining the employer’s position and responded to questions posed by the appeal panel.

The employer’s position is that the worker delayed in reporting the incident and in seeking medical treatment for their injuries, and that as a result the employer could not confirm that the incident occurred as the worker reported. The employer’s representative also noted the worker completed their shift on June 9, 2024 and returned to work as scheduled on June 12 and 13, without reporting any injury to the employer.

The employer’s representative confirmed the worker did not report their injury to the employer until June 18, 2024, and submitted this delay in reporting did not allow the employer to confirm any incident or injury occurred at work as alleged by the worker. Further, the employer representative noted the medical report in relation to the June 17, 2024 walk-in clinic visit indicates the worker had symptoms “for long time”, suggesting the injury did not occur when the worker stated it did.

As such, the evidence does not support a finding that the worker sustained an injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and therefore, the claim should not be accepted.

Analysis

This appeal arises from the WCB’s decision that the worker’s claim is not acceptable in respect of a reported inguinal groin injury arising out of lifting a heavy object at work during their June 8, 2024 shift. For the worker’s appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that the worker was injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was able to make such a finding and therefore the worker’s appeal is granted.

There is evidence from the worker describing that an injury occurred in the course of their work during the shift they began on June 8, 2024 and concluded the next morning. The worker’s evidence is that the injury occurred late in the shift, as they lifted a heavy item from near floor level up to their waist level. The worker described reaching and feeling a pulling sensation about their waistline, like a cramp, as they reached to the right with a twisting motion while holding the item and placing it on another surface. The worker recalled adjusting their work-belt to move it out of the sore area. There were no witnesses to this event and the employer confirmed there is no video evidence available. The panel therefore must rely on the worker’s testimony and reports in relation to how the injury occurred.

While the employer suggested that the worker delayed in reporting the injury and seeking medical treatment, the panel accepts the worker’s explanation that they sought medical treatment when it became apparent that this was not a minor injury and advised the employer immediately thereafter. The worker confirmed they did not report the incident that day and completed their other duties, which were sedentary, before ending the shift. The worker was then scheduled to be off work until June 12 and 13, at which point the worker stated their pain was not bad, although they felt continuing discomfort at their waistline requiring them to adjust their work-belt. The worker confirmed that their job duties on June 12 and 13 did not require lifting but consisted mostly of sitting and walking. The worker testified that they were not concerned about the injury until their days off after June 13 when they noted a large lump at their scrotum which placed pressure on their right testicle and made walking uncomfortable. At this point, the worker decided to seek medical treatment, and was assessed at an appointment on June 17, 2024. The worker described that they reported the injury to the employer by phone on June 18, 2024 and returned to the medical clinic on June 19, 2024 to have a form completed at the request of the employer, at which time they saw a different physician. The worker confirmed they do not have a regular family physician and therefore had to seek care at a walk-in clinic. Given that this all occurred within less than ten days following the workplace incident, we do not find that this is an unreasonable delay.

The panel considered that the medical reports from June 19, 2024 and July 4, 2024 indicate that the worker noted right groin area pain at work on night shift while lifting something heavy. The treatment providers from June 17, June 19 and July 4 confirm the diagnosis of inguinal hernia. While there is a comment in the June 17, 2024 medical chart notes that states “for long time” the panel finds that this comment does not align with the other evidence and therefore gives it little weight. We noted that the treatment providers recommended the worker remain off work until, initially, the surgical consultation and then until after the surgery and a recovery period. The worker testified that they did not return to work after June 13, 2024 but rested at home until seeking medical treatment. We do not find it likely that the worker could have continued to work at their job duties for a “long time” had this condition arisen sooner as suggested by the employer based on this single comment.

Based on the evidence before the panel and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker sustained a right groin injury arising out of and in the course of their employment on or about June 9, 2024. Therefore, the worker’s claim is acceptable. The appeal is granted.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
P. Kraychuk, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

K. Dyck - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 1st day of May, 2025