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

Size: px
Start display at page:

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

Transcription

1 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 Respondent Employee Employer, as represented by [personal information] Brian Waddell, Solicitor representing the Workers Compensation Board Worker, self-represented Place and Date of Hearing May 26, 2009 Best Western, Charlottetown 238 Grafton Street Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island Date of Decision October 9, 2009

2 1. This is an appeal by the Employer of IRO Decision IR-08-46, dated, September 9, For the record, although the Employer, as represented by [personal information], originated the appeal, they chose not to be present at the oral hearing, and requested the Appeal Tribunal rely on their written submission. 3. Similarly, the Worker requested the Appeal Tribunal consider his written submission and he was not present for the oral hearing. 4. With the Board s concurrence, a hearing was scheduled at which the written submissions and the Board s oral presentations were considered. FACTS, EVIDENCE AND BACKGROUND 5. The Worker, [personal information], alleges that on March 25, 2008, he sustained a neck/shoulder injury at work when he removed [personal information] from an overhead shelf to a lower shelf. 6. The Worker filed a Worker s Report with the Board on May 8, The Worker s Report states in part: At the time it did not seem serious although it did feel like something had certainly happened. The injury did not cause any interruption in my work, and there was no immediate pain so I dismissed it as a pulled muscle or something minor at the time. It was not until after a week or so had passed when I noticed whatever had happened was getting progressively worse, especially the pain running from my neck down into my left shoulder. 8. The Worker s Report also states:

3 -2- I formally reported the injury to my [personal information] Supervisor sometime during the beginning of my shift on Sunday, 27 Apr 08. However, I did mention, although not formally, that I was experiencing an issue with my neck and shoulder on Sunday, 20 Apr I initially made an appointment with my family doctor concerning my injury as indicated on 16 Apr It should be noted that the appointment was made the first week of Apr. He examined me and referred me to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. John Campbell. 9. The Worker was a permanent part-time employee with the Employer, working an 8 hr. shift, 2 days a week. 10. On May 30, 2008, Kara Katmouz, the Board s Entitlement Officer, advised the Worker by letter that his claim for benefits as a result of his injury was accepted by the Board effective May 11, 2008, the diagnosis being left sided neck strain. 11. On June 18, 2008, the Employer requested reconsideration of the Board s decision made by Ms. Katmouz. 12. The Employer s reasons for requesting reconsideration were: R1-01: The Worker reported an injury to his employer on April 27, He stated he sustained an injury to his left shoulder and neck while removing [personal information] from the [personal information] on March 25, The incident was not reported at the time. In fact, it was not reported until 5 weeks later. There were no witnesses. The Worker continued to work his full regular shifts up to and including May 10, Therefore we do not feel his injury resulted out of or in the course of his employment. R1-02: The Worker sought medical treatment 3 weeks after the alleged incident on April 16, He was referred to a specialist on April 18, 2008 and physiotherapy on May 7, None of these visits prompted the completion of an 8/10 report to the Board or any restrictions in regards to his work duties. It would be rationally concluded that the lack of

4 -3- necessity for work restrictions and medical documentation indicates his injury is not a result of his work activities. We believe the Worker has not met the Board s criteria for proof of accident in this claim, noting the delays in reporting and seeking medical attention and his ability to perform his regular duties for 6 weeks following the alleged incident. There were also no witnesses to the alleged incident. 13. On September 9, 2008, Bonnie Blakney, the Board s IRO upheld the decision of the Board, that the Worker had sustained an injury related to his employment. 14. Ms. Blakney identified the reconsideration issue as follows: Was it appropriate to accept the worker s claim based on the information on the file? 15. Ms. Blakney s rationale/analysis for her decision reads: The issue before me is whether the worker s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer s representative contends that because the worker did not report the injury to his employer until five weeks after the fact, that the claim should not have been approved. The employer s representative also states that medical attention was not sought until April 16, 2008, three weeks post injury, and that the worker continued to work his full regular shifts up until May 10, It was also stated that It would be rationally concluded that the lack of necessity for work restrictions and medical documentation indicates this injury is not a result of his work activities. The Workers Compensation Board Policy O4-23- Arising out of and in the Course of Employment states, Arising out of employment means an injury that must be linked to, originate from, or be the result of, in whole or in part, an activity or action undertaken because of a worker s employment. In the course of employment means the injury

