WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL"

Transcription

1 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #199 Appellant Respondent Patricia McPhail, Employer Advisor, representing the Employer Brian Waddell, Solicitor representing the Workers Compensation Board Place and Date of Hearing Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Quality Inn on the Hill 150 Euston Street Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island Date of Decision January 14, 2015

2 WCAT Decision #199 Page 1 of 13 Facts and Background 1. This matter is an appeal of Internal Reconsideration Decision IR #[PERSONAL IFORMATION] dated May 27, 2014, which denied the Appellant Employer s request for reconsideration. [Appeal Record Tab 1] 2. On January 17, 2014, the Worker attended at the office of his doctor, Dr. Jason Chan, with a complaint of sudden shooting pain from his right wrist to his elbow stemming from work, which he attributed to [PERSONAL IFORMATION]. Dr. Chan diagnosed the Worker with carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Chan indicated in his report that the Worker had suspicions of carpal tunnel syndrome in the past. [Appeal Record Tab 2] 3. The Worker was provided a note from Dr. Chan indicating that he should be placed on modified duties for two weeks, minimizing work that involved excessive flexion/extension of his wrist. The Worker was referred to physiotherapy and a wrist splint for Carpel Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) was recommended. [Appeal Record Tab 3] 4. The Worker s Report Form 6 dated January 20, 2014, was received by the Workers Compensation Board on January 21, An Employer s Report Form 7 was filed with the Workers Compensation Board on January 21, [Appeal Record Tab 4] 5. The Entitlement Officer spoke with the Worker regarding his injury on January 21, 2014; which is summarized in an Interoffice Memorandum of the same date. The Worker stated that he had to [PERSONAL IFORMATION] 6 times per shift and that he hadn t been having any issues with his wrist prior to this day. Due to the [PERSONAL IFORMATION] and the awkward space they had to get into [PERSONAL IFORMATION], the Worker likened it to a dog house and commented that the way he pulled and moved his wrist to push the male end onto the female end, he felt a sharp pain up his right arm. He advised that he missed the evening shift on January 17 th and then his next scheduled shift was January 22 nd. [Appeal Record Tab 5]

3 WCAT Decision #199 Page 2 of The Entitlement Officer issued a decision letter dated January 21, 2014, approving physiotherapy for the Worker for a right wrist injury. [Appeal Record Tab 6] 7. A decision letter on January 22, 2014, was issued by the Entitlement Officer approving the claim for benefits for an injury which occurred on January 16, The diagnosis accepted under the claim was for right wrist strain. [Appeal Record Tab 7] 8. The Worker attended his first physiotherapy session on January 20, [Appeal Record Tab 8] 9. The Worker attended an appointment with Dr. Chan on January 31, He indicated to Dr. Chan that apparently no modified duties existed. Dr. Chan placed the Worker off work. Dr. Chan suggested that the Worker remain off work until February 15, 2014 when he was to be reassessed by Dr. Chan. The diagnosis at that time was tendinopathy. [Appeal Record Tab 9] 10. On February 3, 2014, in a text message from his supervisor, the Worker was offered modified work [PERSONAL IFORMATION] for 12 hours per night for four nights. The hours were from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. [Appeal Record Tab 10] 11. On February 4, 2014, the Worker turned down the offer for modified work due to concerns about being able to stay awake during the daytime hours for his physiotherapy appointments and in using his vehicle for travel. [Appeal Record Tab 10] 12. In another text message on February 4, 2014, the supervisor clarified that the Worker could be driven to New Brunswick by [PERSONAL IFORMATION] and they would try to work around the Worker s physiotherapy appointments. [Appeal Record Tab 10] 13. After it was suggested in the text message that Appellant could work around physiotherapy appointments, the Worker responded by stating that he was going to

4 WCAT Decision #199 Page 3 of 13 check with comp (Workers Compensation) to see about the modified duties and that Workers Compensation would call [PERSONAL IFORMATION]. [Appeal Record Tab 10] 14. The Worker attended physiotherapy sessions on January 23, 28, 31 and February 3 and 4, The physiotherapist requested an extension of treatments beginning February 18, 2014 for four visits over two weeks. The Report indicated that the Worker was ready to start back to work on modified duties. [Appeal Record Tab 12] 15. On February 12, 2014, the Worker attended an appointment with Dr. Chan and the diagnosis was still tendinopathy. [Appeal Record Tab 13] 16. On February 18, 2014, the Entitlement Officer approved the extension of physiotherapy for the Worker for four treatments over two weeks from February 18 to March 3, [Appeal Record Tab 14] 17. On February 21, 2014, the Case Coordinator reviewed the Claim with the Worker and [PERSONAL IFORMATION], the employer s contact. [PERSONAL IFORMATION] informed the Case Coordinator that the Worker s manager and supervisor had both offered modified duties sitting in a truck with another driver. In the Case Coordinator s conversation with the Worker, the Worker indicated to her that no one spoke to him about modified duties. [Appeal Record Tab 16] 18. On February 21, 2014, the Case Coordinator made a referral to Occupational Therapy for the purpose of ease back. [Appeal Record Tab 17] 19. The Worker returned to work on February 23, 2014, to modified duties. 20. Shortly after the Worker returned to work, he left his employment with the Appellant. The Appellant filed a Request for Internal Reconsideration on February 25, 2014, along

