The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that their claim is not acceptable. A hearing was held on October 20, 2025 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

The employer submitted an Employer's Accident Report to the WCB on October 29, 2024 indicating the worker injured their left lower back on August 19, 2024 at work. The employer noted the worker did not report an incident to them but stated their left foot was caught on a piece of equipment resulting in them twisting their left leg and left lower back. The incident was reported to the employer through a first aid station employee on October 25, 2024.

On November 4, 2024, the WCB contacted the worker to gather further information on their claim. The worker confirmed to the WCB on August 19, 2024, they twisted their left leg and lower back when their left foot got stuck in a metal stand while at work. The worker noted a trainer had witnessed the incident, but when they requested to go to the first aid station, they were ignored. The worker further noted they approached the trainer and their supervisor the following day, but no action was taken on their request to report the incident or seek treatment. The worker described feeling immediate pain after the incident in their left knee and lower back and self-treating with over-the-counter pain medication. They also advised that they had 2 weeks of vacation in September 2024 and found during that time they could rest and their symptoms improved but did not recover. The worker noted on their return to work, they began to experience back spasms again and on October 24, 2024, woke up with sharp lower back pain and sought medical treatment. The worker described their current symptoms as difficulty with bending and twisting and flexing their left knee. The worker noted they continued to work as they were taking medication for the pain however, their job duties involving bending motions were causing them to struggle with those duties. It was also noted that the worker had mentioned their injury to their treating physiotherapist but was not assessed by the physiotherapist as they did not have an established WCB claim.

The WCB requested and obtained further information from the employer. The employer provided copies of notes from the worker's attendance to their health unit on September 3, 2024, October 1, 2024, October 7, 2024 and October 25, 2024. The August 19, 2024 incident was only noted on the October 25, 2024 visit, where the worker reported having lower back pain due to their left foot getting caught on a stand and they twisted their left leg and left lower back. It was noted the worker had reported the incident to their trainer and lead hand and requested to book an appointment with the health unit but did not receive a response. The report also noted the worker had attended the health unit a few times since the incident occurred but had not reported it. It was further noted the health unit contacted the worker's treating physician who confirmed the worker had attended for treatment for a work injury that occurred on August 19, 2024 but as that was the worker's first attendance at their clinic, they did not have the worker's history of the injury.

The worker submitted their Worker Incident Report to the WCB on December 6, 2024. The Report confirmed the mechanism of injury and the worker noted they sought medical treatment with their treating physicians on October 24, 2024 and December 2, 2024 and their physiotherapist on November 28, 2024. The worker noted they were provided with a sick note from the physician at their December 2, 2024 appointment for December 6, 2024 to January 3, 2025. A copy of the sick note was provided to the WCB on the same date.

On January 21, 2025, the WCB again spoke with the worker to gather further information. The worker indicated they had another incident at work in November 2024 that impacted their lower back injury from August 2024 and resulted in them being unable to work due to struggling with the activities of daily living and their physician had provided a sick note to January 20, 2025. The worker noted they had returned to work on January 21, 2025, but had been sent home by the employer as they were unable to return to their regular duties and required the worker to obtain restrictions from their healthcare providers. On January 28, 2025, the employer provided the WCB with statements from the trainer and lead hand the worker advised they reported the incident to. The trainer advised the worker advised them their back was sore and they wanted to take medication. The trainer noted the worker did not request to attend the health unit and returned to their job duties after taking the medication. The lead hand advised the worker did not advise them of an incident occurring on August 19, 2024.

The WCB provided the worker with a decision letter on March 27, 2025, advising it had been determined their claim was not acceptable. The WCB noted an incident was not reported to the employer, and there was a two-month delay in seeking treatment and reporting the incident and as such, it could not be established the worker sustained an injury at work on August 19, 2024. On April 25, 2025, the WCB received a telephone call from the worker's coworker who advised they had witnessed an incident in August 2024, which they described as the worker's foot being caught after they stepped into a gap in a metal stand. They recalled the trainer being present during the incident but did not tell whether or not the trainer had witnessed the incident. The coworker noted they recalled the worker limping after the incident but had not noticed any difficulties prior to the incident. The WCB advised the worker on April 28, 2025, that the previous decision, of their claim being denied, remained unchanged.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision to the Review Office on May 20, 2025. In their submission, the worker noted on a previous occasion when they had sustained an accident at work, they were advised not to seek medical treatment from outside the employer's health unit unless the injury worsened. After the workplace incident on August 19, 2024, the worker advised they requested to attend the health unit but was denied by their supervisor and it wasn't until their symptoms became severe that they sought medical treatment with their physician. As such, the worker noted their belief that their injury occurred at work and their claim was acceptable. On May 23, 2025, the worker provided the Review Office with further details of the August 19, 2024 incident, along with a photograph of their work area. The Review Office determined the worker's claim was not acceptable on June 6, 2025. The Review Office found the evidence did not support the worker sustained an injury arising out of or in the course of their employment given the worker's delay in reporting the incident and seeking medical treatment along with the worker's ability to continue to work their regular duties without making complaints of a left leg or lower back injury.

