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 April 29, 2026 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on September 8, 2025 to report an injury to their right shoulder that occurred at work on March 1, 2025. In the report the worker described that their job duties involved lifting and helping residents and having felt a pain in their right shoulder sometime in March 2025. The worker noted that they continued working but whenever they push or pull with their right arm, their right shoulder hurts and also reported that they cannot sleep on their right side due to the pain. The worker advised they saw their treating physician on April 4, 2025, and was given a cortisone injection for a muscle strain, which the physician had diagnosed. On approximately May 28, 2025, the worker advised the physician that they could not put any pressure on their right shoulder, and the physician recommended an MRI, which was scheduled for December 2025. The worker further advised that they self-treat the pain in their right shoulder with ice and over-the-counter pain medications.

On September 19, 2025, the employer submitted an Employer’s Accident Report to the WCB. The worker’s manager noted on the report that the worker advised them of the injury to their right shoulder on September 15, 2025. It was noted that the worker had not reported an injury to the employer prior to that date. The manager noted they met with the worker in person on September 17, 2025, and the worker advised their ongoing right shoulder pain was due to their job duties involving continuously lifting residents. The worker advised that their physician had recommended they continued to work so their shoulder did not get stiff but also noted they continued to experience pain and cramps to their shoulder when they work.

The WCB received a copy of the March 31, 2025 report for the worker’s attendance at a local emergency department on October 2, 2025. The report noted the worker’s reporting of right shoulder pain with a gradual onset over approximately a year, which was aggravated with their job duties and no specific injury noted. On examining the worker, the treating physician found “…no focal tenderness to palpation, no deformity. Very significant reduced range of motion, with abduction limited to approximately 75 to 80 degrees, while posterior extension is relatively intact and forward flexion about 90 degrees.” The physician diagnosed the worker with a frozen shoulder, likely due to an underlying rotator cuff issue. It was recommended the worker attend for an x-ray, followed by a pain medication injection and the worker was referred for an MRI study. The March 31, 2025 right shoulder x-ray was noted to be normal. A follow-up report of May 30, 2025 was also received with the worker noting the pain medicine injection lasted about a month and that they were not sleeping well due to pain. Again, it was noted that the worker related their shoulder injury to their job duties, but no specific injury or trauma was indicated. A further report dated August 7, 2025 was also provided to the WCB on October 2, 2025, with the treating physician noting the worker’s report that their right shoulder was still sore and that they had hurt their shoulder again moving a resident the other day. The physician again noted they suspected the worker had a rotator cuff injury and that the worker was scheduled for an MRI in December 2025. A copy of a sick note, completed by the worker’s treating physician, was provided to the WCB indicating the worker was placed off work from September 19, 2025 to December 19, 2025, pending the results of the MRI scheduled for December 16, 2025.

On October 2, 2025, the WCB contacted the worker to discuss their claim and gather further information. The worker confirmed they related their right shoulder injury to their job duties involving lifting and helping residents for a year. The worker described a specific incident on March 1, 2025, when a resident they were helping started to fall and they grabbed the resident to attempt to put them in a sitting position and felt immediate pain in their right arm/shoulder. The worker advised they took over-the-counter medication thinking the pain would go away but found when they tried to push or pull, their right shoulder was stiff and sore. They further noted they can’t move their shoulder or sleep on their right side. The worker described their current symptoms as pain from their elbow to the shoulder on the right side, mostly in the rotator cuff region. The worker provided the WCB with a description of their job duties and noted there had not been a change or increase in their duties. It was further noted they had no prior issues with their right shoulder but did have a previous WCB claim for their left shoulder.

The report for the worker’s attendance at their physician’s office on September 19, 2025 was received by the WCB on October 9, 2025. The physician noted the worker’s reporting of ongoing right shoulder pain and their concern about making their shoulder pain worse with working, noting the pain “settles down” when they don’t work for a few days but flares up after they return to work. The treating physician examined the worker and found restriction range of motion in the right shoulder and tenderness over the biceps tendon insertion. The physician indicated a right shoulder rotator cuff/biceps tendon injury seemed likely and placed the worker off work until December 19, 2025, noting the worker’s MRI study was scheduled for December 16, 2025. The worker was also referred for physiotherapy.

The WCB advised the worker on October 9, 2025 that it had been determined their claim was not acceptable as an accident occurring in the course of or arising out of their job duties could not be established.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to the Review Office on October 28, 2025. In their submission, the worker noted they injured their shoulder at work and their treating healthcare providers supported their injury and recommended the worker remain off work pending the outcome of an upcoming MRI study. On November 20, 2025, the Review Office determined the worker’s claim was not acceptable. The Review Office found the worker had a previous history of WCBs claims for injuries to their right arm/shoulder, with similar descriptions of injury with repetitive movements and lifting and a long progression of symptoms. The Review Office further found the medical evidence on file does not support the worker sustained a traumatic injury on March 1, 2025, or that the worker’s job duties caused the worker’s current right shoulder difficulties. As such, an accident arising out of or in the course of the worker’s duties has not been established and the worker’s claim was not acceptable. The worker provided a further copy of the September 19, 2023 sick note to the Review Office on November 25, 2025, and was advised by the Review Office on November 27, 2025, there would be no change to their earlier decision.

The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on December 5, 2025, 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, regulations under the Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors.

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid. The Act defines “accident” in Section 1(1) as follows:

(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 WCB has established a policy, Policy 44.05, Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment (the “Policy”) that focuses how the WCB determines whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Policy states, in part:

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.

