- Jurisdiction, Tribunal (Board implicitly dealt with issue)
- Notice of accident (by worker) (disablement)
- Accident (date) (disablement)
- Parties (accident employer)
The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for carpal tunnel syndrome.
The employer submitted that the claim was statute-barred pursuant to s. 22(1) of the WSIA, and that the worker's employer was not the accident employer for purposes of the worker's claim.The ARO accepted the accident date of July 2015, as listed by the worker on his Form 6. The worker did not file the claim until December 2016. However, the ARO did not explicitly or implicitly deal with the issue of the time limit to file the claim.The Vice-Chair noted that there may be a finding of implicit or underlying jurisdiction in reviewing the adjudicative history of a case. There are cases in which the adjudicator must consider matters that are implicit in the key issue under appeal. These would be matters requiring consideration of essential elements or findings necessary to the key issue within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. An example is the implicit need to determine facts about a worker's co-operation or the suitability of a job in assessing loss of earnings benefits. This was not such a case. The assessment of the worker's job duties did not require an assessment of an essential element or require a finding on the section 22 time limit issue.In this case, the s. 22 time limit issue was not raised until April 2019, when the employer cited it as a preliminary hearing issue in this appeal. The Vice-Chair found that the issue decided by the ARO was limited to initial entitlement for carpal tunnel syndrome. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the time limit issue. The Vice-Chair made no finding with respect to whether the time limit was waived by the Board in adjudicating the appeal.The Tribunal had jurisdiction over the date of accident for purposes of this appeal. The date of accident was raised and addressed explicitly by the ARO. Further, the date of accident will generally be included in a determination of initial entitlement.The ARO accepted an accident date in July 2015, because the worker's Form 6 indicated that he sought medical attention at that time. However, that information was incorrect.According to Board policy, the date of accident in a disablement claim is the date of first medical attention which led to the diagnosis or the date of diagnosis, whichever is earlier. In this case, the clinical notes on file document a diagnosis of bilateral CTS as early as April 2014. The Vice-Chair concluded that the accident date was in April 2014, or possibly earlier.The parties agreed that the worker started work with the employer in September 2014, which was after the date of the accident. Because the worker was not employed by the employer on the date of injury, the employer is not the accident employer in relation to the worker's disablement claim for CTS. The employer of record should be the party who was the worker's employer as of April 2014, or earlier. The employer identified and named in this appeal is not the accident employer for purposes of initial entitlement for bilateral CTS.The matter was referred back to the Board.