5 WCAT Decision #199 Page 4 of 13 with a request for an extension to file additional arguments pending the release of the Worker s case file to the Employer Advisor. Additional arguments were filed by the Employer Advisor on behalf of the Appellant in a letter dated April 9, [Appeal Record Tab 20] 21. The IRO issued a decision letter on May 27, 2014, denying the Appellant s request for internal reconsideration. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal on May 29, [Appeal Record Tabs 1 and 23] Issues 22. Did the Board err in approving the Worker for a condition for which he was not diagnosed? 23. Is there evidence that the Worker s diagnosed condition arose out of and in the course of employment in accordance with POL-91, Repetitive Strain Injuries? 24. Was the Worker paid benefits during a period for which he was non-compliant in accordance with POL-93, Return to Work? Appellant s Argument 25. The Appellant took the position that the Worker s condition was repetitive strain injury as opposed to a right wrist strain as found by the Respondent s entitlement officer. 26. The Appellant stated that the Entitlement Officer failed to do a proper assessment to determine the personal injury to the Worker. 27. The Appellant gave much weight to the original Form 8 of Dr. Chan dated January 17, 2014 in which the diagnosis was carpal tunnel syndrome. The Report stated, He has had

6 WCAT Decision #199 Page 5 of 13 suspicions of carpel tunnel syndrome in the past but has never been a big problem until this morning. [Appeal Record Tab 2] 28. The Appellant also relied on the inter-office memo of January 21, 2014, in which after a discussion with the Worker, the Entitlement Officer wrote, He stated that he has not been having any issues with his wrist pain to this day. [Appeal Record Tab 5] 29. The Appellant suggested Dr. Chan s comments were more reliable than the Worker s comments and, therefore, gave greater weight to the injury being a repetitive strain injury. 30. The Appellant further argued that Policy POL-91 should have been applied given the original diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. The Applicant argued that the Board failed to do an evaluation to see if there was an association between medical condition and exposure to task risk factors. 31. The Appellant submitted that the Board failed to properly apply Policy POL-68 in adjudicating this claim, as it related to medical history, considering all relevant information in particular, the Worker s diagnosed condition and indication of prior issues to his wrist. 32. Finally, the Appellant argued that the Worker was paid benefits for a period for which he was non-compliant. The Appellant commented about the Worker s discussions with his doctor and the Board regarding that there were no modified duties, the fact that he made reference to physiotherapy appointments when he had none scheduled and that he turned down reasonable work. 33. The Appellant was of the view that the Worker was not in keeping with his obligations under Policy POL-93 Return to Work. The Appellant submitted it was their view that the Worker was intentionally not cooperating with the Appellant.

7 WCAT Decision #199 Page 6 of 13 Respondent s Argument 34. The Respondent argued that it was clear that the Worker suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on January 17, 2014 when he was attaching a hose to a trailer and experienced shooting pain from his wrist to his elbow in his right arm. Those facts were not disputed. [Appeal Record Tab 4] 35. The Worker s Form 6 was received January 21, 2014 which stated that the Worker advised his supervisor on the morning of January 17 and when asked to describe fully what happened to cause the injury or accident he stated, While [PERSONAL IFORMATION] experienced shooting pain from what felt like from wrist to elbow of Rt arm. [Appeal Record Tab 4] 36. In Form 6, the Worker indicated that this was not a condition developing over a period of time and it was not a relapse or recurrence of an earlier work-related condition. At question 12, he answered that he had not had a similar injury before. 37. The Appellant s Form 7 at question 7 indicated that they did not know of any previous pain or injury in the area of the Worker s present injury. They also indicated that the injury as described by the Employee claimed that, [PERSONAL IFORMATION] and felt pain in right wrist made him feel sick. Saw doctor at 11:30 and needs physio and modified duties for 2 weeks. Missed night of 17/18 Jan. Then on days off. [Appeal Record Tab 4] 38. The Respondent also reiterated that in Dr. Chan s initial report, although he made reference to the Worker s suspicions of carpal tunnel syndrome in the past, he said that it had never been a big problem until that morning. [Appeal Record Tab 2] 39. The Respondent argued that Dr. Chan s report stated that the Appellant was hooking up a pipe and experienced sudden shooting pain from right wrist up to elbow and had to get a

