- Permanent impairment {NEL} (redetermination) (significant deterioration)
- Registration of employers
- Earnings basis (FEL)
- Class of employer (domestic services)
- Class of employer (nursing)
The worker was employed as a labourer in 1995, when he suffered a right shoulder injury. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer regarding calculation of his FEL benefits, denying a redetermination of his 12% NEL award for right shoulder impairment and denying entitlement in 2011 for a second accident or recurrence.
The worker was laid off in 2003. The Board correctly based benefits on pre-injury earnings rather than earnings at the time of the lay-off. This is consistent with the wording of s. 43 of the pre-1997 Act, Board policy and the consensus of Tribunal decisions regarding FEL benefits for recurrences.The worker was entitled to redetermination of his NEL award due to significant deterioration.The worker suffered a shoulder injury in 2011. However, the Board found that the worker was providing non-professional nursing-type care for an individual. That individual would have been classified in Rate Group 857, classification unit 8662-099, for offices of nurses, which does not have mandatory coverage but, rather, has coverage by application. The individual had not applied for coverage.The Vice-Chair found that the best fit in this case was Rate Group 944, classification unit 9741-099, for domestic workers, as the worker was, in essence, a companion and was not providing nursing services. This rate group has mandatory coverage. Therefore, even though the individual had not established a WSIB account, the worker would be entitled to benefits.The Vice-Chair concluded that the worker was entitled to establish a claim for a new accident in 2011.The appeal was allowed in part.