The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that they are not entitled to wage loss and/or medical aid benefits in relation to the August 2, 2024 accident. An appeal panel considered the worker's appeal at a hearing beginning on January 21, 2026 and reconvened on March 17, 2026.

Issue

Is the worker entitled to wage loss and/or medical aid benefits in relation to the August 2, 2024 accident?

Decision

The worker is not entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits in relation to the August 2, 2024 accident.

Background

The WCB received a Doctor First Report on October 25, 2024 relating to an examination of the worker on that date. The treating physician reported the worker’s complaints of pain in various regions of the body, including their lumbar back, worse with movement, related to injuries to those areas during their employment. The physician noted an unremarkable lower back examination, with both an x-ray and MRI study pending. The physician recorded a diagnosis of back pain and indicated the worker was not disabled from work and could work modified or alternate duties. The physician did not outline any restrictions.

On October 30, 2024, the employer submitted an Employer’s Accident Report to the WCB advising that on August 2, 2024, the worker sustained injury to their back when they grabbed an object to try to stop it from falling. The employer noted the worker was terminated from their employment on August 13, 2024, but did not miss work due to the incident and, to their knowledge, did not seek medical treatment. The employer provided copies of the worker's timesheets, an August 9, 2024 warning letter, and an August 13, 2024 letter of termination. The letter of August 9 warned the worker that they failed to report injuries to the employer on more than one occasion and confirmed their supervisor spoke to them about this issue. The letter also noted the worker reported to their supervisor on August 6, 2024 that they had tweaked their back on August 2, 2024 but did not report it when it occurred and noted completion of an incident report when reported.

The worker attended a chiropractic assessment on September 25, 2024 reporting upper body pain, radiating into their left leg. The chiropractor recorded reduced range of motion and diagnosed lumbosacral sprain/strain, recommending light duties. A lumbar spine x-ray of the same date indicated findings of: Grade 1 retrolisthesis at L1, L2 and L3; degenerative spondylosis at L1-2 through L3-4; discopathy L4-5; facet arthrosis L4-5; and left lumbar convexity. The chiropractor also provided a narrative report dated October 2, 2024 which noted "…the presence of an (sic) vertebral subluxation complex along with decreased disc space of L1-L5" and recommended further treatment.

The worker submitted a Worker Incident Report to the WCB on November 12, 2024 in which they described lifting a heavy object, which slipped and fell, causing pain to their lower back. The worker stated their supervisor was not in when the incident occurred and that they reported the incident to the supervisor upon returning to work the following week. The worker advised of ongoing back pain and continuing treatment. The worker also submitted the Notice of Incident, completed on August 6, 2024, reporting the incident which set out that they "felt lower back strain from left to right".

After the WCB gathered additional information, it wrote to the worker on November 21, 2024 advising that the claim was accepted but that because of the delay in reporting the incident and seeking medical treatment, they were not entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits.

On January 14, 2025, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB's decision, noting the delay in reporting was due to having to wait for someone to sublet their apartment, and that in the meantime, they rested their back, and their symptoms improved, but they continued to experience symptoms and after they moved, they sought medical treatment.

In a January 9, 2025 report, the treating physician outlined the worker's complaint of back pain since lifting a heavy object at work "a few months ago", with symptoms in the lower back on the left side, radiating into the worker's left leg and foot, worsening after standing, walking for an extended period, and bending, extending, or lifting. On examining the worker, the physician found tenderness at the L3, L4 region, decreased flexion, an abnormal slump test and a positive straight leg raise test on the left. The physician diagnosed degenerative disc disease with possible radiculopathy and referred the worker for an MRI. A further report from the physician dated January 27, 2025, noted improving back pain with medication, physiotherapy and exercise, and occasional shooting pain into the left foot.

On February 4, 2025, Review Office determined the worker is not entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits. Review Office found the worker continued working regular duties after the August 2, 2024 incident, until the employer terminated that employment on August 13, 2024. Further, Review Office determined that if the worker sustained an injury that left them unable to work or in need of medical treatment, they would have sought treatment sooner than September 25, 2024, when they initially saw the treating chiropractor, and noted that even after seeking medical treatment, the worker did not report their injury to the WCB until November 12, 2024. As such, Review Office could not find the worker had a loss of earning capacity or needed medical aid in relation to the August 2, 2024 workplace accident.

The worker provided a copy of the January 27, 2025 lumbar spine MRI study to the WCB on April 8, 2025. On June 24, 2025, the worker's representative requested Review Office reconsider the earlier decision, providing chart notes from the treating physician dated October 8, 2024 and October 28, 2024, along with witness statements from the worker's coworkers. The witness statements from the worker's coworkers noted the worker wore a belt or brace on their back while working in August. A statement from a friend who helped the worker move noted the worker was wearing a back brace in early October 2024 and required help with moving due to a backache. The representative argued this information supported a finding that the worker had a low back injury and continued to experience the effects of that injury after their employment ended. 

