The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that they are not entitled to benefits after March 13, 2025. A hearing took place on October 9, 2025 to consider the appeal.

Issue

Is the worker entitled to benefits after March 13, 2025.

Decision

The worker is not entitled to benefits after March 13, 2025.

Background

The worker submitted a claim to the WCB arising out of an accident at work on December 7, 2023 that resulted in injury to their lower back. The worker sought medical treatment on December 8, 2023, and the treating physician diagnosed low back strain. After a physiotherapy assessment the same day, the physiotherapist also provided a diagnosis of lumbar spine sprain/strain and queried a disc protrusion. The WCB accepted the worker’s claim on December 11, 2023 and began providing benefits to the worker.

The worker continued to seek medical treatment from the family physician and physiotherapist through January 2024. The worker returned to work with restrictions on January 22, 2024. On January 30, 2024, the worker advised the WCB of their ongoing lower back symptoms with bending and twisting. The treating physiotherapist provided a discharge report on January 31, 2024 noting the worker was “…managing the heavy lifting required on the job but is sore after hammering, sore by the end of the work day.” The WCB advised the worker by letter dated February 27, 2024 that as they returned to regular duties and were no longer receiving medical treatment, the claim was closed.

On March 7, 2024, the worker advised the WCB that while they understood they would work light duties on their return to work in January, they returned to their regular duties, which caused worsening of their symptoms. The worker stated they saw their family physician who placed them off work. The worker noted they continued to seek medical treatment from their family physician and to perform the home exercises provided by the treating physiotherapist and requested further physiotherapy. The worker also advised they reported their ongoing difficulties to their supervisor. The WCB resumed payment of full wage loss benefits to the worker as of March 7, 2024.

A March 28, 2024 progress report from the treating physician included a request for an MRI study and indicated the worker should remain off work as the employer could not accommodate light duties. At an assessment on April 4, 2024, the physiotherapist noted the worker reported an increase in lower back symptoms after the return to work in January. The physiotherapist recorded a constant low-grade ache across the worker's lower back, worse on the left than the right, pain worsened by prolonged standing and sitting, reduced range of motion in the lumbar spine and a positive straight leg raise test on the left at 50 degrees. The physiotherapist also recommended the worker remain off work as set out by the treating physician.

On April 30, 2024, the worker advised the WCB that they returned to work at light duties the previous day. The worker said their back was still sore and they continued with the home exercises provided by their physiotherapist. The worker confirmed there were not specific activities that caused pain, but they were sore all day.

A WCB medical advisor reviewed the worker's file on April 30, 2024 and concluded that the worker’s current diagnosis was non-specific, non-radiculopathic low back pain which was not medically accounted for in relation to the workplace accident. The medical advisor noted the worker's reporting of ongoing low back pain since the accident but also noted a lack of physical findings during medical appointments on April 4, 2024 and April 25, 2024.

On May 2, 2024, the WCB notified the worker they were not entitled to benefits after May 9, 2024 as their current difficulties were not related to the December 7, 2023 workplace accident. The worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision and on June 4, 2024, Review Office determined the worker was entitled to benefits after May 9, 2024, returning the worker’s file to Compensation Services for further adjudication.

In discussion with the WCB on June 14, 2024, the worker advised they started a position with a new employer on May 28, 2024, earning a lower wage than with the accident employer. In an email of June 17, 2024, the worker confirmed to the WCB that after they returned to work with the accident employer on April 29, 2024 on modified duties, they were laid off on May 19, 2024 and they began their new job with a different employer on May 28, 2024. The worker noted improvement of their lower back symptoms but that they still had symptoms most days.

On June 18, 2024, the accident employer advised the WCB that they laid off the worker on May 17, 2024 as their pre-accident duties were no longer available and the worker refused other duties offered by the employer. The employer provided details of the modified duties the worker performed before the layoff and advised that the worker complained daily of their low back injury.

On June 25, 2024, the WCB notified the worker they were entitled to further physiotherapy treatment but were not entitled to wage loss benefits leading up to the start of their new position as suitable modified duties were available. On further discussion, the WCB wrote to the worker on July 2, 2024 advising the worker was entitled to full wage loss benefits from May 20, 2024 to May 27, 2024, and that the WCB would decide if they were entitled to partial wage loss benefits based on the reduced wage in their new position.

A physiotherapy progress report dated July 16, 2024, noted the worker’s report of back stiffness in the morning, with a recent increase in soreness and a nagging ache in the left lower spine. The physiotherapist indicated the worker could work regular duties and hours, but on July 19, 2024, they provided restrictions of lifting a maximum of 50 pounds; carrying short distance of 20 feet; no repetitive hammering/use of sledgehammer; and no repeated twisting/bending. In an August 27, 2024 report, the physiotherapist noted the worker's report of intermittent aching and stiffness in the lower spine but that they were managing their current work duties. The physiotherapist recorded full range of motion with mild soreness at end-range flexion and continued the earlier restrictions.

The worker continued to report ongoing low back difficulties, as confirmed by an October 8, 2024 report from the treating physician but also continued to work, receiving partial wage loss benefits from the WCB.

On January 23, 2025, the WCB noted the worker had a new claim and was off work. On March 6, 2025, the WCB advised the worker by letter that they were not entitled to benefits after March 13, 2025 as it found they were recovered from the December 7, 2023 accident.

