The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that:

1. Their wage loss benefits were correctly suspended from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025; and 

2. They are not entitled to reimbursement for a laptop table.

A hearing was held on November 3, 2025 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

1. Whether or not the worker's wage loss benefits were correctly suspended from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025; and 

2. Whether or not the worker is entitled to reimbursement for a laptop table.

Decision

1. The worker's wage loss benefits were correctly suspended from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025; and 

2. The worker is not entitled to reimbursement for a laptop table.

Background

The employer provided an Employer’s Accident Report to the WCB on June 10, 2025, reporting the worker dislocated their knee in an incident at work on June 3, 2025. The Report included the worker’s description of the incident:

After we finished the ISP event in the…gym, I was helping [coworker] fold and return the tables to the cart. As I stepped backward, I didn’t notice that one of the tables was lying flat on the floor behind me. I accidently stepped onto it, and the table suddenly slid, causing my knee to dislocate immediately. I was unable to stand up.”

It was noted an ambulance was called and the worker was taken to a local emergency department for treatment. The triage report from the hospital noted the worker’s reporting of tripping and falling on a table and their left knee popping out. It noted the worker had no numbness or tingling but their patella was shifted outward to the left lateral side. The emergency physician’s report noted the worker’s reporting of their left knee shifting to the left immediately after their fall, with severe localized pain. The worker advised they felt their knee was briefly dislocated then spontaneously relocated leaving their patella dislocated. On examining the worker, the treating physician noted the worker’s left knee was “…deformed with clinically apparent superior-lateral patellar dislocation.” It was noted the worker’s extensor mechanism seemed completely disrupted both pre and post reduction attempt, the worker had some medial collateral ligament tenderness and a joint effusion was evident. The treating physician indicated a closed manual reduction of the patellar dislocation was attempted and appeared to return to midline after the reduction. Further diagnostic imaging was recommended to confirm and determine if a suspected extensor tendon rupture was present. A left quadriceps tendon MRI was conducted and found intact quadriceps and patellar tendons. The treating emergency physician noted on the discharge report the worker had a left lateral patellar dislocation and liparthrosis and was discharged with crutches and could weight bear. The worker was referred to an orthopedic specialist for a consultation.

The WCB spoke with the worker on June 11, 2025 to discuss their claim. The worker confirmed the mechanism of injury as described by the employer and that it was their left leg that was injured. The worker advised the WCB they were diagnosed with a left knee dislocation and compound fracture of their knee cap. The worker further advised they had not returned to work, the employer had not offered any modified duties and their last day of work for the term would have been June 18, 2025. The worker also advised they were in a brace and ambulated with crutches, which they were able to do. The WCB advised the worker their claim was accepted and the payment of various benefits started.

On June 19, 2025, the worker submitted various receipts to the WCB including a receipt for a laptop table. In a discussion with the worker on June 24, 2025, the WCB advised the worker they would not be reimbursed for the cost of the laptop table as the table was not required to aid in their recovery from their compensable injury. The WCB followed up the discussion with a formal decision letter on June 25, 2025.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision not to reimburse them for the laptop table on July 4, 2025. In their submission, the worker indicated the laptop table helped in their recovery as it allowed them to keep their leg straight while they stayed in bed and did not have anyone to assist them. Also on July 4, 2025, the worker submitted a Leave of Province Form to the WCB noting they would be away from Manitoba from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025. The worker advised the WCB by email on July 4, 2025, some family members were visiting from another country to take care of them while they recovered, however, as they did not have suitable accommodations for them, they would all be temporarily staying out of the province. The WCB advised the worker in a telephone conversation on July 4, 2025 and followed with a formal decision letter on the same date, their wage loss benefits would be suspended from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025, when they were out of the province as they would not be able to participate in their treatment plan while they were away.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to suspend their wage loss benefits from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025 to Review Office on July 8, 2025. The worker noted on their request that due to the nature of their injury and the difficulty of them managing the activities of daily living on their own, their family members had travelled from another country to assist them. However, they were offered free accommodations with another family member in another province and chose to stay there. The worker noted their family members’ presence helped them both physically and also provided mental and emotional support during their recovery.

