The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that their claim is not acceptable. At a file review held on June 25, 2026, the panel considered this appeal.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on November 7, 2025, reporting they sustained a lower back injury at work on October 29, 2025. The worker described the injury as a cumulative injury occurring over time, and noted they reported this to their supervisor on October 30, 2025. The worker reported experiencing migraines and a sore back at the end of their shift, which they attributed to the fact their workstation was not set up ergonomically. The worker reported their back was "Really bad about a year ago" and outlined symptoms of lower back pain that included pain down their left leg and increased head and neck ache. The worker indicated they previously requested the employer provide a standing desk and a keyboard raising tray, but these were not provided. The worker stated their treating physician placed them off work to the end of December 2025 and they were treating the injury with physiotherapy.

The Employer's Accident Report provided to the WCB on November 13, 2025 noted they had no report from the worker of an injury occurring at work on October 29, 2025.

At physiotherapy on November 19, 2025, the worker reported experiencing a "…significant Progressive (sic) onset of pain while sitting for extended periods of time at work." The worker also reported their symptoms worsened over several weeks, hitting a peak on October 30, 2025 when the worker experienced significant pain when sitting or when rising from sitting to standing. The worker reported making a request for an alternative desk and chair setup at their workstation and that they shared a workstation. The physiotherapist noted "The prolonged sitting and the up and down has created strain and mechanical pain through the low back and into the hips and down the leg." The physiotherapist recorded subjective complaints of constant ache in the low back, occasional shooting pain into the buttocks and muscle spasms, and occasional nerve pain with numbness and tingling into the left leg. On examination, the physiotherapist found significantly restricted lumbar and hip range of motion with sharp pain across the low back, significant tenderness of the bilateral lumbar paraspinal muscles, greater on the left than the right, and tenderness in the gluteal muscles and piriformis, also greater on the left than the right. The physiotherapist noted weakness of the core with functional movements and positive neurological tension in the left lower extremity. The physiotherapist outlined their diagnosis of mechanical low back pain, lumbar strain due to prolonged sitting and repetitive standing from sitting position at work, underlying left L5/S1 nerve root irritation and possible underlying lumbar disc involvement.

When the WCB contacted the worker on November 21, 2025, the worker stated their belief that their injury resulted from 20 years working at a workstation that was not ergonomically appropriate, noting their request for changes which the employer did not provide, and described their experience of migraines and a sore back at the end of a shift. The worker advised their symptoms began approximately one year earlier and flared on and off since that time, with no changes to their workload or duties in that time. The worker described their current symptoms of sharp pain going down their leg, tightness and burning pain in their lower to mid back region, difficulty sleeping, and pain with certain movements. The worker confirmed they reported their difficulties to their manager one year earlier and spoke with coworkers about their sore back. The worker also outlined the medical treatment they sought.

The chart notes from the treating physiotherapist received by the WCB on November 26, 2025, indicated the worker first sought treatment in July 2024 with complaints of left sacroiliac joint and gluteal pain over the previous 2 years. The chart notes indicated no specific injury and outlined the worker's belief that the pain was due to working long hours, with sitting causing worsening of pain. The chart notes from August 2024 outline the worker's report of left greater than right low back and buttock pain from prolonged sitting with poor ergonomics. The physiotherapist provided their diagnosis of mechanical low back pain/strain from prolonged sitting at work. The June 2025 chart notes reference the worker's attendance for "…exacerbation of chronic low back pain", again noting the worker's report of pain across the low back and both sacroiliac joints and in the gluteal region, with some decrease in range of motion.

On December 11, 2025, the WCB advised the worker by letter that it determined the claim was not acceptable. The same day, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB's decision, noting in their submission that while there was no change to their workload, their injury occurred due to many years working at a workstation that was not ergonomically appropriate for them, as supported by the treating healthcare providers who indicated the worker's symptoms are consistent with a cumulative strain caused by "…prolonged sitting, poor ergonomic support, and repetitive postures."

The WCB received a Doctor First Report dated October 30, 2025 on January 2, 2026. In that report from a virtual assessment, the treating physician noted the worker's report of intermittent mechanical back pain for two years, which worsened over the previous week making it difficult for the worker to sit. The physician noted the worker reported occasional muscle spasms and pain radiating down the left leg, possibly sciatica. The physician diagnosed mechanical back pain and recommended an x-ray. The spinal x-ray taken the same date indicated "Minimal thoracolumbar spondylosis". The physician recommended conservative treatment including ice and heat, physiotherapy, and massage therapy.

On January 8, 2026, the worker provided Review Office with a submission outlining the events leading them to make a WCB claim. The worker noted that on October 29, 2025, their low back symptoms worsened to the point where they contacted their physician the next day, who provided a note for the worker to remain off work until November 3, 2025. The worker advised that they then contacted the employer and provided the medical note. The treating physician provided a further sick note on November 6, 2025, advising the worker to remain off work until the end of December, 2025, at which time they contacted the WCB to file a claim. The worker noted they did not initially recognize the cumulative injury and self-treated until their symptoms worsened, when they sought medical treatment. On January 9, 2026, the worker provided a further sick note to Review Office noting they were to remain off work until February 25, 2026. On January 16, 2026, the worker provided Review Office with a January 15, 2026 email from their former manager who advised an ergonomic assessment was conducted for the worker approximately in 2015 due to the worker's ongoing difficulties at the time. The worker also provided a letter from their treating massage therapist to Review Office on January 19, 2026, in which the massage therapist noted the worker received treatment for their "…hip flexor tightness and lower back discomfort associated with prolonged sitting" until August 23, 2019.