On May 12, 2025, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision. Review Office determined on June 4, 2025 that the worker was not entitled to benefits after March 13, 2025. The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on July 17, 2025 and a hearing took place.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation

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

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that the WCB will pay compensation when a worker has sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and s 4(2) outlines that a worker injured in such an accident is entitled to wage loss benefits for the loss of earning capacity resulting from the accident. When the WCB decides that a worker has sustained a loss of earning capacity, an impairment or requires medical aid because of an accident, compensation is payable under s 37 of the Act. Section 39 of the Act sets out that wage loss benefits are payable until the worker's loss of earning capacity ends or the worker reaches the age of 65 years. Section 27 of the Act allows the WCB to provide medical aid to a worker entitled to benefits that “…the board considers necessary or advisable to cure or give relief to the worker or for the rehabilitation of the worker.”

Worker’s Position

The worker appeared in the hearing on their own behalf and outlined their position that they continue to experience symptoms and require further medical attention in relation to the injury sustained in the workplace accident of December 7, 2023. The worker submitted that they continued to experience a loss of earning capacity and to require medical aid, beyond March 13, 2025 because of this low back injury.

The worker noted that after leaving their position with the accident employer, they received partial wage loss benefits as a top-up to reflect the lower wage in their later employment, and that this continued until March 2025 when the WCB discontinued benefits under that claim. The worker outlined that their lower back issue never did resolve and is still an ongoing concern with symptoms that increase from time to time with certain kinds of activity such as moving heavy items. The worker noted the WCB denied their request for further physiotherapy which could have helped to resolve their lower back complaints. The worker submitted they remain unable to do the kind of heavy work they could do before this injury occurred.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

This appeal is about the worker’s entitlement to benefits after March 13, 2025 arising out of the accident of December 7, 2023. For the worker’s appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that as a result of the injury sustained in that accident, the worker continued to have a loss of earning capacity or continued to require medical aid beyond March 13, 2025, when the WCB discontinued benefit payment on this claim. For the reasons outlined below, the panel could not make such findings and therefore the worker’s appeal is denied.

In considering the worker's appeal, the panel reviewed the medical reporting arising out of the compensable injury. We noted that based on the initial medical reporting, the WCB accepted the claim based on a lower back, or lumbar spine sprain/strain injury and provided for physiotherapy which the worker completed by late January 2024. At that time, the worker returned to regular work duties and hours without restrictions but in early March, they experienced an increase in symptoms and could not continue to work as there were no light duties available. There is no evidence of any new injury or diagnosis at that time, and the worker resumed physiotherapy.

The panel noted that by mid-July 2024, when the worker was in a new job with another employer, the treating physiotherapist noted a satisfactory recovery but added workplace restrictions. We noted that in August 2024 the physiotherapist recorded full lumbar range of motion with mild soreness at end-range flexion, and that the worker plateaued in relation to their "pain, improved strength and function overall and is managing all [activities of daily living] and work duties required". The physiotherapist recommended the workplace restrictions remain in place and discharged the worker from treatment. About two months later, the treating family physician reported the worker's complaint of left lumbar area pain with tenderness on palpation of the left lower erector spinae and recommended the worker resume physiotherapy. The evidence confirms the worker did not seek further medical treatment until after their January 6, 2025 workplace accident, when they sought chiropractic treatment and then physiotherapy. The February 13, 2025 report from the previous treating physiotherapist indicated the recent injury caused pain in the worker's low back, resulted in cervical strain and a right shoulder injury, and noted the worker stated their back pain had resolved. The panel reviewed the medical reporting in relation to that accident and noted the areas of injury are focused on the cervical spine and right shoulder and there are no other reports of lumbar spine symptoms in relation to that accident.

The panel also considered that although the worker initially maintained they had no history of back complaints, the employer advised the WCB on June 26, 2024 that it paid for 6-7 months of chiropractic treatment for the worker in the previous year when the worker was complaining about their back. The worker confirmed in the hearing that this information is correct. The panel also noted the April 2024 lumbar spine x-ray findings show loss of normal lumbar lordosis, mild to moderate disc space narrowing and facet osteoarthropathy at L5-S1 and mild endplate spurring at L4 and L5. These findings do not suggest an acute lumbar spine injury but suggest that the worker likely has an underlying degenerative back condition that would not relate to the compensable sprain/strain injury sustained some four months earlier.

The panel finds that the evidence does not support the worker's position that they continued to experience the effects of the December 2023 injury beyond March 2025. We find that, even in the context of an underlying degenerative back condition and evidence of a March 2024 relapse in their recovery, the worker would have recovered from the effects of the compensable sprain/strain injury by March 13, 2025 when the WCB discontinued their benefit entitlement. The panel is not satisfied that the worker's report of ongoing low back symptoms that wax and wane with their activity level are related to the back strain sustained in December 2023. As such, the evidence here does not support an ongoing need for medical aid in relation to that injury as of March 2025, nor does it support a continuing loss of earning capacity arising out of that injury beyond that time.

Based on the evidence before us and on the standard of balance of probabilities, we find the worker did not have a loss of earning capacity or require further medical aid beyond March 13, 2025 as a result of the injuries sustained in the workplace accident of December 7, 2023. Therefore, the worker is not entitled to benefits after that date and the appeal is denied.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 30th day of October, 2025