On August 13, 2025, the Review Office made decisions on all the issues the worker requested be reconsidered. With respect to the laptop table, the Review Office found the worker was not entitled to reimbursement. The Review Office noted in their submission, the worker indicated the table was required as they could not get out of bed. Review Office found the medical evidence on file did not support this and noted the worker advised they were wearing a brace and able to ambulate with crutches. Further, none of the medical on file recommended the worker remain in bed all day. Regarding the suspension of the worker’s wage loss benefits, the Review Office found the worker did not provide a reason why they required full time care or why that care must be provided by their family members or why the care was provided in another province. As well, Review Office noted while out of the province, the worker was not able to attend their recommended physiotherapy treatments.

The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on August 22, 2025 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 that Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors. The provisions of the Act in effect as of the date of the worker’s accident are applicable.

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that a worker is entitled to benefits under the Act when it is established that a worker has been injured as a result of an accident at work. When the WCB determines that a worker has sustained a loss of earning capacity, an impairment or requires medical aid as a result of an accident, compensation is payable under s 37 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act allows the WCB to provide medical aid “as the board considers necessary or advisable to cure or give relief to the worker or for the rehabilitation of the worker."

The WCB established Policy 44.120.10, Medical Aid (the “Medical Aid Policy”), to define key terms and set out general principles regarding a worker's entitlement to medical aid. The Medical Aid Policy outlines that medical aid, as defined in the Act, includes treatment or services provided by healthcare providers and sets out the general principles governing the WCB's funding of medical aid, including the following: • The Board is responsible for the supervision and control of medical aid funded under the Act or this policy.

• The Board determines the appropriateness and necessity of medical aid provided to injured workers in respect of the compensable injury.

• In determining the appropriateness and necessity of medical aid, the Board considers:

o Recommendations from recognized healthcare providers;

o Current scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of prescribed / recommended healthcare goods and services;

o Standards developed by the WCB Healthcare Department.

• The Board promotes timely and cost-effective access to medical aid.

• The Board's objectives in funding medical aid are to promote a safe and early recovery and return to work, enable activities of daily living, and eliminate or minimize the impacts of a worker's injuries.

The Medical Aid Policy further indicates at Schedule B that, medical devices and appliances can include, but are not limited to: prosthetics, braces, dentures, hearing aids, eyeglasses or contact lenses, crutches, canes, wheelchairs and over-the-counter medical devices or appliances.

The WCB will fund medical devices and appliances if:

1. The medical device or appliance is prescribed or recommended by a recognized heath care provider; 

2. The need for the medical device and/or appliance is the result of a compensable injury; 

3. The Board determines that the medical device and/or appliance will likely be or has been effective in the treatment or ongoing care or a compensable injury; and 

4. The Board considers the cost of the medical device and/or appliance to be reasonable.

The WCB Board of Directors has established Policy 44.120.30, Support for Daily Living (the "SDL Policy"), which applies for all decisions on or after January 1, 2025. The "Policy Purpose" section of the Policy states that:

This policy:

• specifically outlines the criteria that must be met before the WCB will provide support for daily living to an injured worker; 

• sets out some additional principles to guide WCB decision makers when determining what types of support to provide and the duration of that support; and 

• describes the types of support the WCB typically provides.

The SDL Policy provides that decisions about whether to provide support for daily living, the types of support it provides, and the duration of that support, are made on a case-by-case basis, but that all decisions are guided by a number of general principles. These principles include:

• The support should compensate the worker for additional cost they incur to engage in the activities of daily living, and reflect the type and level of activity the worker engaged in prior to the injury. 

• The support should address the worker's needs in the most cost-effective way possible. 

• The support should enhance, not impede, the worker's recovery and return to work. 

• The support is based on assessments of the injured worker's needs and abilities, and may be adjusted during recovery. 

• The WCB is not responsible for compensating costs that have not been previously approved in writing.

Under the heading "Types of Support", the SDL Policy provides, in part, as follows:

Personal Care

Injured workers who are unable to adequately care for themselves may require personal care attendants to provide assistance with hygiene, grooming, feeding, dressing, toilet functions and food preparation. They may also require an attendant to make sure they are getting health care, such as clean dressings and medication.

Injured workers may also require assistive equipment in order to independently manage their personal care needs, or help with personal mobility and assistance outside of the home for medical appointments or activities required for daily living.

The WCB may provide support to fund the costs of these activities and items.

