Canadian Safety Reporter

6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 CSR | February 2017 | News Worker can't prove permanent impairment from second accident Medical reports couldn't distinguish effects of earlier workplace accident from more recent one; no physical restrictions indicated BY JEFFREY R. SMITH THE APPEALS Resolution Of- fice of the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) has upheld the rejection of a claim for workers' compen- sation benefits for a permanent back injury that the worker claimed was the result of a work- place accident more than two decades ago. The worker, now 63, was lift- ing a box while on the job on Feb. 12, 1991, when he felt pain in his lower back. He went to the doc- tor two days later with muscle spasms and a decreased range of motion. The worker took some time off work and "improved slowly" but had similar pain twice more over the next two months, which were considered recurrences of the injury. He was eventually diagnosed with irrita- tion of the lumbar spine. The worker continued to suf- fer from recurrences of lumbar spine irritation in August 1995, February 1996, and February 1997. His family doctor diag- nosed him with chronic low back pain and after the 1996 flare-up, his chiropractor said he could return to work but shouldn't lift boxes heavier than 25 pounds for one week. After the 1997 flare-up, the worker was diagnosed with lumbar strain and couldn't per- form his usual work. However, he was cleared for modified work. A CT scan in April 1997 showed "mildly bulging disc but no focal disc herniation" along with "mild degenerative chang- es involving the facet joints." The degenerative chances were attributed to degenerative disc disease. The worker filed workers' compensation claims for each of these instances claiming a permanent impairment, but the WSIB rejected all of them on the grounds there was in- sufficient evidence to support the idea that these recurrences were directly related to his work accident. Worker's back problems began with earlier accident In May 1997, the worker's fam- ily doctor wrote to the WSIB to say the worker was "disabled be- cause of his work-related back injury" and likely ongoing back problems in the future. The doc- tor referred to a 1984 workplace accident that injured his back but indicated the 1991 injury changed the worker's lifestyle and aggravated his problems. In July 1998, a rheumatolo- gist examined the worker and reported that the worker had restricted range of motion and lower back tenderness that was "made worse by lumbar flexion, extension, and lateral flexion." An anesthetist followed up with a report soon after indicating that the worker suffered from "myofascial pain syndrome" and joint inflammation. Both experts determined the 1984 and 1991 workplace accidents contribut- ed to the worker's condition. The worker appealed to the tribunal, providing a written report from his family doc- tor stating that he had no back problems before his 1984 work accident, after which he had re- current back problems causing him to miss work and perform modified duties. He also had reports from two other doctors supporting his contention that his degenerative disc disease was "not the primary source of pain" and his symptoms were consistent with the injuries he suffered in his two workplace accidents. The tribunal agreed that the worker suffered from low back pain after his 1984 workplace accident and again after his 1991 accident, but agreed with the Appeals Resolution Office that there was no "substantial medical evidence of signifi- cance" that indicated the pain was causally linked to the 1991 work injury. The tribunal found that the medical opinions indicated that the worker suffered from back pain since his 1984 workplace accident. However, that accident wasn't the subject of the worker's appeal, only the 1991 accident. Pain > pg. 7 Credit: Shutterstock/Andrey_Popov

• Cover