On July 21, 2025, Review Office determined the worker is not entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits, noting inconsistencies in the worker's reporting of the details of the incident made it difficult to determine the extent of the injury sustained on August 2, 2024. Review Office also noted the delay in seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury and found that if the worker suffered an injury that made them unable to work or required medical treatment, they likely would have reported the injury sooner. The worker's representative appealed the decision to the Appeal Commission on August 8, 2025 and a hearing was arranged.

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 represented by a worker advisor and with assistance from an interpreter. The worker advisor provided a submission, supported by the worker's testimony, and relied on a written submission made to review office, dated June 24, 2025 as well as materials submitted to the appeal panel in advance of the hearing. 

The worker's position is that they are entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits in relation to the workplace accident of August 2, 2024 as there is evidence they continued to experience the effects of that injury well beyond the date of accident and further, that the evidence supports a finding that the injury resulted in a loss of earning capacity as of August 14, 2024 when the employer terminated their employment.

The worker advisor submitted that the worker, a recent immigrant whose first language is not English, did not know about WCB or workers compensation benefits and did not report their injury to the WCB until November 2024 for that reason; however, the worker advisor noted the worker did report the injury to the employer within days of its occurrence. Further, the worker advisor noted the employer did not report the incident to the WCB until late October 2024, and that the treating medical professionals also did not meet their obligations to report the worker's work-related injury to the WCB on a timely basis. The worker advisor submitted that any gap in the evidence that is due to these delays should not prejudice the worker's claim, but that the panel should give the worker the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.

The worker advisor submitted that the medical reporting available confirms continuity in the worker's symptoms from the time of their first medical visit on August 26, 2024 throughout the fall of 2024. The worker advisor relied on the treating chiropractor's September 25, 2024 assessment as demonstrating that the effects of the worker's injury continued at that time. Further, the worker advisor outlined the additional information provided by the treating family physician who confirmed seeing the worker on August 26, 2024 in relation to a sore back, although no chart notes are available from that visit. When this physician also assessed the worker's back on October 8, 2024 and on October 25, 2024, their chart notes confirm the worker continued to experience symptoms.

The worker advisor submitted the panel should give significant weight to the opinion of the physician with a focus on occupational health who assessed the worker on four occasions beginning in the spring of 2025, with the assistance of an interpreter in some of those visits. That physician reviewed numerous medical documents as well as WCB claim file documents in relation to the worker's claim and low back injury, and concluded that the workplace accident was likely a soft tissue strain injury with new onset of radicular symptoms corresponding to the MRI findings, and further, that the worker did not have a pre-existing back condition "of any clinical significance", that the injury did not resolve by September 25, 2025 and outlined the need for restrictions from the time of injury and subsequently.

The worker advisor submitted the worker sustained a loss of earning capacity beginning with the day after their termination, noting that the worker was unable to financially mitigate the effects of their injury. The worker advisor submitted that the worker's eligibility for wage loss benefits is not removed by the employer's decision to terminate the employment relationship and urged the panel to find that the worker's loss of earning capacity due to the termination of their employment is analogous to a loss of earning capacity sustained when an employer is unable to accommodate a worker with restrictions. As such, the panel should find that the worker's loss of earning capacity is a result of the injury sustained in the accident.

Employer’s Position

The employer was represented in the hearing by legal counsel, a human resources director and a health and safety director. The employer's submission, provided by legal counsel, was supported by evidence of the dayshift production supervisor (the "supervisor") and a lead hand (the "lead hand") from the same department where the worker was employed. The employer also relied upon additional written materials submitted to the appeal panel in advance of the hearing.

Counsel for the employer relied on the evidence from the supervisor and lead hand as confirming that the employer, on more than one occasion, confirmed to the worker that they were expected to report all workplace incidents to the employer and injuries to the WCB, and further that the worker understood the employer's instructions on reporting accidents. The supervisor offered evidence as to the nature and extent of the safety training provided by the employer to the worker.

Counsel pointed out discrepancies in the evidence provided by the worker and by their medical providers, including when the injury occurred, when the worker learned about the WCB, why the worker delayed in reporting and the nature of their job duties in September 2024. Counsel submitted the worker's explanations are not reliable and should be given little weight by the panel.

In reviewing the medical reporting, counsel noted the objective medical findings, as set out in the X-ray and MRI studies indicate mild degenerative changes which are consistent with the clinical findings noted by the treating family physicians in their chart notes.