5 -4- must be linked to a worker s employment in terms of time, place and activity. On March 25, 2008, the worker was performing his regular duties during his shift when he lifted a box from an upper shelf and felt a pinch in his neck/shoulder. There was no witness to the event and he did not report it to his supervisor; however, he did discuss the problem with his family doctor, Dr. R. Cooke, the next day. The description of the injury on the doctor s report is consistent with the nature of the events reported on the Worker s Report of Injury. One would wonder whether there was any discussion between the worker and the doctor regarding workplace causation, as the doctor s report was not received until almost two months after the visit and only after being requested by WCB. However, without evidence one way or the other, I can only speculate. The Workers Compensation Act states in Section 59.(1), Where any worker or dependent is entitled to compensation under this Act, he or she shall forthwith notify his or her employer and shall file with the Board an application for compensation, together with the certificate of the attending physician, if any, and such further proofs of his or her claim as may be required by the Board. As the Act states, the worker shall forthwith notify his employer. Even though this was not done until five weeks later, that in and of itself does not mean the claim would or would not be accepted. It does raise the question as to why he did not report the injury. The only evidence on the file regarding the delay in reporting is the testimony of the worker in his report of accident where he says he did not think the injury was that serious. In weighing the evidence on file, I find the decision to accept the worker s injury as being work related was appropriate. I recognize the reporting of the injury to the employer was not done in a timely manner; however, the Workers Compensation Act and Policy does not support a denial of a claim based solely on that one fact. Decisions

6 -5- are to be made based on the real merits and justice of each case. The evidence on this claim supports that the worker s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and the decision by the Entitlement Officer to accept the claim was appropriate. 16. On October 3, 2008, the Employer appealed Ms. Blakney s decision of September 9, 2008 to WCAT, stating in part:...although the worker has asserted a claim for workers compensation benefits, we submit the necessary preconditions for initial entitlement are not met precisely because on a balance of probabilities the claim file evidence does not suggest that the worker s workplace materially contributed to his neck injury. Noting our concerns with respect to the circumstances of the claim (no witness; no evidence of functional difficulties; delay in reporting) the significant delay in seeking medical attention and the excessive discrepancy between the alleged date of injury and the date time loss from work began, and the fact that his diagnosis includes pre-existing arthritis, we submit, that it is more probable than not that the worker s neck injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment. 17. ISSUE The issue is whether the worker suffered a neck/shoulder injury on March 25, 2008 arising out of and in the course of employment? DECISION 18. WCAT is bound by the Workers Compensation Act (the Act) and by Board Policy (unless ultra vires). 19. Section 6 of the Act reads: 6.(1) Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course

7 -6- of employment is caused to a worker, the Board shall pay compensation as provided by this Part out of the Accident Fund. (4) Where the accident arose out of the employment, unless the contrary is shown, it shall be presumed that it occurred in the course of the employment, and where the accident occurred in the course of employment, unless the contrary is shown, it shall be presumed that it arose out of the employment. 20. Board Policy Number: POL04-23 deals with the subject of ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT. 21. The policy reads: 1. Arising out of employment means an injury that must be linked to, originate from, or be the result of, in whole or in part, an activity or action undertaken because of a worker s employment. 2. In the course of employment means the injury must be linked to a worker s employment in terms of time, place and activity Where the accident arose out of the employment, unless the contrary is shown, it shall be presumed that it occurred in the course of the employment, and where the accident occurred in the course of employment, unless the contrary is shown, it shall be presumed, that it arose out of the employment. 22. Policy Number: POL deals with the subject of WEIGHING OF EVIDENCE. 23. The policy reads: 1. In determining entitlement, the Workers Compensation Board will consider the following: whether an injury has occurred;

8 -7- whether the injury was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment; whether the diagnosed condition is compatible with the accident history provided; and whether medical treatment by a health care provider was required as a result of the injury. 2. The Workers Compensation Board will examine the evidence to determine whether it is sufficiently complete and reliable 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. 3. The standard of proof for decisions made under the Act is the balance of probabilities - a degree of proof which is more probable than not. 4. Decision makers must assess and weigh all relevant evidence. Conflicting evidence must be weighed to determine whether it weighs more toward one possibility than another. Where the evidence weighs more in one direction then that shall determine the issue. 5. If the decision is weighed in favour of the worker, the claim shall be allowed and compensation benefits provided. 6. If the evidence weighs against a worker s claim, the claim will not be allowed. 7. If the Workers Compensation Board concludes that the evidence for and against entitlement is approximately equal in weight, then the issue will be decided in favour of the worker, supported by a rationale for finding the evidence to be approximately equal in weight. 24. The Panel agrees with the analysis and rationale of Ms. Blakney in her reconsideration decision of September 9, The Panel on the balance of probabilities, accepts the Worker s allegation that he suffered a neck/shoulder injury at work on March 25, 2008.