The employer's representative provided a submission on January 19, 2025 in support of the WCB's decision.

On February 4, 2026, Review Office found the worker's claim was not acceptable. The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on February 20, 2026 and a file review 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”), regulations under the Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors.

A worker is entitled to benefits under s 4(1) of the Act when the evidence establishes that they sustained injury as a result of an accident at work. The Act sets out the definition of an accident in s 1(1) as including:

(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 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 represented themself in the appeal and outlined their position in the Appeal of Claims Decision form dated February 8, 2026 and in their submissions to the WCB including to Review Office.

The worker's position is that the WCB failed to consider whether they sustained a cumulative injury and aggravation of a pre-existing condition, noting that their job requires prolonged sitting which aggravated their back and hip symptoms. The worker submitted the employer failed to meet their requests for a standing workstation and that the sustained seated position contributed to the progression of their condition.

The worker relied on documents including a letter from their treating massage therapist, last seen in 2019 and a January 15, 2026 letter from a former supervisor confirming that the employer conducted an ergonomic assessment of the worker's workstation in approximately 2015.

Employer's Position

The employer's position is set out in a written submission dated May 6, 2026 provided to the Appeal Commission by the employer's advocate. The employer's position is that the claim is not acceptable as there is no evidence that an accident occurred nor that the worker was injured as a result of any incident or event at work, nor by the conditions of their work or workplace. The employer's advocate submitted the evidence indicates the worker has chronic back issues but there is no evidence to causally link those issues with the worker's job duties or any specific workplace incident. As such, the claim should not be accepted.

Analysis

This appeal considers whether the worker's claim is acceptable. For the worker's appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that there is evidence that as a result of an accident, as defined under the provisions of the Act, which arose out of and in the course of employment, the worker sustained an injury. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was not able to make such a finding and therefore the worker's appeal is denied.

The statutory definition of accident includes not only a chance event with a physical or natural cause and a wilful and intentional act by someone other than the worker, but also an event or condition, or a combination thereof, related to the worker's work or workplace, that causes an injury. In this case, the worker is not claiming that they were injured as a result of the occurrence of any chance event or wilful and intentional act, but rather that they sustained injury as a result of the conditions of their workplace, specifically that they are required to work in an environment that requires long periods of sitting in positions that are not ergonomically optimal and that this has, over many years caused a cumulative injury to their back as well as headaches.

The panel reviewed and considered the job description as provided by the employer, which describes job duties that are generally sedentary, but varied. We find these job duties are not repetitive in terms of consistency and frequency and as such, we find it unlikely that the job duties themselves could have caused a cumulative injury to the worker's spine. The panel also noted the evidence from a former supervisor of the worker and from the worker that an ergonomic assessment was conducted in the workplace approximately 10 years earlier, with no changes implemented. There are no details in evidence of the findings of any such assessment and the panel therefore gives little weight to these assertions. Regardless, the panel finds it unlikely that the worker would have developed symptoms in October 2025 due to any ergonomic deficiencies of their workstation given the evidence that the worker's job duties were unchanged and there were no changes in the workstation over that period. We find the evidence is not sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the worker sustained a cumulative injury to their back arising out of poor workplace ergonomics.

The panel also reviewed the available medical reporting in relation to the worker's claim. We noted the initial assessment by the treating family physician took place by telephone, and as such, there are no clinical findings to rely upon from the October 30, 2025, visit. We also noted the lack of any subsequent medical reports from this physician, although they continued to provide medical notes indicating the worker could not return to work through to at least February 2026.

The panel noted that although the worker reported to the WCB that they had symptoms for about two years before making their claim, there is evidence that prior to August 2019, the worker sought treatment from a massage therapist for what the therapist described as "hip flexor tightness and lower back discomfort" associated with prolonged sitting. There is also evidence that in 2024, the worker sought physiotherapy treatment in relation to left SI joint and gluteal pain, and then, in November 2025, in relation to "exacerbation of chronic low back pain." At first, the worker attributed the pain to long hours at work, noting symptoms increased with prolonged sitting but later, the worker attributed their symptoms to poor workstation ergonomics. This is the position the worker maintains to the present, but the inconsistencies in these reports make it difficult for the panel to confirm the nature and timing of the worker's symptomatic presentation.

The panel also considered that the spinal x-ray of October 30, 2025 indicates minimal thoracolumbar spondylosis but no evidence of any acute injury or other concerns. There is no evidence to indicate that this condition is a cause of the worker's symptoms, nor that this condition was or could have been impacted by the conditions of the worker's job. Further, there is no evidence to indicate when or how this condition developed, or if it is a pre-existing or co-existing condition. The worker submitted that the WCB failed to consider whether the conditions of their work, including their workstation setup caused an aggravation or enhancement of their pre-existing condition, but the panel finds there is no indication in the medical reporting that if the worker had a relevant pre-existing condition, it was or could have been impacted by their working conditions.

Further, while the worker's claim and supporting evidence from colleagues suggests the worker also experienced debilitating headaches which they related to their work, there is no medical evidence to support this aspect of the worker's claim.

Based on the totality of the evidence before the panel, and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, the panel is unable to find that the worker sustained an injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. Therefore, the claim is not accepted, and the worker's appeal is 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 29th day of June, 2026