Counsel for the employer also noted that the timing for the worker's medical assessments in September and October suggest there may be an alternative cause for their symptoms, for example their increased job duties and hours in the concurrent employment beginning in September 2024 and in preparing for their move from one home to another, also in September 2024.

Counsel for the employer also noted their disagreement with the worker's position that the panel should consider the worker's loss of earnings due to the terminated employment as equivalent to a situation where an employer cannot accommodate restrictions, noting there were no restrictions placed on the worker, they were terminated for cause and there is no evidence that the worker missed any hours in their concurrent employment as a result of the injury.

The employer's position is that on a balance of probabilities, the evidence does not support a finding that there is a direct causal relationship between the worker's injury sustained on August 2, 2024 and any subsequent loss of earnings or need for medical treatment, and therefore the worker's appeal should be denied and the decision of Review Office upheld.

Analysis

This appeal is about the worker’s entitlement to wage loss and medical aid benefits arising out of the accident of August 2, 2024. For the appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find on a balance of probabilities, that the worker experienced a loss of earning capacity or required medical aid due to the injury sustained in the workplace accident. For the reasons outlined below, the panel could not make such findings and therefore the worker’s appeal is denied.

The evidence before the panel, when considered in its entirety, does not support the worker's position that they are entitled to medical aid and wage loss benefits in relation to the compensable accident of August 2, 2024. While the panel accepts that the worker sustained an injury to their lumbar spine at work on August 2, 2024, consistent with the WCB's decision on acceptance of the claim, we note there is also objective evidence of degeneration in the worker's lumbar spine which we cannot attribute to a low back strain injury that occurred at work on August 2, 2024. The panel acknowledges the treating family physician's note indicating they saw the worker in respect of back pain on August 26, 2024, although there are no chart notes confirming an assessment on that date but notes the treating family physician did not formally assess the worker's back until October 8, 2024, despite seeing the worker again on another occasion in September 2024. Had the worker presented with significant lower back symptoms on August 26, 2024, we would have expected their family physician to formally assess this complaint sooner than early October.

Further, we note that upon assessing the worker in early October, the family physician found no evidence of neurological findings, offered a diagnosis of back strain, and did not outline any workplace restrictions. Given that this occurred more than two months after the workplace accident, the panel is unable to determine whether these findings relate to that event or to another event or injury, especially given the evidence that by early October, the worker had moved from one home to another, albeit with assistance as noted, and had been working fulltime at another job with new job duties for approximately one month. We also noted the medical findings in early 2025 indicate potential neurological involvement; however, those findings were not present in early October 2024 and the panel finds the more recent findings could also be related to the degenerative conditions identified by the MRI imaging or to a later event or injury.

The worker's position is that they required workplace restrictions as a result of the August 2, 2024 injury, but the panel finds that this position is not supported by the evidence which confirms the worker was able to continue working in this employment after the injury, until terminated on August 13, 2024 and further that the worker also did not miss any hours of work in their concurrent part-time employment after the accident and increased to fulltime hours in early September 2024. We considered the opinion of the physician with an interest in occupational medicine but note that the report was prepared more than one year after the workplace accident occurred and contains opinions beyond the scope of medical expertise. As such, the panel gives less weight to this opinion, preferring the medical reports based on assessment of the worker nearer to the date of the accident as well as the objective findings.

The panel finds the evidence does not support the worker's position that their loss of earning capacity after the accident was a result of the workplace accident; rather, we conclude that any such loss of earning capacity was a result of the worker's termination from employment. We do not accept the worker's submission that their termination is effectively equivalent to a situation where an employer is unable to accommodate a worker's injured status. The evidence confirms the worker had no time loss immediately following the injury, did not seek medical attention until several weeks afterwards and there were no workplace restrictions in place. As such, the panel is satisfied, based on the evidence, that the worker's loss of earnings, if any, is not a result of the workplace injury.

In relation to the worker's submission that they required medical aid in relation to the injury sustained on August 2, 2024, the panel finds the evidence does not support this position. After the accident, the first treatment recommendations are outlined in the chiropractic assessment of September 25, 2024. As noted above, by that time, the worker was employed in a new fulltime role with their concurrent employer which they initially described as heavy duties. While there is evidence the worker obtained and wore a back brace after the workplace injury occurred, there are no reports indicating the medical need for such a device. The panel also noted the treating physician's October 8, 2024 recommendation for physiotherapy; however, this was more than two months after the accident and the panel cannot confirm based on the evidence whether the recommendation is causally related to that injury or to the worker's degenerative lower back condition or to another cause.

Based on the totality of the evidence before the panel and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are not able to conclude that the worker sustained a loss of earning capacity or required medical aid as a result of the injury arising out of the accident of August 2, 2024. Therefore, the worker is not entitled to wage loss or medical aid benefits, and the worker's 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 25th day of March, 2026