The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decisions in respect of the accident of May 1, 2025, that their current back symptoms are not related to the May 1, 2025 accident and they are not entitled to benefits beyond May 23, 2025. The worker also appealed the WCB decisions in respect of the accident of May 14, 2025, that their current back symptoms are not related to the May 14, 2025 accident and they are not entitled to benefits beyond January 9, 2026. A hearing took place on May 14, 2026 to consider the worker's appeals.

Issue

Accident of May 1, 2025: 

1. Are the worker's current back symptoms related to the May 1, 2025 accident? 

2. Is the worker entitled to benefits beyond May 23, 2025?

Accident of May 14, 2025: 

1. Are the worker's current back symptoms related to the May 14, 2025 accident? 

2. Is the worker entitled to benefits beyond January 9, 2026?

Decision

Accident of May 1, 2025: 

1. The worker's current back symptoms are not related to the May 1, 2025 accident; and 

2. The worker is not entitled to benefits beyond May 23, 2025.

Accident of May 14, 2025: 

1. The worker's current back symptoms are not related to the May 14, 2025 accident; and 

2. The worker is not entitled to benefits beyond January 9, 2026.

Background

Accident of May 1, 2025 

The worker provided a Worker Incident Report to the WCB on May 2, 2025 reporting injury to their back and left leg that occurred at work the previous day when they caught a person falling backwards. The worker described having pain down their leg and that self-treating with hot baths was not helping. The Employer Injury Report submitted on May 9, 2025 confirmed the worker's description of the how the injury occurred on May 1, 2025.

Upon physiotherapy assessment on May 9, 2025, the treating physiotherapist noted the worker's report of low back pain, radiating down their left leg and pain with prolonged sitting or standing. The physiotherapist recorded their examination findings of an antalgic gait, reduced range of motion in the worker's lumbar region and positive straight leg raise and slump testing. The physiotherapist diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and indicated total disability.

On May 12, 2025, the worker confirmed to the WCB how the injury occurred and noted they were working regular duties when the incident occurred. The worker advised the WCB of a previous back injury but stated they did not have pain radiating down their left leg before the incident. The worker reported missing time on May 9, 2025 for physiotherapy but no other missed time. The WCB advised the worker their claim was accepted. The employer confirmed to the WCB that the worker missed time on May 9, 2025 but had returned to work.

On May 23, 2025, the worker advised the WCB they were taking time off to help with their recovery and noted their physician prescribed pain medication and felt they should not drive. At physiotherapy the same day, the worker reported pain in their left low back with prolonged sitting, standing, walking, and lifting. The physiotherapist noted similar findings to the previous report and noted the worker sustained another injury at work on May 14, 2025.

The WCB provided wage loss benefits beginning on May 26, 2025.

Date of Accident – May 14, 2025 

On May 21, 2025, the worker reported to the WCB that they sustained injury to their right lower back resulting from an incident at work on May 14, 2025. The worker described catching a falling person, similar to the mechanism of injury of the May 1, 2025 accident and feeling a sharp pain from their back down into their buttocks afterwards.

In an undated Doctor First Report provided to the WCB on May 21, 2025, the treating physician noted the worker’s report of severe pain in their lower back after catching a person falling out of a vehicle. The physician noted this was a separate event from the incident of May 1, 2025. The physician recorded findings of pain with range of motion but did not provide a diagnosis, and noted the worker had pre-existing degenerative disc disease, low back pain and the “…exact same injury May 1st, 2025”. The physician provided the worker was totally disabled from work but continued to work despite the injury.

The WCB received a physiotherapy report for an assessment on May 15, 2025, which noted the worker injured their right lower back the previous day when catching a person who was falling, and that the worker felt an immediate strain to their right lower back. The treating physiotherapist recorded the worker's report of pain to the right lower back that radiated down to the right buttock area, and pain with prolonged standing, walking, and sitting and when lifting. The clinical findings included an antalgic gait and bilateral positive straight leg raise and slump testing, with tenderness at the right and left L4/L5 area and at the lumbar myofascial and sciatic nerve bilaterally. The physiotherapist diagnosed right muscular strain with sciatic nerve referral and re-aggravation of the left L4/L5 radiculopathy, with a recommendation that the worker remain off work for two weeks.