8 WCAT Decision #199 Page 7 of 13 friend to drive him home. In that report, Dr. Chan also indicated that there was no asymmetry or deformity; no fractures evident; negative Tinels and Phalens test; no weakness in hands. 40. The Respondent also argued that initial physiotherapy report dated January 30, 2014, made no reference to carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive strain. The physiotherapist commented about the Worker s description of the triggering event of putting a hose on the trailer and feeling a sharp pain go through right forearm. [Appeal Record Tab 8] 41. The Respondent submitted that even if the Worker had a pre-existing physical condition, which was only mentioned in the first physician s report of Dr. Chan, and was not mentioned after that time, the Worker would still be entitled to be compensated for the full injurious result until he had reached a plateau in medical recovery. 42. The Respondent agreed on the importance of Form 6 and its accuracy and reliance and reiterated that the Worker did not report a repetitive strain injury on that date. 43. The Respondent stated that the Worker was compliant in regard to modified duties. The Respondent stated that suitable work was determined by the Workers Compensation Board. 44. The Respondent argued that there was no evidence that modified duties were offered to the Worker on January 20, 2014 or any date other than February 4, 2014 and submitted that the Respondent s log sheet showed that calls were not returned to the Respondent by the Appellant. Analysis/Decision 45. A worker s injury or condition is compensable only if the injury or condition arises out of an in the course of his employment, pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Workers

9 WCAT Decision #199 Page 8 of 13 Compensation Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. W-7.1 and Board Policy POL-71 Arising Out Of and In the Course of Employment. 46. It is clear that the Worker suffered an injury on January 17, The Worker s Form 6 clearly described what occurred on January 17, 2014, [PERSONAL IFORMATION] experienced shooting pain form what felt like from wrist to elbow of Rt arm. 48. In Form 6, the Worker indicated it was not a condition that developed over time. He also indicated he had not had a similar injury before. 49. The Appellant s Form 7 at question 7 indicated that they did not know of any previous pain or injury in the area of the Worker s present injury. They also indicated that the injury as described by the Employee claimed that, [PERSONAL IFORMATION] and felt pain in right wrist made him feel sick. Saw doctor at 11:30 and needs physio and modified duties for 2 weeks. Missed night of 17/18 Jan. Then on days off. [Appeal Record Tab 4] 50. The Respondent, by virtue of Form 6, did not accept repetitive strain injury as that was not what the Worker was claiming. Granted, Dr. Chan did make note in his report a diagnoses of carpel tunnel, however, Dr. Chan amended that by January 31, 2014 to a diagnosis of tendinopathy. [Appeal Record Tab 9] 51. In that Report, Dr. Chan also indicated that there was no asymmetry or deformity; no fractures evident; negative Tinels and Phalens test; no weakness in hands. 52. Also, with regard to the Tinel s and Phalen s test, apparently this test is used to assist with the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Chan noted that the Worker had negative Tinel s and Phalen s test. [Appeal Record Tab 1]

10 WCAT Decision #199 Page 9 of Dr. Chan s second Report of January 31, 2014, made no mention of repetitive strain and provided a diagnosis of tendinopathy. [Appeal Record Tab 9] 54. Also, the initial physiotherapy report made no reference to carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive strain. [Appeal Record Tab 8] 55. The Tribunal finds that the Worker s claim should not have been adjudicated using POL- 91 Repetitive Strain Injuries. As previously stated, Form 7 made no mention of any prior existing injuries. The first report from Dr. Chan made note of a prior issue and a diagnosis of carpal tunnel. Less than two weeks later, the diagnosis had changed to tendinopathy and there was no mention of a prior existing condition. 56. The Tribunal finds that a review of the Worker s medical history would not have changed the accident that occurred on January 17, 2014 as it was apparent to all that this accident arose out of and in the course of employment. Even if it made worse a pre-existing condition, that exacerbation would also be compensable under the Act. Even if the Worker did have carpel tunnel syndrome and it was triggered by the incident of January 17, 2014, the Worker would still be entitled to compensation. 57. Section 6(9) of the Act states: Where an accident caused personal injury to a worker and that injury is aggravated by some pre-existing physical condition inherent in the worker at the time of the accident, the worker shall be compensated for the full injurious result until such time as the worker, in the opinion of the Board, has reached a plateau in medical recovery.

11 WCAT Decision #199 Page 10 of Even if the Worker had a pre-existing physical condition, which was only mentioned in the first physician s report of Dr. Chan, and was not mentioned after that time, the Worker would still be entitled to be compensated for the full injurious result until he had reached a plateau in medical recovery. 59. In terms of POL-68, Weighing of Evidence, the Tribunal finds that the relevant information relating to the case was considered. There was one indication that the Worker may have experienced symptoms before. All of the remaining medical evidence made no mention of any pre-existing condition or any carpal tunnel syndrome. 60. POL-68, specifically #2, states, Workers Compensation Board will examine the evidence to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to allow a decision to be made. If the Workers Compensation Board determines more information is required to make a decision, the Workers Compensation Board will work with the worker, employer, and health care providers to obtain the necessary information. 61. The Respondent obtained information. They had physiotherapy reports, physician s reports, and none of them mentioned carpal tunnel syndrome or a pre-existing injury. The evidence of Dr. Chan and of the physiotherapist is factual and objective. 62. With regard to whether the Worker was paid benefits during a period for which he was not compliant in accordance with Policy POL-93 Return to Work, the Tribunal finds that the Worker was compliant in accordance with Policy POL Dr. Chan made notes from his January 31, 2014 visit with the Worker in which the Worker repeated that no modified duties existed. This is alleged to be inconsistent with the text messages from the employer; however, the doctor s report was from the 31 st of January and the text messages were from the 3 rd and 4 th of February. On Monday, February 3 rd, two texts were sent from the Worker regarding light duties. On Tuesday,