Independent Living

A worker's ability to recover from their injury in their own home is not only cost-effective, but may improve recovery time. The WCB may provide support to facilitate a worker's ability to continue to live independently and safely in their own home, paying the costs of lawn care, snow removal, laundry, routine housekeeping, grocery shopping and community outings.

Exceptional Circumstances

In exceptional circumstances the WCB may provide support beyond that which is outlined in this policy.

Furthermore, the Act requires that workers take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences of a workplace injury (Section 22). This duty to mitigate is further addressed in the WCB’s policy 44.10.30.60, Co-operation and Mitigation in Recovery (the “Mitigation Policy”).

The Mitigation Policy sets out that a worker can mitigate the negative effects of a workplace injury by reasonably participating and cooperating in medical treatment and services, and by participating fully in return to work and other programming the WCB considers beneficial to the worker’s recovery and return to work.

The Mitigation Policy further sets out the worker’s responsibilities regarding medical aid, stating:

An injured worker must seek out, co-operate in and receive medical aid that, in the board's opinion, promotes the worker's recovery. The worker's responsibilities include the following:

a) Avoiding any unreasonable delays in seeking medical attention for the initial injury or medical attention for any subsequent injuries or conditions that may delay recovery; 

b) Regularly attending all appointments with health-care practitioners, other health-care providers, WCB medical advisors and rehabilitation consultants; 

c) Reasonably co-operating with, participating in and following the medical, surgical, therapy or treatment plans, or rehabilitation programs prescribed by health-care providers and supported by the WCB; 

d) Co-operating with health-care providers, WCB medical advisors and WCB staff by informing them of any health changes and by providing health information when requested; 

e) Reasonably eliminating or reducing the effects of personal habits or behaviours that negatively affect recovery; 

f) Co-operating in the development and implementation of a plan intended to reduce the negative effects of personal habits or behaviours on a safe return to health and work.

Finally, the Mitigation Policy sets out the consequences of a worker’s failure to mitigate:

1. If the WCB determines that the worker has not complied with section 22 of the Act and the requirements of this policy, it may reduce or suspend the worker's compensation. Before taking this step, the WCB will consider whether the worker has a reasonable explanation for non-compliance. If the WCB considers the worker's explanation for non-compliance to be reasonable, it will not suspend or reduce the worker's compensation. 

2. Before reducing or suspending compensation, the WCB will provide the injured worker with a reasonable opportunity to comply with his or her obligations under the Act and this policy. 

…

Worker’s Position

The position of the worker with respect to the laptop table was that the purchase of a laptop table was required to assist the worker to live and work in their home independently and accordingly the worker’s appeal should be allowed. The worker noted that their Physiotherapist felt that a laptop table was necessary in assisting the worker with their mobility issues, as set out in the Physiotherapist’s letter of August 27, 2025. The worker also indicated that due to the injury most of the time they were on bed rest and accordingly needed the laptop table to eat and work. The worker acknowledged that they were not required to work while on medical leave and during the summer, however, did in fact perform some work out of their sense of responsibility to the students. As noted in the background, the worker’s last day of work for the term would have been June 18, 2025 and they were not required to work in the summer. The worker also noted that although they could sit on the airplane to fly to Alberta they could not sit to eat at their kitchen table, and this was because on the airplane they purchased extra leg room.

With respect to their entitlement to wage loss benefits from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025, the worker stated that they were required to leave the Province in order to accommodate their parents arriving to care for them because the worker did not have the space available to accommodate them in their home and relatives of the worker offered accommodation in Alberta. The worker stated that although their parents were considering coming to visit the worker prior to the injury, when the injury occurred they finalized their plans immediately to arrive approximately four (4) weeks later. The worker also indicated that they were planning on leaving the Province to meet their parents in Alberta prior to the injury, however, the exact dates of the visit was unknown until shortly after the injury.

The worker noted that after the injury they could not stand without assistance most of the time, although they acknowledged they had crutches to assist with mobility. The worker claimed that the crutches did not allow them to cook food as they needed both hands at all times to use the crutches. This was one of the reasons given for needing the worker’s parents to care for them in Alberta.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

Issue #1 – Wage loss benefits from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025

The first issue before the panel is whether or not the worker's wage loss benefits were correctly suspended from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025. For the worker's appeal to succeed, the panel must find that the worker experienced a loss of earning capacity as a result of the compensable injury and was entitled to wage loss benefits from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was unable to make such a finding and therefore, the worker’s appeal on this issue is denied.