Both Claims 

At physiotherapy on June 11, 2025, the worker reported pain in their low back when walking, running or prolonged driving and when lifting heavier weights. The physiotherapist recorded findings of a mild antalgic gait and positive leg raise and slump tests, and recommended work restrictions of two shifts per week, and no lifting, pushing, or pulling of greater than thirty pounds.

The WCB developed a return to work plan with the worker and employer, with return to work on June 16, 2025. After completing two shifts, the worker discontinued working due to ongoing and increasing symptoms. The treating physiotherapist reported on June 24, 2025 that the worker noted weakness at their left ankle, pain with prolonged sitting or lifting and especially driving, and less symptoms with movement and activity. The treating physiotherapist recorded that the worker aggravated their symptoms after the return to work and recommended the worker remain off work for two weeks.

A lumbar spine MRI study on June 30, 2025 indicated degenerative changes in the worker's lower lumbar spine. The July 4, 2025 progress report from the treating physiotherapist noted ongoing low back difficulties and that as a result, the worker’s return to work was delayed. At the request of the WCB, the worker attended a call-in examination with a WCB medical advisor on October 7, 2025. On examining the worker and in response to questions asked by the WCB case manager, the medical advisor concluded that the diagnosis with respect to both the May 1, 2025 workplace accident and the May 14, 2025 workplace accident was low back strain in the environment of a pre-existing chronic left L5 radiculopathy. The medical advisor noted the worker’s reported right-sided symptoms after the May 14, 2025 accident do not suggest right-sided radiculopathy as the symptoms do not radiate further than the worker’s right knee and the diagnostic imaging does not support such findings. With respect to the worker’s pre-existing condition, the medical advisor noted the worker's 2013 WCB claim accepted permanent left L5 nerve root damage and placed permanent restrictions on the worker, which included not lifting more than thirty-five pounds and no repetitive bending or twisting of the spine. The medical advisor noted the worker indicated they did not follow those restrictions. The medical advisor also noted the similarity of the worker’s current symptoms to those they reported in a 2024 WCB claim, and the medical reporting did not support a finding that there was any aggravation or enhancement of their pre-existing condition. The medical advisor noted recovery from a low back strain typically occurs over a few days up to 10 weeks, and that the evidence indicated the worker’s lumbar spine range of motion and sitting tolerance improved and the worker likely had returned to their baseline by mid-July 2025. The medical advisor concluded the worker’s current difficulties were not medically accounted for in relation to either workplace accident.

The WCB arranged an occupational therapy assessment at the worker’s jobsite, which took place on November 21, 2025. The occupational therapist recommended the worker could work within their permanent restrictions, with some accommodations, and recommended the WCB provide a heating pad for use when driving. On consulting with the worker and employer, the WCB outlined a gradual return to work plan to start on December 8, 2025 and end on January 9, 2026, at which time the worker would return to full regular duties with no entitlement to further benefits.

On December 11, 2025, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision. On January 14, 2026, Review Office determined the worker was not entitled to benefits after January 9, 2026. With respect to the accident on May 1, 2025, Review Office found the worker sustained a minor injury and continued to work until the accident of May 14, 2025. Review Office found the worker did not miss time from work due to either accident until May 23, 2025 and is not entitled to benefits after that date in relation to the May 1, 2025 accident. Regarding the May 14, 2025 workplace accident, Review Office accepted the worker sustained a low back strain in the environment of pre-existing conditions and at 8 months after the accident, was back to their pre-accident condition. Review Office further noted the restrictions set out by the occupational therapist were no greater than the worker’s permanent restrictions and the worker’s current difficulties were not related to either May 2025 workplace accident.