12 WCAT Decision #199 Page 11 of 13 February 4 th, the Worker commented that driving over to New Brunswick would be a bit much for his vehicle and he would have to stay awake for physio visits that are at random times. That same day, a text was sent from the employer stating that they may be able to work around the physio appointments and that he could hitch a ride with the first guy on nights. Later that day the Worker stated that he was checking with comp [Workers Comp]. 64. Dr. Chan had originally indicated in his report that the Worker was able to return to work on modified or alternate duties for two weeks following his original date of injury with limitations placed on him for excessive flexion and extension of the wrist. There was no evidence of the employer making an effort to have modified duties for the Worker until February 3. [Appeal Record Tabs 2 and 3] 65. The Respondent spoke with the employer on February 4 th ; the same date that the Worker said he would contact Workers Compensation. The Entitlement Officer stated that the employer had advised her of the modified work. The Entitlement Officer noted that she discussed it with her manager and they agreed it would not be appropriate or productive in his recovery. The Officer asked her to consider any other modified work and get back to her. [Appeal Record Tab 11] 66. There is no evidence, in writing, that any representative of the Appellant had any contact with anyone at Workers Compensation. It was, in fact, the Entitlement Officer on February 20 th who contacted the Appellant because she had not heard back from them regarding modified duties. 67. There was an sent on the same day from the Appellant to the Entitlement Officer stating that they did try to return the call and left two messages, and indicated that they had been tied up with other issues the last few weeks. [Appeal Record Tab 18] 68. There were further s back and forth on February 21 st regarding modified duties.

13 WCAT Decision #199 Page 12 of The Tribunal notes that suitable work is defined in Policy POL-93 as: Suitable work means work that a worker has the necessary skills to perform and is medically able to perform, and that does not pose health or safety hazards to the worker or co-workers, as determined by the Workers Compensation Board. [Employer s Record Tab 7] 70. The last line of the suitable work definition reads as determined by the Workers Compensation Board. It is not up to the Appellant or the Worker to determine whether he or she has the skills to perform and is medically able to perform a specific job. It is not for the Worker to determine whether it poses a health or safety hazard to himself/herself worker or a co-worker. 71. The Worker cannot turn down offers of alternate work; it is for the Board to turn down offers of work, which, in fact, they did on February 4, The Worker received benefits and the Worker was compliant. It is unfortunate that the Appellant does not seem to appreciate the fact that it was not the Worker s decision whether to turn down duties. In the future, our suggestion to this Appellant would be to set out in writing what the modified duties are and to send this immediately to the Board. The Tribunal would also suggest that the Appellant not allow over two weeks to pass before there is written correspondence regarding modified duties. 73. The Tribunal finds that the Worker was paid the benefits for which he was entitled. 74. The Tribunal finds that all three issues brought forward by the Employer are denied in that the Board did not err in approving the worker for a condition for which he was not diagnosed; there was no evidence that the Worker s diagnosed condition arose out of and in the course of employment in accordance with Policy POL-91 Repetitive Strain Injuries

14 WCAT Decision #199 Page 13 of 13 and no evidence that the Worker was non-compliant and was paid benefits during that time. 75. The Appellant s appeal is dismissed. 76. We thank counsel for their materials and submissions. Dated this 14th day of January P. Alanna Taylor, Chair Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal Concurred: Stu Lavers, Employer Representative Leo Cheverie, Worker Representative

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #200 Appellant

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #201 Appellant

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #194 Appellant

More information

CASE ID #[ personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #9

CASE ID #[ personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #9 C A N A D A CASE ID #[ personal information] PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND BETWEEN: WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL EMPLOYER AND: APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKER DECISION #114

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKER DECISION #114 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] AND: APPELLANT WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT AND: WORKER EMPLOYEE DECISION #114 Appellant

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL. [Personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information]

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL. [Personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information] PLAINTIFF AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DEFENDANT DECISION #41 [Personal

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GEORGIA R. KATZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,068,293 USD 229 ) Self-Insured Respondent ) ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimant

More information

SUMMARY. Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment).

SUMMARY. Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1033/98 Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment). The worker was a stope miner for four years beginning in 1987. In

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2289/08

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2289/08 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2289/08 BEFORE: M. Crystal: Vice-Chair HEARING: October 31, 2008 at Toronto Written case DATE OF DECISION: October 31, 2008 NEUTRAL CITATION:

More information

NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY. Decision: WCAT-2004-02435-RB Panel: Beatrice Anderson Decision Date: May 10, 2004

NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY. Decision: WCAT-2004-02435-RB Panel: Beatrice Anderson Decision Date: May 10, 2004 NOTEWORTHY DECISION SUMMARY Decision: WCAT-2004-02435-RB Panel: Beatrice Anderson Decision Date: May 10, 2004 Referrals to Board of Issue for Determination - Completion of Appeals after Referral - Section

More information

DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY

DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY The worker suffered a whiplash injury in a compensable motor vehicle accident in May 1991. The worker appealed a decision of the Hearings Officer denying entitlement when

More information

Did the worker s right hand condition arise out of and in the course of her employment, or was it due to the nature of that employment?

