This message is displayed because client-side scripting is turned off or not supported in the browser you are currently using.
Please turn on client-side scripting or install a browser that supports client-side scripting.

Ontario Government | Ministry of Labour | Site Map | Accessibility | text resize: A A A

Home | About Us | OWT Library | Forms | Practice Directions | Decision Search | Contact Us | Fran├žais

Established in 1985, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) is the final level of appeal to which workers and employers may bring disputes concerning workplace safety and insurance matters in Ontario. WSIAT has always been separate from and independent of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Questions?

Decisions

Appeal Process

For Representatives

Finding a Representative

Documents & Publications

Legal/Medical Resources

Popular Topics

Links to Other Agencies

Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

  Decision 1740 13
10/5/2015
E. Smith

  • Cancer (larynx)
  • Intervening causes
  • Dependency benefits (death results from an injury)
  • Significant contribution (of compensable disability to death)
  • Stroke (stress)

The Board granted the worker entitlement for laryngeal cancer in May 2007. He underwent radiation and temporarily required a feeding tube. In September 2008, he suffered a stroke while at home. He was taken to hospital and remained there until he died in January 2009, as a result of aspiration pneumonia. The employer appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer finding that the compensable laryngeal cancer was a significant contributing factor to the worker's death.
Impact on the worker's swallowing ability from the radiation treatment was not a factor that likely affected the outcome of the stroke. Prior to the stroke, the worker had limitations on his ability to swallow, which were mechanical in nature and affected his diet. This was a result of the radiation therapy. However, medical evidence indicated that his swallowing function was improving and would continue to improve. There was no medical evidence indicating that his swallowing difficulties were life-threatening.
The stroke also affected the swallowing mechanism. The worker suffered a neurological injury to his swallowing mechanism in the stroke. This was expected to be permanent. He would require a permanent feeding tube, which left him at risk for recurrent aspiration pneumonias. Death is described as the most probable outcome of a major stroke with this etiology.
The Vice-Chair found that the stroke had the effect of changing a non-life-threatening difficulty with swallowing which was likely to improve into a situation in which the most likely outcome was death. The stroke overwhelmed the effects of the prior swallowing limitations.
The Vice-Chair also considered the role of stress from the compensable laryngeal cancer as a causal factor to the stroke. Medical evidence indicated that stress was not a factor, considering other predisposing factors present, specifically heart and vascular disease, with cardiac stenting and hypertension, increasing renal failure and a 40-pack-year smoking history. Further, an aneurysm of the size identified in this case would take years or even decades to develop, gradually enlarging over time, and had a 50% risk of rupturing over five years. Thus, the worker was at significant risk at the time. The effect of stress was marginal, if at all.
The appeal was allowed. The worker's cancer was not a significant contributing factor to his death. The worker did not have entitlement to benefits for the stroke or for his resulting death.