On January 27, 2026, the worker appealed the WCB decisions in relation to both claims 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”), 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.”

The WCB established Policy 44.10.20.10, Pre-existing Conditions (the "Pre-existing Policy") which explains the WCB's approach to compensating a worker who has pre-existing health conditions that may contribute to the severity of a workplace injury or prolong a worker's recovery from such an injury. This Policy defines a pre-existing condition as any medical condition the worker had prior to their workplace injury. Pre-existing conditions may contribute to the severity of a workplace injury or significantly prolong a worker's recovery. Workplace injuries can also impact pre-existing conditions. When a worker’s pre-existing condition is temporarily worsened because of a workplace injury, this is considered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. When a worker’s condition is permanently worsened because of a workplace injury, this is considered an enhancement of the pre-existing condition.

Worker's Position

The worker appeared in the hearing to make submissions on their own behalf and offered testimony through answers to questions posed to them by members of the appeal panel.

The worker's position is that they have not recovered to their pre-accident baseline condition since the accidents of May 2025. In particular, the worker noted they have ongoing left lumbar spine symptoms that were not present prior to May 2025. The worker described having pain in their left lower back extending into their left buttock and that their symptoms increase with inactivity and decrease with activity, whether at work or at home. The worker noted their treating family physician recently referred them to a spinal surgeon for a consult, but they have no appointment to date. The worker described that physiotherapy did not improve their condition and noted they do not use pain relief medication.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issues in this appeal relate to the worker's ongoing lower back symptoms and whether these are causally related to the worker's compensable May 1, 2025 accident or to the May 14, 2025 accident. For the worker's appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find on a balance of probabilities that the evidence supports a finding that the worker's continuing lower back complaints are the result of either or both accidents and/or that as a result of either or both of those accidents, the worker requires further medical aid or is experiencing a loss of earning capacity. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was not able to make such findings and therefore the worker's appeal is denied in respect of all questions before the panel.

In reviewing these claims, the panel considered the medical reporting in relation to the worker's prior compensable low back injuries in 2013 and 2024. We noted the June 2016 findings of the treating physiatrist who reported the results of electrodiagnostic studies indicated likely chronic L5 radiculopathy as well as "…other mild chronic predominantly motor changes …not explained by this diagnosis." We further noted that workplace restrictions have been in place since that time and that the WCB determined in 2016 that the worker had a permanent partial impairment rating of 10% in relation to their lumbar mobility and permanent L5 root damage. The 2024 claim file relates to a low back strain injury sustained on May 29, 2024. A July 2024 MRI study noted minimal progression in the degenerative changes present from 2014, and an October 17, 2024 assessment by a sports medicine physician outlines a diagnosis of left L4/L5 radiculopathy and notes the worker's condition had plateaued such that they had recovered "fairly full" function, although with ongoing symptoms. The panel finds that this report provides a relevant baseline for the worker's pre-accident status in relation to the May 2025 claims.

Accident of May 1, 2025 

The panel considered the medical reporting in relation to the nature and extent of the worker's injury arising out of the May 1, 2025 accident and noted the worker did not seek medical attention until assessed for physiotherapy on May 9, 2025. At that time, the treating physiotherapist recorded a diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy and recommended the worker remain off work for two weeks and continue physiotherapy. The treating family physician assessed the worker on May 21, 2025, after the worker sustained a further injury to their back at work and at that time noted their diagnosis of degenerative disc disease and low back pain, recommending physiotherapy. The physiotherapist's report of May 23, 2025 notes the worker had another injury at work on May 15, 2025 and again recommends the worker remain off work for two weeks.

The panel noted the worker did not take any time away from work due to the May 1, 2025 injury but continued working until May 22, 2025. The panel further noted the WCB accepted the claim and provided for up to eighteen physiotherapy treatments, but the worker testified that this treatment did not result in any improvement in their low back symptoms. The panel also noted the WCB provided benefits to the worker under this claim until May 23, 2025 at which time the WCB accepted and began providing benefits in relation to the May 14, 2025 accident claim.

