Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 February 2019 | News Workers' compensation benefits for missed return-to-work period Benefits ended even though worker didn't return to work as expected; Workplace accident didn't cause condition but definitely aggravated it BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO worker has won an appeal for workers' com- pensation benefits for a period following a back injury when couldn't return to work by the expected date and benefits were discontinued. The 66-year-old worker was employed as a full-time labourer and delivery driver for a compa- ny that sold wholesale appliances since 2008. On Oct. 18, 2013, the then-61-year-old worker was bending over to place a dolly un- derneath a freezer when he in- jured his lower back. He sought medical treatment and was diag- nosed with a lumbar strain. Two weeks after the work- place injury, on Oct. 31, the worker underwent an x-ray of his lumbar spine. The x-ray re- vealed mild degenerative chang- es but no significant or traumatic injuries. However, less than a month later on Nov. 19, the worker had a CT scan of his lumbar spine. This scan showed the worker had a significant disc bulge in his lower back and adjacent minor compression of the spinal canal and nerve root. The worker was off work af- ter the injury and his symptoms persisted for several months. The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) granted him workers' compen- sation benefits and referred him for an evaluation by an ortho- paedic specialist and occupa- tional therapist. They diagnosed sciatica that prevented him from returning to work for some time and recommended a six-week program of active therapy fol- lowed by a graduated return-to- work program. However, in late January 2014, a return-to-work specialist as- sessed that a return-to-work plan with the wholesale appli- ance company wasn't possible because no suitable work could be identified. The following month, a WSIB medical consul- tant determined that the CT scan showed degenerative changes that weren't compatible with the mechanism of the workplace in- jury and the worker's back strain likely aggravated his underly- ing condition. The WSIB deter- mined the worker should be able to return to work by April 24 and granted entitlement to benefits until that date. However, the worker didn't re- turn to work until May 26, when he started performing modified duties such as sweeping and picking up garbage. He under- went another CT scan in early May that indicated similar de- generative changes to his spine but nothing significantly differ- ent from the first scan. Modified duties didn't work The worker worked for about three weeks until June 18, when he experienced significantly greater pain in his lower back while bending over to pick up garbage. He had to go off work again and the WSIB granted him loss-of-earnings benefits due to a recurrence of his workplace in- jury as of that date. The worker sought entitle- ment to benefits during the pe- riod he had tried to come back to work, which were denied by the WSIB and an appeals reso- lution officer. The officer found that the worker's "underlying lumbar spine findings are not compatible" with the workplace accident causing disablement, but noted that the WSIB medical consultant felt that the worker's back strain likely aggravated the underlying condition and con- tributed to the back pain and sciatica. The worker appealed to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and attended a WSIB back and neck clinic, where he was diagnosed Credit: Shutterstock/wavebreakmedia Back strain > pg. 8

• Cover