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 beyond June 27, 2025. At a videoconference hearing held on April 21, 2026, the panel considered the worker's appeal.

Issue

Is the worker entitled to benefits beyond June 27, 2025?

Decision

The worker is not entitled to benefits beyond June 27, 2025.

Background

The worker provided a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on September 12, 2024, reporting an injury to their right shoulder, neck and back that occurred due to an incident at work on September 9, 2024. The worker described using their body to open a heavy gate which struck objects and stopped suddenly, jarring the worker's shoulder, neck and back. The worker reported the incident to their supervisor that day, and sought medical treatment, reporting pain to the right side of their neck, shoulder and back that travelled down to their hip. The treating physician noted decreased range of motion in the shoulder, back and neck and diagnosed shoulder, neck, and back strain, recommending the worker remain off work until September 12, 2024.

On September 12, 2024, the worker confirmed to the WCB how the injury occurred. The worker described discomfort in their neck, back and right shoulder after the incident, and that by the end of their shift that day, their neck, back and shoulder felt "locked up" and they could not turn their neck in either direction, with more pain on turning right. The worker described having limited range of motion, pain on lifting their right arm midway to shoulder height, and a tight feeling in their back and neck. The worker stated they are left-handed but work with both hands. The WCB advised the worker that it accepted their claim.

At assessment on September 13, 2024, the physiotherapist recorded the worker's complaint of pain in the right side of their neck, right shoulder, and upper back, extending down to their low back. The physiotherapist found reduced range of motion in the worker's neck, back and shoulder and diagnosed strains to those areas. The physiotherapist outlined restrictions and recommended a gradual increase in work hours. The WCB provided the restrictions to the employer that same day and the worker returned to modified duties on September 16, 2024. The worker continued with physiotherapy and saw their treating family physician regularly. The physician recommended the worker be off work for a period in November 2024 due to their ongoing complaints and return to work on a gradual basis on modified duties on November 12, 2024. Due to the worker's ongoing complaints, the WCB requested, and the treating physician arranged for, an MRI study. On December 2, 2024, the treating physiotherapist provided a discharge report outlining that the worker stated they were "not getting better, not sleeping well due to pain, painful to work on computer at work (is on light duties), arm painful when walking". The physiotherapist noted decreased range of motion in the worker's cervical spine region, right shoulder, and lower back, that the worker was "not improving with time and treatment, pain the limiting factor" and recommended the worker should continue light duties. At follow-up with the worker on December 17, 2024, the family physician updated the worker's restrictions due to ongoing complaints of pain in their right shoulder, neck, and low back. The WCB provided the updated restrictions to the employer on December 19, 2024.

On January 28, 2025, MRI imaging of the worker's right shoulder indicated “Minimal supraspinatus/infraspinatus tendinosis but negative for rotator cuff tear or muscle atrophy. Mild AC (acromioclavicular) joint degenerative arthritis.” The MRI imaging of the worker's spine indicated “Small central disc protrusion at C4-C5 with slight cord contact. No other abnormality.”

A physiatrist assessed the worker on January 30, 2025, noting the worker' s report of persistent pain and dysfunction in their right shoulder due to a “…significant traction injury to the shoulder and neck.” On examination, the physiatrist recorded limited right shoulder range of motion, tenderness along the supraspinatus tendon, anterior and lateral shoulder areas, pain in the right shoulder radiating down to the scapula and periscapular region, worsening pain with lifting over the shoulder, holding the steering wheel, pulling, lifting, pushing doors, and opening jars. The physiatrist recommended a right shoulder reconditioning program for the worker, focusing on improving mobility and strength.

On March 13, 2025, the WCB referred the worker to a reconditioning program. The initial assessment by the reconditioning physiotherapist took place on March 27, 2025. At that time, the physiotherapist noted the worker was “most significantly limited by the lifting overhead (bilateral and unilateral) and carrying (bilateral and unilateral)” and therefore, they developed a reconditioning program focused on “…core stability, upper extremity strengthening and cardiovascular endurance” for the worker. The May 9, 2025 discharge report from the reconditioning program noted the worker’s continual improvement in upper extremity strength and stability improvements throughout the program and noted the worker’s improved overall tolerance to physical activity. The physiotherapist indicated the worker met the physical requirements for their pre-accident job duties and was mostly recovered and could return to work.

A WCB physiotherapy advisor reviewed the worker's claim on June 12, 2025. They noted the MRI study findings as well as the January 30, 2025 report from the treating physiatrist. Given the reconditioning program discharge report findings, the WCB physiotherapy advisor concluded the worker recovered from the accident-related right shoulder and neck strain injury and could return to their full regular duties. With respect to the worker’s cervical spine, the physiotherapy advisor noted the diagnostic imaging did not indicate any “…significant spinal cord compression or edema and no evidence of nerve root impingement at any level” and that the reconditioning program discharge report also noted good cervical spine mobility. The physiotherapy advisor considered the worker's report of neck and shoulder pain, but concluded that at eight months since the accident, these symptoms were not medically accounted for.