Did the worker s right hand condition arise out of and in the course of her employment, or was it due to the nature of that employment? WCAT Decision Number: WCAT-2008-02151 WCAT Decision Date: July 18, 2008 Panel: David A. Cox, Vice Chair Introduction The worker appeals from the January 7, 2008 decision of an officer of the Workers Compensation

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1617/14

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1617/14 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1617/14 BEFORE: T. Mitchinson: Vice-Chair HEARING: August 29, 2014 at Sudbury Oral DATE OF DECISION: September 4, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98. Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98. Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98 Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease. A construction worker injured his wrist while moving a plank on September 25, 1991. He continued working and did not seek medical treatment

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99. Accident (occurrence).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99. Accident (occurrence). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99 Accident (occurrence). The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for low back disability. The worker experienced the onset of back

More information

CASE ID # [personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #7

CASE ID # [personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #7 C A N A D A CASE ID # [personal information] PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: WORKER APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2003-01952 Panel: D. Dukelow Decision Date: August 11, 2003

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2003-01952 Panel: D. Dukelow Decision Date: August 11, 2003 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2003-01952 Panel: D. Dukelow Decision Date: August 11, 2003 Re-opening Previous Decision Sections 96(2) and 240(2) of the Workers Compensation Act Item #102.01

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 975/06

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 975/06 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 975/06 BEFORE: M. Crystal: Vice-Chair HEARING: February 28, 2007 at Toronto Written case DATE OF DECISION: March 1, 2007 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2007

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BARBARA SHEREE HUTSON ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) Docket No. 1,035,700 ) CUSTOM CAMPERS, INC. ) Self-Insured Respondent ) ORDER Claimant

More information

WCB claims. WCB claim process. Worker suffers an injury/occupational disease. Report to first aid/supervisor.

WCB claims. WCB claim process. Worker suffers an injury/occupational disease. Report to first aid/supervisor. Section 4 WCB claims WCB claim process Worker suffers an injury/occupational disease. Worker reports to doctor. Physician s first report is sent to WCB. (Form 8). Report to first aid/supervisor. Injured

More information

DECISION 13080. Lloyd Piercey. Review Commissioner

DECISION 13080. Lloyd Piercey. Review Commissioner WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION REVIEW DIVISION 6 Mt. Carson Ave., Dorset Building Mt. Pearl, NL A1N 3K4 DECISION 13080 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner May 2013 WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & COMPENSATION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board P.L., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Santa Clarita, CA, Employer Appearances: Richard Heavey, Esq., for the appellant

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #55. Represented by Keith Mullins

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #55. Represented by Keith Mullins WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL FIRM [personal information] BETWEEN: ISLAND PRESS LTD. APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #55 Employer Respondent

More information

APPENDIX F INTERJURISDICTIONAL RESEARCH

APPENDIX F INTERJURISDICTIONAL RESEARCH Ontario Scheduled Presumption: Bursitis, listed in Schedule 3, of the Ontario Workers Compensation Act, entry number 18 Description of Disease Bursitis Process Any process involving constant or prolonged

More information

Information for Workers. Information for Workers

Information for Workers. Information for Workers Information for Workers Information for Workers Revised March 2015 Contents Overview... 2 Workplace Injuries... 2 Worker Responsibilities... 2 Employer Responsibilities... 4 WCB Responsibilities... 4 Returning

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARY JANE WAGGONER ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,001,815 THE BOEING COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) INSURANCE COMPANY ) STATE

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN:81/87 STY: PANEL:O'Neil; Lankin; Jago DDATE:241287 TYPE:A ACT: DECON:81/87L CCON: SCON: BDG:Claims Adjudication Branch Procedures

FD: FD: DT:D DN:81/87 STY: PANEL:O'Neil; Lankin; Jago DDATE:241287 TYPE:A ACT: DECON:81/87L CCON: SCON: BDG:Claims Adjudication Branch Procedures FD: FD: DT:D DN:81/87 STY: PANEL:O'Neil; Lankin; Jago DDATE:241287 TYPE:A ACT: DECON:81/87L CCON: SCON: BDG:Claims Adjudication Branch Procedures Manual, document no. 33-13-09; Claims Services Division

More information

POLICY NUMBER: POL-03

POLICY NUMBER: POL-03 Chapter: CLAIMS Subject: TRAVEL AND RELATED EXPENSES Effective Date: September 1, 1993 Last Update: December 18, 2014 PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of the policy is to provide direction with respect to

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor M.L., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY, Houston, TX, Employer Appearances: Jeffrey P. Zeelander, Esq., for the appellant Office of Solicitor,

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1602/11

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1602/11 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1602/11 BEFORE: M. M. Cohen: Vice-Chair HEARING: August 16, 2011 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: August 23, 2011 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2011

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CATHY L. NEIL ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) ) AMERICA S BEST VALUE INN ) Respondent ) Docket No. 1,056,381 ) AND ) ) MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

ORDER MO-1401. Appeal MA_000155_1. City of Toronto

ORDER MO-1401. Appeal MA_000155_1. City of Toronto ORDER MO-1401 Appeal MA_000155_1 City of Toronto NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The City of Toronto (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act).