The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on June 24, 2025, and a hearing was arranged. Following the hearing, the appeal panel requested additional medical information prior to discussing the case further. The requested information was later received and was forwarded to the interested parties for comment. On February 25, 2026, the appeal panel met further to discuss the case and render its final decision on the issues under appeal.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation

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 at the time of the accident are relevant.

What constitutes an accident is defined in subsection 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, including an occupational disease, post-traumatic stress disorder or an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

The Act provides that the board shall pay compensation to a worker that has been injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Worker’s Position

The worker was present at the hearing, supported by their spouse. The worker made an oral submission to the appeal panel and provided evidence by way of answering questions posed by members of the panel.

The worker’s position is that the decision of the Review Office should be overturned. The worker states that the accident happened at work and they followed the appropriate procedure in reporting and seeking medical care.

The worker’s evidence is that the worker had an appointment with their physiotherapist regarding an unrelated issue and that they informed the physiotherapist about their accident that occurred at work.

The worker states that their employer was mainly concerned about and focused on their prior unrelated injury and therefore the injury to their knee got overlooked. The position of the worker is that because of their multiple injuries at work there was confusion which led to their claim for their knee not being accepted. The worker states that this was an error.

The worker is seeking a finding that their claim is acceptable.

Employer’s Position

The employer was represented by an advocate who made an oral submission to the panel. The employer’s representative also answered questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The position of the employer is that the claim was correctly denied by the WCB and the Review Office as a result of the worker’s delay in seeking medical attention, failure to report the injury and insufficient evidence that an injury occurred.

The employer notes that the worker continued their usual duties for over two months with no documented complaints of low back or left knee issues, and that the worker acknowledged that their pain had, unfortunately, worsened at home.

The employer also notes that the worker made visits to the first aid station multiple times and did not report their injury, nor did the worker make complaints to their physician.

The position of the employer is that the worker’s claim does not meet the evidentiary criteria under the Act and therefore compensation is not warranted.

Analysis

The question on appeal is whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. For the worker’s appeal to succeed, the panel would have to determine that the worker sustained an injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. As outlined in the reasons that follow, the panel was able to make such a finding and therefore, the worker’s appeal is granted.

In determining whether the claim is acceptable, the panel has considered the totality of the evidence, including the additional medical documentation obtained following the hearing.

The panel has also reviewed the medical documents connected to the worker’s unrelated injury and places significant weight on the evidence from the treating physiotherapist, who notes on the Physiotherapy Initial Assessment form dated November 28, 2024 that the worker’s left foot got stuck and caused twisting of their lower back and left leg and knee, with a reported date of injury of August 19, 2024. This history is consistent with the mechanism of injury consistently reported by the worker to the WCB and in their submissions.

More importantly, the panel finds the physiotherapy chart notes, specifically the chart note dated August 22, 2024, highly persuasive. The chart note was created contemporaneously, just three days after the alleged workplace incident, and identifies that the worker presented with antalgic gait and had “injured left knee - back in separate work injury recently.” The panel finds this evidence to be particularly compelling, as it predates the worker’s formal report to the WCB and supports both the timing of the injury and its work-related nature. It provides objective support that the worker was experiencing symptoms consistent with a lower extremity and back injury shortly after August 19, 2024 and had attributed those symptoms to a recent work-related incident at that time.

The WCB raised concerns with respect to the delay in reporting the incident and seeking medical treatment, however the chart note significantly strengthens the worker’s position and addresses concerns regarding the delay in reporting. This contemporaneous medical evidence provides objective support to confirm the worker was experiencing symptoms shortly after August 19, 2024 and attributed those symptoms to a recent work-related incident. Further, this confirms the worker reported the injury and sought treatment in a timely manner.

The panel acknowledges the concerns of conflicting evidence from the WCB and noted by the employer’s representatives, however, these concerns must be weighed against the entirety of the evidence, including the worker’s reporting and any corroborative or contemporaneous medical evidence.

When this evidence is considered alongside the worker’s consistent reporting of the mechanism of injury, the corroborating statement from the coworker who witnessed the incident and observed the worker limping afterward, the panel is satisfied that the evidence, on a balance of probabilities, supports the occurrence of a workplace accident.

Accordingly, the panel finds it more likely than not that the worker sustained an injury to their left lower back and left leg as a result of their foot becoming caught in workplace equipment on August 19, 2024. The panel is therefore satisfied that the injury arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.

The claim is acceptable.

Panel Members

R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

R. Lemieux Howard - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 21st day of April, 2026