The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The employer is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that the claim is acceptable. A file review was held on March 12, 2026 to consider the employer's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on October 3, 2025, reporting they injured their right neck and shoulder after lifting a heavy object at work on September 1, 2025 (later corrected to September 2, 2025). The worker described they initially felt slight pain in their right shoulder after the incident but continued to work. In the days following the incident, the worker continued to feel pain in their shoulder and took over-the-counter pain relievers to self-treat the pain and continue to work.

The worker sought medical treatment on September 10, 2025 when their symptoms worsened. The treating physician noted the worker’s right shoulder was tender and range of motion was limited in all directions. A diagnosis of rotator cuff tendinitis was given and the worker was placed off work until October 1, 2025. Physiotherapy was recommended once the acute inflammation in the shoulder had settled.

At an initial physiotherapy session on September 24, 2025, the worker described sharp, throbbing pain to their right upper back and shoulder area, worsened with movement, and pain and stiffness when waking up. The treating physiotherapist recorded reduced range of motion in the worker’s neck and right shoulder and positive impingement and empty can testing. The worker was diagnosed with neck and upper back strain; right rotator cuff muscle strain and cervical radiculopathy. The physiotherapist recommended the worker remain off work until November 5, 2025.

The employer submitted an Employer’s Incident Report on October 3, 2025 indicating the worker had contacted their supervisor on September 10, 2025 to advise they could not come to work due to physical issues. The employer noted the worker did not advise at the time that the absence was due to work-related issues, and that they did not have a report of an injury. The worker submitted sick notes to the employer from their treating physician advising they were to remain off work until October 1, 2025 and then from their treating physiotherapist advising they were to remain off work until November 5, 2025, but did not provide the employer with a reason why. On October 3, 2025, the worker advised the employer their absence was due to a work-related injury.

On October 6, 2025, the WCB contacted the worker to discuss their claim. The worker confirmed the details of the injury and advised that they spoke to one of their coworkers about it the day after they first noted pain.

The worker also confirmed that they waited 3 weeks for swelling to subside before attending physiotherapy, as recommended. The advised they initially thought their pain was due to aging and not a work injury and it was not until their treating physiotherapist advised them their difficulties were caused by work that they filed their WCB claim.

Also on October 6, 2025, the WCB spoke with the employer who advised that the report provided to them by the worker related their injury to assembly and disassembly of machinery and repetitive motion with no specific event noted. The employer confirmed there had been no change to the worker’s job duties and the worker had not reported any difficulties prior to October 3, 2025.

The WCB advised the employer that the worker had spoken to a coworker regarding their difficulties. Details of how to contact the coworker were provided to WCB.

The employer noted their concerns with the worker’s claim as the worker had not reported an incident to them, with the medical notes from the physician and the physiotherapist also not indicating a work-related injury.

On October 7, 2025, the WCB received a telephone call from the worker’s coworker who confirmed they were working with the worker lifting heavy items and the worker hurt their shoulder. The coworker confirmed the worker continued working and their symptoms kept getting worse, to the point where the worker could not even lift their hands up. The coworker could not confirm the date of the incident but noted it was before the worker stopped working on September 10, 2025.

The WCB accepted the worker’s claim and on November 10, 2025 provided the employer with a formal decision letter advising acceptance of the claim, as it had been determined the evidence supported the worker sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of their employment.

On November 19, 2025, the employer requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to accept the worker’s claim to Review Office. In their submission, the employer noted the worker had not notified them an accident occurred, despite being aware of their safety policies, and that the medical information in the form of sick notes provided to them initially did not indicate a work-related reason for the worker to be off work. The employer noted their position that there was no evidence of a specific work-related incident that caused the worker’s injury, and they were only advised of same after the worker was off work on a general illness note from their physician.

Review Office upheld the WCB’s decision and determined on December 2, 2025, that the worker’s claim was acceptable. Review Office found the evidence supports the worker’s job duties were physically demanding and that the right shoulder difficulties reported by the worker would relate to the activities performed by the worker and as such, arose out of and in the course of their employment. Review Office further found that while the worker did not initially report their shoulder difficulties as being related to work, their coworker witnessed the worker injuring their shoulder and they did report lifting heavy objects at work to their treating physician on September 10, 2025, and performing heavy duties at work to the treating physiotherapist on September 24, 2025.

The employer filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on December 5, 2025 and a file review was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policies

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. The provisions of the Act in effect as of the date of the worker’s accident are applicable.