More information

Guide for Filing WorkSafeBC Mental Disorder Claims

Guide for Filing WorkSafeBC Mental Disorder Claims Canadian Union of Public Employees Guide for Filing WorkSafeBC Mental Disorder Claims WCB Advocacy Department BC Regional Office Tom McKenna, National Representative, WCB Advocacy Nothing in this Guide

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14275-11 WHSCC Claim No: 837491 Decision Number: 15034 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2005 ONWSIAT 469 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1300/04 [1] This appeal was considered in Toronto on August 3, 2004, by Tribunal Vice-Chair M. Crystal. THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 443

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 443 DA 07-0579 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 443 DEAN L. KRATOVIL, v. Petitioner and Appellee, LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent/Insurer and Appellant. APPEAL FROM:

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION ROBERT BUELL ) ) VS. ) W.C.C. 03-00724 ) COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES ) DECISION OF THE APPELLATE

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 376/08

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 376/08 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 376/08 BEFORE: A. Morris: Vice-Chair HEARING: February 7, 2008 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 9, 2008 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2008 ONWSIAT

More information

SOUTH CAROLINA BAR. Workers Compensation and the Law

SOUTH CAROLINA BAR. Workers Compensation and the Law SOUTH CAROLINA BAR Workers Compensation and the Law WORKERS COMPENSATION The South Carolina Workers Compensation Act provides a system for workers injured on the on the job to receive medical care and

More information

THE PHYSIO CENTRE. Motor Vehicle Accident. Instructions for Completing the Forms in this package

THE PHYSIO CENTRE. Motor Vehicle Accident. Instructions for Completing the Forms in this package THE PHYSIO CENTRE Motor Vehicle Accident Instructions for Completing the Forms in this package There are 2 forms enclosed in this package which are required for patients under MVA coverage. 1. Agree To

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARY ROUSH Claimant VS. RENT-A-CENTER, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,062,983 AND HARTFORD INS. CO. OF THE MIDWEST Insurance Carrier

More information

APPEAL NO. 970713 FILED JUNE 4, 1997

APPEAL NO. 970713 FILED JUNE 4, 1997 APPEAL NO. 970713 FILED JUNE 4, 1997 This appeal arises under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). On March 3, 1997, a contested case hearing (CCH) was held.

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Employer) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Worker) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2395/13

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2395/13 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2395/13 BEFORE: A.G. Baker: Vice-Chair HEARING: December 27, 2013 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: May 9, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014 ONWSIAT

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor B.P., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, MD, Employer Docket No. 13-1726 Issued: January 30, 2014 Appearances: Appellant,

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL. [Personal Information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #42

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL. [Personal Information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #42 WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL CASE I.D. #[personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information] BETWEEN: [Personal Information] PLAINTIFF AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD

More information

WHAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT? WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF IT HAPPENS TO YOU? WHAT ARE YOUR AVENUES OF RECOURSE?

WHAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT? WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF IT HAPPENS TO YOU? WHAT ARE YOUR AVENUES OF RECOURSE? APPLICATION GUIDE FOR SUPPORT STAFF MEMBERS WHAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT? WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF IT HAPPENS TO YOU? WHAT ARE YOUR AVENUES OF RECOURSE? When in doubt, contact your Union FPSES College sector

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14150-06 WHSCC Claim No: 871322 Decision Number: 15005 Keith Barry Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the

More information

Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia. Issues Identification Paper Chronic Pain: Causal Connection to Original Compensable Injury

Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia. Issues Identification Paper Chronic Pain: Causal Connection to Original Compensable Injury Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia Issues Identification Paper Chronic Pain: Causal Connection to Original Compensable Injury Date: April 16, 2007 Table of Contents Introduction.2 Background.4 What

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NUMBER F205928 DOUGLAS EUGENE WHIPKEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT XPRESS BOATS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NUMBER F205928 DOUGLAS EUGENE WHIPKEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT XPRESS BOATS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NUMBER F205928 DOUGLAS EUGENE WHIPKEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT XPRESS BOATS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT Panel: Herb Morton Decision Date: November 22, 2004

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT Panel: Herb Morton Decision Date: November 22, 2004 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2004-06118 Panel: Herb Morton Decision Date: November 22, 2004 Varying a Decision to the Detriment of Appellant - Scope of Decision Issue not Raised by Appeal

More information

Fact Sheet: Occupational Overuse Syndrome (OOS)

Fact Sheet: Occupational Overuse Syndrome (OOS) Fact Sheet: Occupational Overuse Syndrome (OOS) What is OOS? Occupational Overuse Syndrome (OOS) is the term given to a range of conditions characterised by discomfort or persistent pain in muscles, tendons

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION QUANITA A. PEOPLES ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,045,122 LANGLEY/EMPIRE CANDLE COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) SECURA INSURANCE,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 26, 2012 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 26, 2012 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 26, 2012 Session GAIL FLY v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Gibson County No.

