Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 News | September 2018 | CSR It is not clear that her work du- ties on Feb. 2 actually caused the condition in her knee," but the surgeon noted that the worker didn't have any significant prob- lems with her knee prior to the workplace accident. The worker retired from her job in July 2015. The tribunal referred to the WSIB's policy document defin- ing an accident as well as the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The former states that a chance event is one that is unintended and identifiable that causes an injury, and a work- related disablement is "an unex- pected result of working duties" that can also emerge gradually over time. The act also indicates an accident must arise out of and in the course of employment and be either a chance event or an in- tentional act by someone other than the worker. The tribunal also noted that on the day of the workplace acci- dent, the worker was performing "very similar functions" to her regular job duties, with the only difference that she had to push more chairs than usual. It also found it telling that the worker didn't miss any time from work as a result of the injury or any resulting treatment and didn't require any modification of her duties until she underwent sur- gery 11 months later. The tribunal found that there was no compatibility between the diagnosis of the worker's knee condition and the accident history. Other than some brief pain on the day of the accident, the worker was able to perform her regular job duties the same as she had before the accident without any interruption for almost a year. Although she ex- perienced some pain that she de- scribed to her doctor, there was no medical evidence that estab- lished the pain was disabling or was a result of the injury rather than the degenerative condition that was later identified — and was "inherently progressive" — said the tribunal. The tribunal also pointed out that the orthopaedic surgeon's report acknowledged that the workplace accident aggravated the underlying condition in the worker's right knee, but he couldn't specifically state that the worker's duties actually caused it. "I find specifically that the medical evidence does not pro- vide the necessary demonstra- tion of significant contribution between the action of pushing 400 chairs two to three feet over carpet and the aggravation of her underlying, asymptom- atic, arthritic condition which was sufficiently advanced and resulted in the diagnosis of an impairment, osteoarthritis, that led to the worker having surgery in January 2014," the tribunal said. "I find that there is no per- suasive evidence before me to support a proposition that the worker's duties over the course of the day on Feb. 2, 2013, changed the natural course of he worker's underlying degen- erative condition in her right knee." The tribunal denied the work- er's appeal. For more information see: • Decision No. 3634/17, 2017 CarswellOnt 19911 (Ont. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Trib.). take time off. He usually received employment insurance benefits when he couldn't work, but he still made less money than other truck drivers because he couldn't perform the full duties of the po- sition — his restrictions meant he couldn't use a pump truck and he could only do jobs with "no touch freight" driving that involved no lifting, strapping, binding, or tarping the cargo. The worker occasionally had medical procedures done on his knee, including scoping and removing fluid or granules. In 2008, he told the WSIB that he had to stop working because of his knee injury that was from the 1994 workplace accident. An MRI that same year revealed deterioration in his left knee, including "stable degenerative changes," a "mild to moderate MCL sprain," joint effusion, a cyst, and some degeneration in his medial meniscus. There was also evidence of arthritis. The worker saw his doctor in February 2015 because of swell- ing and soreness in his knee, and was referred to a surgeon. The surgeon said nothing could be done for the knee other than possibly a replacement and he advised that the worker should consider another line of work. The worker wanted to return to work as a truck driver, but couldn't without a knee replace- ment. The worker filed a claim for entitlement to a future econom- ic loss supplement and a higher non-economic loss award due to a permanent disability in his knee stemming from a recur- rence of his original workplace injury. The WSIB and an appeals res- olution officer both rejected the worker's claim, so he appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal noted that in or- der for the worker to be entitled to benefits for a recurrence of the workplace injury, the WSIB policy on recurrences required that the deterioration must not be from a significant new inci- dent or exposure and be clini- cally compatible with the origi- nal injury. The tribunal found that the medical evidence indicated the worker had arthritis and some other degenerative changes in his knee, but these couldn't be considered a recurrence of the original injury. The original in- jury for which the worker un- derwent surgery and received benefits involved broken bones and related conditions, which left the worker with lingering issues that affected his ability to work. However, the worker was able to work to a certain extent and didn't need "active clinical treatment" to continue working as a truck driver. The tribunal agreed that the worker had a partial disability due to his knee condition, but the nine-per-cent non-eco- nomic loss award he had already been granted was sufficient. It found there was no medical evidence of significant dete- rioration in his knee and the ac- commodations as a truck driver were keeping with his perma- nent disability. The worker's ap- peal was denied. For more information see: • Decision No. 3421/17, 2017 CarswellOnt 19876 (Ont. Workplace Safety and Appeals Trib.). Degenerative changes weren't recurrence of injury Partial < pg. 3 Degenerative < pg. 6 'Similar functions' to worker's regular job duties e tribunal found it telling that the worker didn't miss any time from work or require any modification of her duties until she underwent surgery 11 months later. e surgeon said nothing could be done for the knee other than possibly a replacement and advised that the worker should consider another line of work.

• Cover