On June 17, 2025, the WCB advised the worker that it determined their ongoing difficulties were not related to the September 9, 2025 workplace accident and they are not entitled to benefits after June 27, 2025. On November 27, 2025, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision, noting they continued to experience difficulties due to the workplace accident and could not return to their pre-accident duties. On January 14, 2026, Review Office determined the worker is not entitled to benefits after June 27, 2025. The worker appealed the Review Office decision to the Appeal Commission on February 4, 2026 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 on their own behalf and outlined their position that they continue to experience symptoms and are limited in their function and ability because of the injury sustained in the workplace accident of September 9, 2024. The worker submitted that they have an ongoing loss of earning capacity after June 27, 2025 because of this injury.

The worker acknowledged that there is evidence of degeneration in their shoulder but submitted that before the accident occurred, they experienced no symptoms. Since the accident, the worker stated their symptoms have continued even after physiotherapy and reconditioning. The worker attributes their ongoing limitations and symptoms to the injuries sustained in the workplace accident.

The worker testified that when they refused the employer's offer to take on a less physically demanding job at a lower rate of pay, they lost their job. The worker stated they are unable to work in the field they were training for at the time of the accident and that they cannot return to the same kind of work they were doing before the accident. As a result, the worker has a continuing loss of earning capacity which they submit is the result of the injuries sustained in the workplace accident.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

This appeal is about the worker's entitlement to benefits beyond June 27, 2025. For the worker's appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that, because of the injuries incurred in the workplace accident of September 9, 2024, the worker experienced a loss of earning capacity or required medical aid after June 27, 2025. As outlined in the reasons that follow, the panel was not able to make such findings and therefore the worker's appeal is denied.

The panel reviewed the medical reporting in relation to the accepted compensable injury of right shoulder, neck, and back strain. While the worker submitted that this was not the correct diagnosis, we find there is no other diagnosis contained within the medical reporting that is or could be causally related to the workplace accident of September 9, 2024.

The panel noted the diagnostic MRI imaging revealed degeneration in the worker's right shoulder and cervical spine. The right shoulder MRI indicated mild AC joint arthritis, a degenerative condition, as well as minimal tendinosis in the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. There was no evidence of any acute injury, neither recent nor historical. The cervical spine MRI indicated a small disc protrusion at C4-C5 with "no significant cord compression and no cord edema" as well as slight disc bulging at C5-C6. There is also evidence of "degenerative loss of disc signal" from C3 to C6. The panel noted the treating physiatrist reviewed the MRI findings which they described as "mild tendinosis in the rotator cuff tendons, indicating that the shoulder is structurally sound but experiencing discomfort and pain possibly related or influenced somewhat to mild tendinosis" and concluded the findings "are relatively normal, and there is no structural damage…." Based on the clinical and imaging findings, the treating physiatrist recommended the worker undertake an intensive reconditioning program focusing on improving movement and strength.

The panel noted that upon completion of the recommended reconditioning program, the reconditioning physiotherapist concluded that the worker "continually improved in [their] upper extremity strength and stability improvements throughout the reconditioning program" and that they met the physical requirements of their pre-accident employment and were considered "Mostly Recovered" with a home exercise program recommended to maintain the current level of function and help manage pain and reduce the risk of reinjury.

The panel acknowledges that the worker continues to experience symptoms in their right shoulder and neck; however, the medical reporting does not indicate any continuing relationship between these symptoms and the workplace injuries sustained in September 2024. Further, while the worker maintains they are not capable of returning to their pre-accident employment, or similar work, the evidence indicates the worker could do so in May 2025 when they completed the reconditioning program.

The panel also noted the opinion of the WCB physiotherapy advisor, of June 12, 2025 that the reconditioning program findings indicate the worker can return to full hours within the physical restrictions established by the reconditioning physiotherapist. Further, the physiotherapy advisor noted the worker's cervical spine mobility was good and there was no evidence of any radiculopathy in relation to the cervical spine.

While we noted the treating family physician continued to report the worker's right shoulder, neck, and low back symptoms after June 27, 2025, we also noted there are no new complaints, clinical findings or diagnoses recorded in the subsequent reports by this physician.

Having reviewed the medical reporting and considered the worker's testimony and submissions, we find there is a lack of evidence to support the worker's position that they require further wage loss or medical aid benefits in relation to the injuries sustained in the workplace accident of September 9, 2024. There are no ongoing or recommended treatments, and the evidence confirms the worker could resume their employment obligations with restrictions as of late May 2025.

Based on the evidence before the panel and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker is not entitled to benefits beyond June 27, 2025 in relation to the workplace accident of September 9, 2024. The worker's appeal is therefore denied.

Panel Members

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

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 30th day of April, 2026