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: WHSCC Claim No: Decision Number: 15171 Gordon Murphy Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The hearing of the review application

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1119/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1119/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1119/09 BEFORE: T. Mitchinson: Vice-Chair HEARING: June 3, 2009 at Sudbury Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 8, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT

More information

GENERAL INFORMATION. What should I do if I m injured at work?

GENERAL INFORMATION. What should I do if I m injured at work? GENERL INFORMTION What should I do if I m injured at work? Ensure you report the accident immediately to your supervisor. Describe the event in detail, provide the names of any witnesses to the incident,

More information

DOCKET NO. 453-05-9160.M5 MDR Tracking No. M5-05-1420-01. CROWNE CHIROPRACTIC BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE CLINIC, Petitioner VS. OF

DOCKET NO. 453-05-9160.M5 MDR Tracking No. M5-05-1420-01. CROWNE CHIROPRACTIC BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE CLINIC, Petitioner VS. OF DOCKET NO. 453-05-9160.M5 MDR Tracking No. M5-05-1420-01 CROWNE CHIROPRACTIC BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE CLINIC, Petitioner VS. OF AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION

More information

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 708 S. Glenwood Ave, Suite 315 Dalton, Georgia 30721-4406 (706) 272-2284 www.sbwc.georgia.gov

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 708 S. Glenwood Ave, Suite 315 Dalton, Georgia 30721-4406 (706) 272-2284 www.sbwc.georgia.gov 2010030972 Trial STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 708 S. Glenwood Ave, Suite 315 Dalton, Georgia 30721-4406 (706) 272-2284 www.sbwc.georgia.gov NOTICE: This Award may be published by the State Board

More information

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF MEDICAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF MEDICAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW 19.3.63 R(I) 11/63 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF MEDICAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW Principles of natural justice--provisions of Interpreters The clairnan t, a Ukrainian married to an English wife,

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97 Suitable employment. The worker slipped and fell in January 1992, injuring her low back and hip. She was awarded a 28% NEL award for her low back condition. The worker appealed

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID# [PERSONAL INFORMATION] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID# [PERSONAL INFORMATION] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: AND: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID# [PERSONAL INFORMATION] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND APPELLANT RESPONDENT DECISION #189 Appellant

More information

According to WCB Policy Number: POL 04-66, Learners (students) who are injured while performing on the job training may receive compensation benefits.

According to WCB Policy Number: POL 04-66, Learners (students) who are injured while performing on the job training may receive compensation benefits. University of Prince Edward Island Policy Policy No. admhrdemb0002 Revision No. 1 Policy Title (WCB) & Incident Reporting & Investigation Policy Page 1 of 5 Creation Date 01 April 2002 Version Date 20

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2004-06682 Panel: Heather McDonald Decision Date: December 17, 2004

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2004-06682 Panel: Heather McDonald Decision Date: December 17, 2004 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2004-06682 Panel: Heather McDonald Decision Date: December 17, 2004 Reopening of claim New diagnosis on reopening Back strain Disc herniation Radiculopathy CT

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15 BEFORE: E. Kosmidis : Vice-Chair E. Tracey : Member Representative of Employers C. Salama : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor M.A., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Washington, DC, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director Docket No. 13-1630

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2115/14

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2115/14 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2115/14 BEFORE: C. M. MacAdam : Vice-Chair S. T. Sahay : Member Representative of Employers K. Hoskin : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

Accident/Incident & Workers Compensation. Packet

Accident/Incident & Workers Compensation. Packet Accident/Incident & Workers Compensation Packet Accident/Incident & Workers Compensation Program The following information is to assist you in completing the Accident/Incident & Workers Compensation Program

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1025/94 This appeal was heard in Toronto on December 5, 1994, by a Tribunal Panel consisting of: R.E. Hartman : Vice-Chair, G.M. Nipshagen: Member representative

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS= COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT MEMPHIS March 25, 2015 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS= COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT MEMPHIS March 25, 2015 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS= COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT MEMPHIS March 25, 2015 Session WILLIAM DeMORATO V. CHEROKEE INSURANCE CO. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Madison County

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 9, 2001 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 9, 2001 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 9, 2001 Session MARY REGINA BLALOCK v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2015-00701 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: February 27, 2015

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT-2015-00701 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: February 27, 2015 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2015-00701 Panel: Susan Marten Decision Date: February 27, 2015 Payment of Interest - Policy item #50.00 of the Rehabilitation Services and Claims Manual, Volume