9 Physician and physiotherapy reports filed with the Board sufficiently prove that the Worker suffered a neck/shoulder injury and that the cause of his condition was not pre-existing arthritis. 27. That the Worker sustained a neck/shoulder injury while moving a heavy carton [personal information] from an overhead shelf is plausible. 28. Moreover, there is no evidence to the contrary. 29. The Panel agrees with the Board s submission (factum) that the following information supports a finding of relatedness between the Worker s neck condition and the incident of March 25, 2008, and rebuts the employer s allegation of the Worker s excessive delay in seeking medical attention: (a) The worker thought his injury was minor at the time and would clear up with time; (b) The worker was not aware of any specific reporting requirements with respect to workplace injuries, as he had no previous experience with reporting workplace injuries; moreover, the Employer was of no assistance in this regard, as the worker s supervisor had no knowledge of how to report a workplace injury; (c) The worker mentioned his neck injury to his family doctor, Dr. Cooke, the day after the incident, that being March 26, 2008, as evidenced by a report of Dr. Cooke; (d) That Dr. Cooke did not complete a Physician s Report was beyond the control of the worker;

10 -9- (e) During the first week of April (a very short time after the incident), the worker scheduled an appointment with his family physician; and while waiting for this appointment, he called his family physician s assistant on more than one occasion to see if he could get an earlier appointment, and to put himself on the cancellation list; (f) Although the worker s pain was intensifying with the passage of time, the worker was simply trying to work through the pain while he secured an appointment with his family physician; and (g) The worker told each and every doctor he saw concerning his neck injury that it was a work-related injury. 30. Perhaps the Board should consider ways to better educate workers, employers and physicians with respect to reporting requirements under the Act and Board Policy. 31. The Employer also submits that there is too great of a discrepancy between the date of the workplace incident (March 25, 2008) and the date the Worker began to lose time from work (May 11, 2008). 32. The Worker has explained that the pain became progressively worse with the passage of time but eventually he was unable to tolerate the pain, and had to begin to miss time from work. 33. The fact that the Worker only had to work part-time, 2 days a week, may be another reason.

11 The Panel agrees with the Board s submission (factum) that it would be unfair to cast suspicion on a worker s claim simply because he or she may have temporarily exhibited a higher pain tolerance than other workers. 35. In summary, the Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Worker sustained a neck/shoulder injury on March 25, 2008, at his employer s workplace. 36. Accordingly, the Tribunal confirms IRO decision IR-08-46, dated September 9, Dated this 9 th day of October, John L. Ramsay, Q.C., Vice-Chair Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal Concurred: Ray Hann, Employer Representative Nancy FitzGerald, Worker Representative

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

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 [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

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 #199 Appellant

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER FIRM #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #107

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER FIRM #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DECISION #107 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: EMPLOYER FIRM #[personal information] AND: APPELLANT WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #107 Appellant Respondent Employer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 983/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 983/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 983/15 BEFORE: J. Goldman : Vice-Chair B. Davis : Member Representative of Employers C. Salama : Member Representative of Workers HEARING: May,

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

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1162/97. Aggravation (preexisting condition) (osteoarthritis) (knee).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1162/97. Aggravation (preexisting condition) (osteoarthritis) (knee). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1162/97 Aggravation (preexisting condition) (osteoarthritis) (knee). The worker suffered left knee injuries in 1976, 1980 and 1987. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Officer

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

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

For Employees: Employees: What What to to do do when when an an accident occurs 08/19/14/dmv

For Employees: Employees: What What to to do do when when an an accident occurs 08/19/14/dmv For Employees: What to do when an accident occurs 08/19/14/dmv When there is a work-related accident or illness, procedures must be taken to ensure the employees needs are met with respect to treatment

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

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

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

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

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION 1997 OPINION # 219 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION SUSAN BARTKIW, PLAINTIFF, V DOCKET # 94-0825 CITY OF DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT, SELF-INSURED, DEFENDANT. APPEAL

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

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

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. 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

FD: ACN=1004 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 609/87 STY:PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Jago DDATE:23/07/87 ACT: 40(3) [old 41(2)], 40(2)(b) [old 41(1)(b)] KEYW:

FD: ACN=1004 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 609/87 STY:PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Jago DDATE:23/07/87 ACT: 40(3) [old 41(2)], 40(2)(b) [old 41(1)(b)] KEYW: FD: ACN=1004 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 609/87 STY:PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Jago DDATE:23/07/87 ACT: 40(3) [old 41(2)], 40(2)(b) [old 41(1)(b)] KEYW: Temporary partial disability (level of benefits); Availability

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

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13252-11 WHSCC Claim No.(s): 604016, 611050, 672511 705910, 721783, 731715, 753775, 784014, 831110 Decision Number: 14189 Marlene

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL KNOXVILLE, MAY 1999 SESSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL KNOXVILLE, MAY 1999 SESSION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL KNOXVILLE, MAY 1999 SESSION FILED August 27, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk ROBERT JONES CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT

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

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

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

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

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

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

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

Warwick v. Howard University, CRB No. 14-112, AHD No. 12-440A, 5 (February 10, 2015).