A worker is entitled to benefits under Section 4(1) of the Act when it is established that a worker has been injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. “Accident” is defined in s 1(1) of the Act as follows: 

"accident", subject to subsection (1.1), includes 

(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… 

WCB Policy 44.05, Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment, and its Administrative Guidelines provides, in part, the following:

A worker’s accident arises in the course of their employment when it occurs at or during work. In determining whether a worker’s accident arose in the course of employment, the WCB generally focuses on evidence regarding the time and location of the accident. If the event(s) that caused the worker’s injury occurred during work, at a place where the worker is reasonably expected to be, the accident arose in the course of employment.

…

A worker’s accident arises out of their employment when employment related activities or exposures cause the accident.

The WCB interprets the concept of “employment related activity” broadly, to include activities that are both directly and incidentally related to the worker’s employment. In other words, the activities causing the worker’s injury need not be directly related to a specific job task. If the activity is reasonably incidental to the obligations and expectations of the employment, then the WCB will consider it to be an employment related activity.

…

Where the evidence establishes that the worker’s accident not only arose out of their employment (i.e. that work activities or exposures caused the accident), but also that it arose in the course of employment (i.e. that the accident occurred at or during work), the legal test of “arising out of and in the course of employment” is met. The accident is related to their employment in both ways.

Employer's Position

The employer provided a written submission dated January 27, 2026 in advance of the file review. The submission confirmed that the employer also continued to rely on information it provided for the file previously.

The employer contended that there was no proof of causation between the worker’s injury and a work-related incident. The employer noted in its submission that no specific incident could be connected to the worker’s injury.

The employer pointed out that the worker did not immediately file a WCB claim after their injury, as they were required to do, and in fact initially provided the employer with only a general sick note from a physician without mentioning a work-related injury. The employer indicated that they only learned of the employee’s claim after the worker was off work and a WCB claim had been initiated.

The employer also noted what it said were inconsistencies with the time line given by the worker. It referred to a doctor’s report dated September 30, 2025 which indicated pain for “one and a half months”, when the incident report provided by the worker was September 2, 2025.

The employer also noted that the worker may have been lifting items over the limits established by its safe work procedures while at work.

Worker’s Position

The worker did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is claim acceptability. For the employer’s appeal to succeed the panel must find, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker did not sustain an injury as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. More particularly, the panel must find that the worker’s shoulder difficulties were not causally related to the performance of their job duties while at work. For the reasons that follow, the panel is not able to make such a finding.

In reaching our decision, the panel reviewed the evidence on file which described the nature of the worker’s employment duties. The evidence provided by the employer and the worker established that the worker’s duties were physical and included lifting heavy items.

The panel also considered the worker’s description in their WCB claim of sustaining an injury while “lifting heavy parts at work”. The worker’s description of their injury was confirmed by a coworker who worked with the worker the day after the injury. The coworker added that the worker’s shoulder difficulties increased throughout their shift until the worker could not even lift their hands up.

The panel reviewed the reports of the worker’s treating physician dated September 10, 2025 which noted that the worker had suffered an injury “lifting heavy stuff at work”, and the first report of the worker’s treating physiotherapist, dated September 26, 2025, which recorded “heavy duty at work”. It was at this appointment that the worker was told by the physiotherapist their injury had been caused by work. The worker made their claim shortly thereafter on October 3, 2025.

The panel finds that the evidence as described above establishes a causal link between the worker’s injury and a workplace accident which occurred in the course of the worker’s duties. The nature of the worker’s employment duties, the worker’s description of the injury (confirmed by a coworker), and the reporting of the worker’s treating professionals are all consistent with such a finding.

We do not place significance on the delay in the worker’s report to WCB. The panel finds that the four-week delay between injury and claim was not unreasonable, and was sufficiently explained by the evidence on file. Specifically, the panel accepts that the symptoms of the injury did not fully manifest until a few days after the workplace incident, and that it was not until the worker began physiotherapy that they learned their injury was caused by the workplace accident.

The panel notes that minor and explainable deviations from reporting requirements or employee guidelines do not nullify the protections available to the worker under the Act.

In conclusion, based on the available evidence and on a balance of probabilities, the panel is satisfied that the worker’s shoulder difficulties were causally related to the performance of their job duties. Because the worker sustained an injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, the claim is acceptable. The employer’s appeal is therefore denied.

Panel Members

M. Murray, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
T. Burnside, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 16th day of April, 2026