The WCB established Policy 44.10.20.10, Pre-existing Conditions (the “Pre-existing Policy”) to explain when the WCB will provide compensation to a worker whose pre-existing health condition may contribute to the severity of a workplace injury or prolong a worker's recovery from such an injury. This Policy provides that wage loss benefits are payable to a worker when the WCB determines they have a loss of earning capacity resulting in part from a workplace injury and in part from a non-compensable pre-existing condition, but those benefits will cease when a worker has recovered from the workplace injury to the point that the injury is no longer materially contributing to the worker's loss of earning capacity.

Worker’s Position

The worker was present at the hearing and made an oral presentation to the panel. The worker also provided testimony by way of answering questions posed by members of the panel.

The worker’s evidence is that, prior to the March 1, 2025 accident, they did not have ongoing pain and were able to complete their regular duties which were physically strenuous.

The worker noted that they initially thought they had simply pulled a muscle but then the pain and symptoms continued to get worse and they were not able to complete their work duties, which caused them to seek medical attention. The worker had a cortisone injection on March 30, 2025, which helped for a brief period and they also self-medicated with pain killers. The worker states that they were waiting for an MRI appointment and continued to work because they needed the income, and that their co-workers would assist and helped accommodate the heavy tasks. The evidence of the worker was that while they were off work and not doing physical tasks, the pain and symptoms were “at bay”. The worker also gave evidence at the hearing that a co-worker was present during their injury on March 1, 2025.

The worker’s position is that they were injured in an accident at work, that arose out of and in the course of employment. The worker is seeking a finding that their claim is acceptable.

Employer’s Position

A representative of the employer was present at the hearing and made an oral presentation to the panel. The representative answered questions posed by members of the panel.

The employer submits that the worker’s injury was not the result of an accident as defined by the Act. The employer notes that the evidence is that the worker had long standing issues with their right shoulder.

The employer acknowledges that there was a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon shown on that December 16, 2025 imaging but relies on the conclusion of the Review Office that it was not caused by work related duties and that there was no traumatic injury or incident at work.

The employer’s position is that the claim is not acceptable.

Analysis

The issue before the appeal panel is whether the claim is acceptable. For the worker’s appeal to be successful, the panel would have to determine, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker was injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The panel was able to make such a finding for the reasons that follow. The worker’s appeal is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the panel has considered the worker’s evidence regarding the nature of their duties and the circumstances surrounding the onset of their right shoulder symptoms. The worker was employed in a physically demanding position which regularly required assisting, transferring, lifting and supporting residents. The panel accepts that these duties placed considerable physical demands on the worker’s shoulders and upper extremities.

The panel places significant weight on the worker’s testimony regarding the incident of March 1, 2025. The worker consistently described attempting to prevent a resident from falling by grabbing and supporting the resident while repositioning them into a seated position. The worker reported feeling immediate pain in their right shoulder and arm at that time. The panel finds the worker’s evidence regarding this event to be credible and reliable. The worker’s explanation that they initially believed they had merely strained a muscle and expected the symptoms to resolve without formal reporting is consistent with the delay in reporting the injury to the employer and the WCB.

The panel acknowledges that the initial medical records do not contain a detailed description of the March 1, 2025 incident and instead refer to a gradual onset of shoulder symptoms aggravated by work duties. However, the panel does not find this inconsistency sufficient to reject the worker’s evidence. The medical records consistently document the worker’s reporting that their shoulder difficulties were related to their employment and to the physical demands of lifting and assisting residents. Further, the records document ongoing symptoms beginning shortly after the March 2025 incident, including pain, restricted range of motion, sleep disturbance and difficulty performing pushing and pulling activities.

The panel notes that the worker sought medical attention on March 31, 2025, approximately one month after the incident. At that time, significant loss of shoulder range of motion was documented and a diagnosis of frozen shoulder, likely secondary to an underlying rotator cuff pathology, was considered. Subsequent medical reporting continued to identify a probable rotator cuff or biceps tendon injury. The August 7, 2025 medical report notes the worker’s report that they aggravated their shoulder while moving a resident, again linking the worker’s symptoms to the performance of their job duties.

The employer and the Review Office relied in part upon evidence suggesting the worker had previous right shoulder difficulties. In the panel’s opinion while the worker may have experienced previous right upper extremity or shoulder complaints, the panel is not satisfied that the worker was experiencing ongoing disabling right shoulder symptoms immediately before March 1, 2025. The worker’s evidence was that they were performing their full regular duties without restrictions and without significant ongoing symptoms prior to the incident. The panel accepts that evidence.

The evidence establishes that the worker experienced a significant change in symptoms following the March 1, 2025 workplace event and thereafter developed ongoing functional difficulties requiring medical treatment, physiotherapy referral and eventual removal from work. In the panel’s view, the evidence supports that the workplace incident either caused or materially aggravated any underlying shoulder pathology.

The panel also notes that diagnostic imaging subsequently demonstrated a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon. While the imaging was completed many months after the accident and does not conclusively establish when the tear occurred, the finding is consistent with the clinical suspicions repeatedly documented by the worker’s treating physicians throughout 2025. The panel finds that this evidence lends support to the worker’s account of sustaining a shoulder injury in the course of their employment.

The panel further finds it significant that the worker’s symptoms were present when doing their physically demanding work duties but improved when they were away from work. This pattern is consistent with a work-related shoulder injury and supports a causal relationship between the worker’s employment and their ongoing symptoms.

The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker sustained an injury to their right shoulder when attempting to prevent a resident from falling on March 1, 2025. The panel is therefore satisfied that the worker sustained a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. Accordingly, the claim is acceptable, and the worker’s appeal is granted.

Panel Members

R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
D. Rhoda, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 24th day of June, 2026