Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CSR | November 2016 | News Depression from workplace issues and dismissal not related to injury Worker returned to work without a problem for years following accident but didn't claim ongoing effects until he was terminated BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO worker who re- ported physical and psychologi- cal effects from a work-related injury after he was dismissed three years later is not entitled to benefits for ongoing impairment and psychotraumatic disability, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal has ruled. The 63-year-old worker joined his employer in June 2001. He worked for six years with- out any major problems until a workplace accident on June 25, 2007. In the accident, the worker suffered a laceration to his scalp after he was hit on the head with a falling metal bar. He went in for a CT scan, which revealed no se- rious injury. An MRI confirmed this finding, and the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insur- ance Board (WSIB) granted the worker initial entitlement for his claim arising from the injury. Shortly after the injury, the WSIB determined the worker reached maximum medical re- covery with no evidence of per- manent impairment. The work- er continued to work for three years, taking on a more demand- ing job without event. The worker's employment was terminated on April 20, 2010. The following month, he was suffering from headaches, shoul- der pain, neck pain, and a tender scalp at the site of his injury three years earlier. He also had trouble sleeping or doing any work. The worker filed a claim for psychotraumatic disability and loss-of-earnings benefits due to lingering effects of his workplace injury. He provided a doctor's note diagnosing him with post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a sprain of his neck and shoulder. However, the WSIB ruled there was no ongoing en- titlement for his physical injuries as had been ruled recovered, nor was there entitlement for psy- chotraumatic disability benefits. In May 2011, medical exami- nations found the worker had de- generative problems in his spine, pelvis and knees, plus thickness tears in both shoulders. He was also diagnosed with sleep apnea. The worker went to a psychol- ogist in October 2011 complain- ing of pain and numbness in his head, legs, back and shoulders, as well as frequent headaches and dizziness, which he claimed had been happening since his work- place accident. The psycholo- gist diagnosed the worker with chronic pain that was "secondary to work accident," high stressors, and severe sleep apnea. The worker appealed his claim denial to an appeals resolution of- ficer, who found that the worker was able to fully function without complaint for three years and there was no medical documen- tation of any medical issues dur- ing that time. The worker didn't make any claim until after his em- ployment was terminated. The appeals resolution offi- cer also found the worker com- plained of problems with several different parts of his body which weren't compatible with the head injury he suffered at work. In addition, some of these inju- ries were diagnosed as degenera- tive, said the officer. The appeals resolution of- ficer determined the worker fully recovered from his work injury and there was no ongo- ing impairment from it — the other physical and mental inju- ries were unrelated. As a result, there was no entitlement to fur- ther benefits. The worker appealed once more, arguing his physical inju- ries were related to his job, which involved lifting heavy material from the floor and placing it at a two-metre height. He also said he was treated poorly and not given assistance after his injury and his termination was unfair and devastating, contributing to his psychological problems. The worker also claimed he did have problems following his accident and he had to take pills for some time. The tribunal found the evi- dence didn't show any linger- ing effects from the workplace injury once the worker's head healed. He was able to return to work and continued with the same job duties without accom- modation or report of ongoing work-related impairment. CT and MRI scans confirmed there was no lingering injury. No fur- ther problems were reported un- til the worker was terminated in April 2010, said the tribunal. The tribunal noted that WSIB policy stipulated that entitle- ment for psychotraumatic in- jury required an "organic brain syndrome" secondary to a head injury, stress from an emotional reaction to the injury, or relation to extended disablement and non-medical factors that were directly related to the injury. None of these were applicable to the worker's circumstances, the tribunal said. Psychological issues stemmed from other causes The tribunal found that much of the worker's psychological is- sues were related to the effect of the termination itself, not ongo- ing issues with injuries from his workplace accident. "In my view, the worker's ter- mination from his employment on April 20, 2010, and the dif- ficulties that he experienced in his workplace leading up to that, including a suspension earlier in the month, had a profoundly deleterious impact on his psy- chological state," said the tribu- nal. "This was so much so that following the termination his health care providers felt that he could no longer work whereas prior to the termination, he was able to sustain full-time employ- ment without medical accom- modation for over two years." The tribunal found that the worker's "intense reaction" to his termination — piled on top of his belief that he employer had been unfair to him — was the cause of his psychological issues and not related, directly or indirectly, to his work-related injury years ear- lier. This was not a basis for psy- chotraumatic disability benefits, said the tribunal. The tribunal also agreed with the appeals resolution officer in that the worker's numerous phys- ical issues weren't related to his work-related injury, due to their location and degenerative nature, as well as the fact they didn't seem to bother him for more than two years while working normally. The worker's appeal was dis- missed and the original denial of benefits for ongoing physical im- pairment and psychotraumatic disability was upheld. For more information see: • Decision No. 1690/16, 2016 CarswellOnt 11741 (Ont. Work- place Safety and Insurance Ap- peals Trib.). e tribunal found that much of the worker's psychological issues were related to the effect of the termination itself, not ongoing issues with injuries from his workplace accident.

• Cover