- Continuing entitlement
- Permanent impairment {NEL}
- Strains and sprains (cervical)
- Dental (tooth extraction)
The worker was 56 years old when he was injured on April 13, 2010. At the time, he was a fast food delivery driver, and was physically assaulted while delivering food. The worker sustained injuries including strains of his low back and neck, and contusions to his head and face. Two teeth and a denture were also damaged. The issues under appeal were whether the worker had a permanent impairment (PI) of his compensable neck injuries, and whether the worker had a PI of his compensable dental injuries.
The appeal was denied. The Panel also found that the worker's testimony was not credible. The contemporaneous evidence of the medical record documentation was preferred. The Panel found, on a balance of probabilities, that any ongoing neck issues the worker had were due to non-compensable accidents and/or conditions. The worker had experienced several significant intervening events, including a whiplash diagnosis in 2020. The worker also had multiple MVAs, and chronic back pain was noted in the records; however, there was no mention of neck problems, despite the thorough listing of past medical history in the record. The Panel was satisfied that the worker's compensable neck injury resolved without a PI. The worker was not entitled to a non-economic loss (NEL) assessment for his neck.With respect to the worker's dental injuries, it was noted that the worker's denture was broken in the April 2010 compensable accident. A complete upper denture was granted on a one time basis. This replaced the two compensable extracted teeth, as well as several other teeth that were missing previously or not considered compensable. The denture effectively replaced more non-compensable teeth than compensable teeth, and therefore, the benefit was granted on a one-time basis only.The worker submitted that the absence of teeth and the denture led to other problems in his mouth. The Panel noted that there was insufficient evidence in the documentary evidence to support that the worker had the problems he described. Additionally, if the worker did have problems, the Panel noted that, on a balance of probabilities, they would more likely be attributable to the worker's pre-existing dental difficulties. In particular, it was noted that the worker had 12 teeth that were missing prior to the April 2010 compensable accident. The Panel concluded that the main cause of any worsening dental problems was, more likely than not, the progression of the pre-existing condition that had led to 12 teeth being extracted. The Panel noted that when dental worsening is caused by a pre-existing condition, rather than the compensable condition, repairs will not be covered (see Decision No. 1127/15).Additionally, the worker's representative submitted that the act of surgical tooth extraction warranted a PI award in and of itself. The Panel did not agree. It clarified that the mere act of having had surgery does not in and of itself qualify the worker for a PI award. Such a situation does not leave the worker with an ongoing functional impairment. Rather, the extraction, denture and surgery corrected the problem, leaving the worker without a PI. The Panel also referenced Decision No. 2328/14, which noted that extraction alone was insufficient to trigger entitlement to a NEL award. In that matter, the worker also had two compensable extracted teeth (see also Decisions No. 709/18 and 1639/06). In conclusion, the worker did not have a PI of his compensable dental injuries. The worker was therefore not entitled to a NEL assessment.