Warwick v. Howard University, CRB No. 14-112, AHD No. 12-440A, 5 (February 10, 2015). A full evidentiary hearing occurred on August 4, 2014. Claimant sought an award of temporary total disability benefits from December 13, 2011 to the present and continuing as well as causally related medical

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

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. 1599/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1599/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1599/15 BEFORE: S. Peckover: Vice-Chair HEARING: August 7, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015

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

NO. COA08-1063 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 June 2009

NO. COA08-1063 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 June 2009 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

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

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

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

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

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [*] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: J. W. Lindsay Enterprises Limited (Employer) and The Workers Compensation Board

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee. MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee. MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754 JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

CITATION: Lyndal McNeilly AND Q-COMP (WC/2011/345) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: Lyndal McNeilly AND Q-COMP (WC/2011/345) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Lyndal McNeilly AND Q-COMP (WC/2011/345) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - appeal

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

[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.]

[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] [Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] THE STATE EX REL. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.,

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. Tracy v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 477, 2009-Ohio-1386.]

[Cite as State ex rel. Tracy v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 477, 2009-Ohio-1386.] [Cite as State ex rel. Tracy v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 477, 2009-Ohio-1386.] THE STATE EX REL. TRACY, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; AUTOZONE, INC., APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel.

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 J.S., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Seattle, WA, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director

More information

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board JOE ELLIS, Case No. ADJ9312688 Applicant, vs. BELL PLASTICS INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST, FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

More information

NO. COA06-448 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 February 2007. Appeal by defendant from Opinion and Award dated 16 December 2005 by the Full

NO. COA06-448 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 February 2007. Appeal by defendant from Opinion and Award dated 16 December 2005 by the Full 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

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 MARK RALEIGH ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,039,074 CHECKERS FOODS ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF

More information

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016 2014 Construction of Statute Definition of Injury (Causation) Revises Section 50-6-116, Construction of Chapter, to indicate that for dates of injury on or after July 1, 2014, the chapter should no longer

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

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

FD: FD: DT:D DN:301 STY: PANEL:Catton; Lankin; Jago DDATE: TYPE:A ACT: DECON: CCON: SCON: BDG: REGS: PDCON: DIST: KEYW:accident; disablement;

FD: FD: DT:D DN:301 STY: PANEL:Catton; Lankin; Jago DDATE: TYPE:A ACT: DECON: CCON: SCON: BDG: REGS: PDCON: DIST: KEYW:accident; disablement; FD: FD: DT:D DN:301 STY: PANEL:Catton; Lankin; Jago DDATE:250587 TYPE:A ACT: DECON: CCON: SCON: BDG: REGS: PDCON: DIST: KEYW:accident; disablement; significant contribution; aggravation; pre-existing condition

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Participant entitled to Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board)

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Participant entitled to Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) WCAT # 2009-623-AD-RTH NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participant entitled to respond to the appeal: Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL

More information

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14152-06 WHSCC Claim No: 606499 and 791748 Decision Number: 14147 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984. CHARLES MARTIN, Employee. VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984. CHARLES MARTIN, Employee. VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984 CHARLES MARTIN, Employee VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

Workers Compensation Law Update April 2012

Workers Compensation Law Update April 2012 Workers Compensation Law Update April 2012 Sean C. Pierce Carr Allison Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Maxim Healthcare Servs. v. Freeman, 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Civ. App. April 13, 2012)

More information

APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010

APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on June

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 D.M., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE, MI, Employer Appearances: Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant Office of Solicitor, for

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 D.D., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY -- ARNOLD, Bethesda, MD, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor,

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

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 303/95R. Reconsideration (consideration of evidence).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 303/95R. Reconsideration (consideration of evidence). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 303/95R Reconsideration (consideration of evidence). The worker's application to reconsider Decision No. 303/95 was denied. The hearing panel considered the evidence and reached its

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230. SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee. USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230. SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee. USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230 SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 1, 2003 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE

More information

CITATION: Danny Weston AND Q-COMP (WC/2012/35) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: Danny Weston AND Q-COMP (WC/2012/35) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Danny Weston AND Q-COMP (WC/2012/35) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - procedure for

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No.