The Mitigation Policy provides that a worker’s responsibilities include demonstrating an ongoing reasonable effort towards the successful completion of a rehabilitation program. The WCB communicated the mitigation responsibilities to the worker via telephone conversation on July 4, 2025 and indicated that if the worker did not participate in their treatment plan their wage loss benefits would be suspended for the period of time they were out of the province. Notwithstanding this information, the worker chose to leave the province and did not participate in their treatment plan during that time. The panel notes that the period of time that the worker was outside of the province was during the acute phase of the worker’s injury, when treatment of the injury is most important.

The worker’s explanation for the non-compliance was inconsistent with the worker’s medical requirements on file. On our review of the medical reporting on file, the panel noted that the treating medical providers do not offer any objective or clinical findings to support the worker’s belief that they required a caregiver from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025. The worker indicated that they were required to leave the province to have their parents care for and cook for them. However, according to the medical reports, the worker was not required to remain in bed during recovery and in fact was given crutches to assist them with mobility. This indicates that the worker was expected to move around throughout the day. Although perhaps somewhat inconvenienced, the panel finds that the worker would have been capable of cooking for and caring for themselves from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025. Additionally, the medical file demonstrates that the worker’s plans to leave the province existed prior to the compensable injury, although perhaps not finalized. On a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the worker’s reasons for leaving the province were unrelated to their medical needs.

The worker did not demonstrate an ongoing reasonable effort to participate in their treatment plan and did not provide a reasonable explanation for non-compliance. The panel is of the view that the WCB complied with the Mitigation Policy in suspending the worker’s wage loss benefits, which is within its discretion to do. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that the worker’s wage loss benefits were appropriately suspended from July 5, 2025 to July 28, 2025, due to their failure to participate in their treatment plan approved by the WCB.

The worker's appeal on this issue is dismissed.

Issue #2 – Laptop table

The second issue before the panel is whether the worker is entitled to reimbursement for a laptop table. For the worker's appeal to be successful, the panel must find that support for the purchase of a laptop table to assist the worker in independent living is consistent with the Act and the applicable policies. Based on our review and consideration of all of the evidence and submissions which are before us, and for the reasons that follow, the panel is unable to make that finding.

In assessing the worker's entitlement to independent living assistance in this case, the panel has reviewed the medical evidence on file and finds that the medical evidence on file does not support the need for a laptop table. The worker’s Physiotherapist indicated that the laptop table was required to allow the worker to work from bed, with their leg elevated and not flexed at 90 degrees as required at a desk. However, the panel notes that the worker’s employer informed the WCB on September 8, 2025 that the worker was not required to work between June 4, 2025 and July 31, 2025, although may have elected to wrap up some of his work at home. Notwithstanding there was no requirement to work, the worker indicated that he did in fact work as he felt a responsibility to deal with a particular situation which arose regarding a particular student. The panel notes that the worker was not required to work and if they did work, there is no medical evidence to suggest that the worker could not have worked for short periods of time from their kitchen table with their knee elevated.

The worker also noted that they required the laptop table for eating in bed, as they could not get out of bed easily without assistance. The panel has reviewed the medical evidence on file and finds that it does not contain any objective or clinical findings to support the worker’s belief that they were required to remain in bed during their recovery. As noted above, this belief is in fact inconsistent with the fact that the worker was given crutches to assist them with mobility, indicating that the worker was expected to move around throughout the day. There is no medical evidence to suggest that the worker could not have sat at their kitchen table with their leg elevated for short periods of time.

The panel further notes that, as indicated above, the SDL Policy outlines that “The WCB is not responsible for compensating costs that have not been previously approved in writing.” The worker purchased the laptop table prior to any assessment(s) being done, which could have included a cost benefit analysis. In fact, the laptop table was purchased and submitted to the WCB for reimbursement on June 19, 2025, prior to obtaining a prescription for the laptop table, which was obtained from the worker’s Physiotherapist on August 27, 2025.

Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that support for the purchase of a laptop table to support the worker’s independent living is not consistent with the requirements of the Act and the Policy. The panel therefore finds that the worker is not entitled to reimbursement for a laptop table.

The worker's appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

N. Smith, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

N. Smith - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 4th day of December, 2025