Having reviewed the medical reporting, the panel finds no evidence of any enhancement or aggravation of the worker's pre-existing condition arising out of the injury sustained in the accident of May 1, 2025. While the worker continued to experience low back symptoms beyond May 23, 2025 the panel is satisfied that these more likely than not are causally related to the new low back injury sustained on May 14, 2025 given the worker's ability to continue working until after that injury occurred.

Based on the evidence before the panel, and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker's current back symptoms are not related to the May 1, 2025 accident and that the worker is not entitled to benefits after May 23, 2025. The worker's appeals with respect to the May 1, 2025 accident are therefore denied.

Accident of May 14, 2025 

In relation to the accident of May 14, 2025, the panel noted the WCB accepted the worker's time loss after May 22, 2025 as being a result of the accident and that wage loss benefits were provided. The WCB also authorized a further eighteen physiotherapy treatments in relation to the May 14, 2025 injury. The worker's position is that they did not recover from this injury by the time the WCB discontinued their benefits in January 2026.

The evidence before the panel indicates diagnosis of degenerative disc disease and low back pain following the May 14, 2025 injury, which the treating family physician described as the "exact same injury" as the worker sustained on May 1, 2025. The MRI imaging of June 30, 2025 confirms the presence of degeneration at multiple levels of the worker's spine and notes a clinical history of "severe progressive pain in back" but contains no acute findings and concludes with the impression of "Degenerative changes in the lower lumbar spine." The WCB accepted a diagnosis of lower back right muscular strain with sciatic nerve referral and a reaggravation of the lower left L4/L5 radiculopathy. The worker described a difference in their symptoms after May 14, 2025, specifically noting the presence of new right sided low back pain radiating into their right buttock. The panel noted the treating physiotherapist outlined on July 4, 2025 that the worker "presents with degenerative changes in the lower lumbar spine as confirmed by MRI" and that the worker continues to "experience flare-ups and functional regression following attempts to return to driving for 6-8 hours per day, which is a central component of their work role." The panel noted that while the physiotherapist's reporting reflects the presence of right lower back symptoms, they do not link these to any specific MRI findings. The WCB medical advisor who examined the worker on October 7, 2025 concluded that the worker had, by that time, recovered to their pre-accident baseline condition, noting that the worker's "…current presentation is very similar to that described by the sports medicine physician on September 24, 2024." The panel accepts and relies on this opinion.

The panel also considered whether there is evidence to support the worker's position that as a result of this accident, their pre-existing degenerative back condition was enhanced such that their continuing low back symptoms can be related to that injury. The worker described symptoms that flare up with inactivity and diminish with activity and pointed to the 2025 MRI findings as indicating disc compression or herniation that would explain their continuing right-sided symptoms. The panel noted the treating family physician, in November 2025, indicated the worker's report of "intermittent pain" that had not changed since the initial report, despite physiotherapy. This is consistent with the information set out in the WCB call-in examination notes of October 7, 2025. The panel accepts that the worker sustained a lower back strain injury in the context of a chronic and longstanding degenerative disc disease in their lumbar spine, and while this pre-existing condition could have prolonged the worker's recovery from the injury sustained on May 14, 2025, the evidence does not support a finding that this injury permanently enhanced the worker's degenerative disc condition.

The panel finds that the worker's ongoing back symptoms are more likely than not related to their pre-existing degenerative back condition and that the worker recovered from the May 14, 2025 injury to their baseline pre-accident condition.

Based on the evidence before the panel, and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker's current back symptoms are not related to the May 14, 2025 accident and that the worker is not entitled to benefits after January 9, 2026. The worker's appeals with respect to the May 14, 2025 accident are therefore 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 21st day of May, 2026