Canadian Safety Reporter

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 CSR | November 2018 | News home to pick up some Tylenol before returning to the office. The headache quickly became extremely painful and he expe- rienced weakness in his left arm. The arm weakness and distrac- tion from the headache made it difficult to properly execute a left-hand turn and he ended up in a slow-speed collision with another vehicle. St-Onge was taken to the hos- pital in an ambulance, where a CT scan revealed an intracere- bral hemorrhage — bleeding in his brain tissue caused by a stroke that was life-threatening. An ambulance took him imme- diately to a hospital in Moncton, where he had emergency sur- gery on his brain. The surgery was success- ful, but the hemorrhage caused hemiplegia — a paralysis of one side of the body. St-Onge under- went several medical and reha- bilitation treatments, but was unable to overcome the paraly- sis. It was eventually determined that the hemorrhage was caused by the rupturing of an aneurysm in his brain. St-Onge filed a claim for work- ers' compensation benefits, but the New Brunswick Workplace Health, Safety and Compensa- tion Committee (WHSCC) re- jected it, finding that because St-Onge had been on the way home instead of to the office, the injury hadn't arisen out of and in the course of his employment, as required by the province's Work- ers' Compensation Act. Pre-existing condition not related to work: WHSCC St-Onge contested the decision, so the WHSCC re-evaluated his claim. It no longer determined he had been returning home, but it still denied the claim because it found St-Onge's hemorrhage wasn't caused by the collision — instead, the collision was caused by the hemorrhage — and there- fore there was no work-related injury. St-Onge had been tak- ing prescription steroids at the time and he had a family history of hypertension as a reaction to steroids, and the medical evi- dence on symptoms and causes of stroke didn't relate to his em- ployment. St-Onge appealed to the Workers' Compensation Ap- peals Tribunal, arguing that the ruptured aneurysm was an acci- dent or chance event as defined under the act and both the ac- cident and the disablement hap- pened before the collision. The tribunal found the cir- cumstances met the definition of "accident" in the act, which refers to a "chance event occa- sioned by a physical or natural cause," and "disablement arising out of and in the course of em- ployment." Since St-Onge was "a sales person who (was) required to operate his vehicle to perform his employment duties," he was in the course of his employment at the time he had the hemor- rhage, said the tribunal. The tribunal also noted that an accident occurring in the course of employment is deemed to also rise out of that same employ- ment if there is no evidence to the contrary, and even if St-Onge had a pre-existing condition that was worsened by the hemor- rhage, he would be entitled to benefits. The WHSCC appealed the tri- bunal's decision before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, arguing the tribunal erred in its interpretation of what qualified as in the course of employment, and it exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling that the act of driving was causally connected with St- Onge's employment. The court found that several requirements for benefits ex- isted in these circumstances — St-Onge was a worker under the act, his employment was in an industry within the scope of the act, he suffered a personal injury, and the act didn't specifically exclude him. The issues were whether his personal injury was caused by an accident as defined in the act, and if that accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. Broad definition of workplace accident The court noted that the act's definition of "accident" was broader than the "common un- derstanding" of the term by in- cluding events with physical or natural causes and any disable- ment arising out of and in the course of a worker's employment. The tribunal was correct when it determined St-Onge's hemor- rhage was "a chance event" with a physical or natural cause. The court agreed with the tri- bunal's finding that at the time St- Onge suffered the hemorrhage, he was performing his duties as a sales representative, "a job which required him to operate his vehi- cle." Once it was determined the injury happened in the course of employment, the tribunal didn't have to find a nexus between the injury and employment without anything specifically refuting the legislative presumption that the two were linked, said the court. The court found that it didn't matter whether St-Onge had an aneurysm before the mo- tor vehicle accident. The actual rupture of the aneurysm and the resulting hemorrhage injury — for which St-Onge was claiming compensation — occurred in the course of employment, while St-Onge was driving his vehicle on a sales call. In addition, the medical report did not provide a cause, so no non-work-related cause was offered to refute the presumption that the injury was in the course of employment. The court determined the tri- bunal was correct when it found the injury occurred in the course of St-Onge's employment. It may not have risen out of his em- ployment, but that didn't mat- ter without specific evidence to prove that it wasn't related. Since St-Onge was performing his job duties when driving on a sales call, that was enough to justify workers' compensation benefits. The court dismissed the ap- peal and upheld the tribunal's decision to grant St-Onge en- titlement to benefits. For more information see: • Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Commission v. St-Onge, 2018 CarswellNB 361 (N.B. C.A.). Stroke < pg. 1 Worker was in the course of employment when driving Credit: Shutterstock/Joaquin Barbara Workers' Compensation Act's definition of 'accident' was broader than the common understanding of the term

• Cover