Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 News |Canadian Safety Reporter vised that his file was closed and there was no ongoing en- titlement from his claim without medical evidence "to support ongoing continuity directly re- lated to the accident." The same was said about his ankle injury entitlement, as he had already received a permanent disability award. The worker disagreed, argu- ing he had a permanent low back impairment radiating into his right leg that warranted en- titlement to full loss-of-earnings benefits from when he stopped working in December 2001 to May 2012, when he turned 65 years old. The WSIB sought a medi- cal opinion about whether the worker's workplace injury had caused a permanent aggravation of his pre-existing back condi- tion. A WSIB doctor found the worker had "a long-standing history of lower back pain, pri- or episode of sciatica, as well as generalized osteoarthritic changes" and the mechanism of the December 2000 workplace injury wasn't significant — it was simply a jarring of the lower back while driving a work vehicle. The doctor determined that the evi- dence of degenerative changes that were happening before the injury and the relative minor extent of the accident didn't sup- port a conclusion that the per- manent aggravation was related to the workplace accident. The worker's claim for ongoing enti- tlement was denied. An appeals resolution officer agreed after the worker appealed. The worker took his claim to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which took a different view of the worker's circumstances. The tribunal found that it was signifi- cant that before the December 2000 workplace accident, despite the fact the worker suffered from some back pain, he was able to perform his full job duties and didn't require medical attention. However, after the accident, he could only perform modified duties for awhile and eventu- ally had to stop working alto- gether. Though the WSIB had determined the worker had no ongoing entitlement because his condition had returned to its pre- accident state when he returned to work, the reality was he worker continued to be hindered. The medical evidence indi- cated the worker had arthritis and other degenerative changes before the workplace accident, but these were worse afterwards — the October 2001 and Febru- ary 2002 functional abilities as- sessments indicated the worker's back pain was chronic and was likely permanent. The tribunal also noted the worker continued to suffer pain and numbness in his lower back and leg that affected his mobil- ity and the activities he could do. It was also apparent that while the worker had a period of sev- eral years where he didn't receive medical treatment, this was be- cause he had been told nothing could be done and he didn't have a family doctor — not because he wasn't experiencing symp- toms of his condition, said the tribunal. The tribunal determined that the Dec. 18, 2000, workplace ac- cident permanently aggravated the worker's pre-existing osteo- arthritic condition in his lower back and the worker was entitled to non-economic loss benefits for his permanent impairment. It also found the worker was entitled to loss-of-earnings ben- efits between 2001 and 2012 and referred the case back to the WSIB to determine the amount of those benefits. For more information see: • Decision No. 2421/18, 2018 CarswellOnt 17238 (Ont. Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Trib.). Worker continued to be limited after return to work Permanent < pg. 3 VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE HR VENDORS AND SUPPLIERS Voting for the 2019 Readers' Choice Awards is underway — and we want your opinion on who you think is the best at what they do. Cast your ballot today, and in July we'll reveal the winners in a special feature in Canadian HR Reporter. It's an exclusive look into who you, and your peers, think are the top companies in the country. Voting closes on March 18. www.hrreporter.com/2019-readers-choice-awards 2 0 1 9 READERS' WINNER CHOICE

• Cover