More information

Employees Compensation Appeals Board

Employees Compensation Appeals Board U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of BRENDA K. ANDREWS and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Chillicothe, OH Docket No. 03-780; Submitted on the Record; Issued

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2001 ONWSIAT 2499 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 398 01 [1] This appeal was heard in Toronto on February 16, 2001 by Tribunal Vice-Chair E.J. Sajtos. THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1194/97. Tear (meniscus); Tear (ligament).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1194/97. Tear (meniscus); Tear (ligament). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1194/97 Tear (meniscus); Tear (ligament). The worker twisted his knee in 1991 and suffered a torn meniscus, for which he underwent arthroscopy. The worker appealed a decision of the

More information

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE BENEFITS AND PERILS OF THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE BENEFITS AND PERILS OF THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE BENEFITS AND PERILS OF THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT If you were injured at work or know a family member or friend who was injured at work, I hope that the following information

More information

X-Plain Preventing Injuries at Work Through Ergonomics - Cost-Benefit Analysis Reference Summary

X-Plain Preventing Injuries at Work Through Ergonomics - Cost-Benefit Analysis Reference Summary X-Plain Preventing Injuries at Work Through Ergonomics - Cost-Benefit Analysis Reference Summary Introduction Ergonomics is the science of designing a safe, comfortable, and highly productive workplace.

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION TRACY WRIGHT ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) Docket No. 1,058,254 ) GEAR FOR SPORTS ) Respondent ) ) AND ) ) LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. and

More information

IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MTWCC 52. WCC No. 2006-1625 BARRY SHELLEY. Petitioner. vs.

IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MTWCC 52. WCC No. 2006-1625 BARRY SHELLEY. Petitioner. vs. IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MTWCC 52 WCC No. 2006-1625 BARRY SHELLEY Petitioner vs. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY Respondent/Insurer. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT/INSURER

More information

MWR Solicitors A legal guide HEALTH & SAFETY: Workplace stress. Lawyers for life

MWR Solicitors A legal guide HEALTH & SAFETY: Workplace stress. Lawyers for life MWR Solicitors A legal guide HEALTH & SAFETY: Workplace stress Lawyers for life CONTENTS What Is Stress 4 Background 4 Legal Position 4 Duty of Care 4 Forseeability 5 Breach of Duty 6 Causation 7 Loss

More information

SUMMARY. Negligence (duty of care) (occupational health and safety); Negligence (worker); Transfer of costs.

SUMMARY. Negligence (duty of care) (occupational health and safety); Negligence (worker); Transfer of costs. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 710/94 Negligence (duty of care) (occupational health and safety); Negligence (worker); Transfer of costs. The accident employer appealed a decision which refused the accident employer's

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE KATHY GEORGE v. CARRIER CORPORATION, et. al. Direct Appeal from the Cannon County Circuit Court No. 3170, Robert

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: June 6, 2014 CLAIM NOS. 201300659 & 201300144 ATWOOD T. DEZARN PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT VS. APPEAL FROM HON. JEANIE OWEN MILLER,

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY PAMELA R. LECOMPTE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) C. A. No. 02A-01-010 JEB CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH ) SYSTEMS, ) ) Respondent. ) Submitted:

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1842/14

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1842/14 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1842/14 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair M. Christie : Member Representative of Employers M. Ferrari : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

(This is a sample of the injury packet that GENEX will customize for each employer)

(This is a sample of the injury packet that GENEX will customize for each employer) Ohio Workers Compensation Injury Packet (This is a sample of the injury packet that GENEX will customize for each employer) Employer: «Employer» «Address1» «City», «ST» «Zip» Phone #: «Phone» BWC Policy

More information

Occupational Injury / Illness Report

Occupational Injury / Illness Report Occupational Injury / Illness Report This report must be completed whenever a Franklin & Marshall employee, including a student worker, is injured or becomes ill during the course of his/her employment

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor T.M., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, New York, NY, Employer Appearances: Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Continental Tire of the Americas, LLC v. Illinois Workers Compensation Comm n, 2015 IL App (5th) 140445WC Appellate Court Caption CONTINENTAL TIRE OF THE AMERICAS,

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARVIN T. SMITH Claimant VS. WESTERN FEED MILLS, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,049,751 AND MICHIGAN MILLERS MUTUAL INS. CO. Insurance

More information

NO. COA05-578 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 August 2006. Appeal by defendant from opinion and award entered 3 January 2005 by the North

NO. COA05-578 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 August 2006. Appeal by defendant from opinion and award entered 3 January 2005 by the North An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94 This appeal was heard by conference call between Toronto and Thunder Bay on December 1, 1994, by a Tribunal Panel consisting of: J.P. Moore:

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION NELLIE FRANCIS VS. W.C.C. 04-03284 PROVIDENCE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT PROVIDENCE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION RONALD L. MARTENS Claimant VS. BRULEZ FOUNDATION, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,019,265 AND COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INS. CO. Insurance

More information