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No. STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Sharon A. Jones, Petitioner v State Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1214 Agency

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 31, 2000 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 31, 2000 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 31, 2000 Session STANLEY R. WILBANKS v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA Direct Appeal from the Circuit

More information

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS

More information

Employees Compensation Appeals Board

Employees Compensation Appeals Board U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of GEORGE G. WILK and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MORAINE VALLEY FACILITY, Bridgeview, IL Docket No. 03-453; Submitted on the Record;

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA ELSA PEREZ APPELLANT v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/27/2013 TRIBUNAL FROM WHICH MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION

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 MARION A. DAVIS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 216,570 CONSPEC MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) UNITED STATES

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

Griffis, Carol v. Five Star Food Service

Griffis, Carol v. Five Star Food Service University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law Winter 2-6-2015 Griffis, Carol

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F401605. CAROL LUELLEN, Employee. WAL-MART STORES, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F401605. CAROL LUELLEN, Employee. WAL-MART STORES, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F401605 CAROL LUELLEN, Employee WAL-MART STORES, Employer CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-C-2271 TYRONNE C. WILLIAMS Versus RUSH MASONRY, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, DISTRICT #8 LEMMON,

More information

An Employer s Guide. Direct Access to Early Assessment of Sprains and Strains at Work

An Employer s Guide. Direct Access to Early Assessment of Sprains and Strains at Work An Employer s Guide Direct Access to Early Assessment of Sprains and Strains at Work An Employer s Guide to Direct Access Early Assessment of Sprains and Strains at Work Nova Scotians safe and secure from

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions About Georgia Workers Compensation Ty Wilson Attorney At Law 1-866-937-5454 www.tywilsonlaw.

Frequently Asked Questions About Georgia Workers Compensation Ty Wilson Attorney At Law 1-866-937-5454 www.tywilsonlaw. Frequently Asked Questions About Georgia Workers Compensation Ty Wilson Attorney At Law 1-866-937-5454 www.tywilsonlaw.com Special Report Frequently Asked Questions About Claims Special Report Ty Wilson

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL. AT KNOXVILLE (August 5, 1996 Session)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL. AT KNOXVILLE (August 5, 1996 Session) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE (August 5, 1996 Session FILED January 27, 1997 RONALD L. SHOOK, KNOX CIRCUIT Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # OPINION

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # OPINION BETRICE ROBINSON, PLINTIFF, 2003 CO #177 S T T E O F M I C H I G N WORKER'S COMPENSTION PPELLTE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 02-0371 MGM GRND DETROIT, L.L.C., SELF INSURED, DEFENDNT. PPEL FROM MGISTRTE BRNEY.

More information

HOW TO FILE A DISABILITY CLAIM (For Benefits Provided Pursuant to an Employer Provided Benefit Plan)

HOW TO FILE A DISABILITY CLAIM (For Benefits Provided Pursuant to an Employer Provided Benefit Plan) HOW TO FILE A DISABILITY CLAIM (For Benefits Provided Pursuant to an Employer Provided Benefit Plan) If you have Short Term Disability and/or Long Term Disability coverage by virtue of your 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 W.T., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Birmingham, AL, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director Docket No. 12-1743

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ORDER AND OPINION FILED JANUARY 13, 2010

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ORDER AND OPINION FILED JANUARY 13, 2010 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F904593 TIM LENARD LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC. CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO. CLAIMANT RESPONDENT EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CARRIER ORDER AND OPINION

More information

STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY

STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY ) State File No. P-20799 ) Nancy Conrad ) By: Margaret A. Mangan ) Hearing Officer v. ) ) For: R. Tasha Wallis Central Vermont Hospital ) Commissioner

More information

L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L. R. Opinion No. 57-06WC By: Margaret A. Mangan v. Hearing Officer Fletcher Allen Health Care For: Patricia Moulton

More information

Managing Workers Compensation Claims

Managing Workers Compensation Claims Managing Workers Compensation Claims A Presentation of The Office of the Employer Advisor Office of the Employer Advisor What is it? P Mandate in Sec. 85.(1) (b) of the Workers Compensation Act P Funded

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON April 28, 2000 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON April 28, 2000 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON April 28, 2000 Session KENNETH CROTTS v. BENCHMARK MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC. BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER TYNET CORPORATION INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED

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