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 1551 16
7/14/2016
K. Cooper - J. Blogg - A. Signoroni

  • Permanent impairment {NEL} (psychotraumatic disability)

The worker suffered a shoulder injury in 2009, for which the Board granted a 24% NEL award. The Board also granted entitlement for psychotraumatic disability but denied a NEL award for permanent impairment. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying a NEL assessment for permanent psychotraumatic disability and denying full LOE benefits.
Board policy on psychotraumatic disability notes that the condition is considered to be a temporary condition, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The Panel agreed with Decision No. 1926/11 that, for a worker to be entitled to an assessment for permanent psychotraumatic disability, there must be evidence to support a finding of permanent impairment, usually based on a DSM IV diagnosis, and that the worker is at MMR.
In this case, the first DSM IV diagnosis was in June 2011. One and one-half years later, he was still found to be suffering from depression related to the accident. Three different specialists were of the view that the worker had a DSM IV diagnosis of depression. A psychiatrist noted in December 2012 that the worker had reached MMR with an ongoing psychological impairment.
The Panel concluded that the worker came within the exceptional circumstances in Board policy, as he had a DSM IV diagnosis and had reached MMR. The worker was entitled to a NEL assessment for psychotraumatic disability.
The worker was incapable of earning income from employment as a result of his compensable condition. He was entitled to full LOE benefits to age 65, subject to statutory reviews.
The appeal was allowed.