Third Documented Work Accident & Injurries
- Entire Back, Neck & Head - February 6, 1997
This is part of my story, where the period is starting with my work accident of February 6, 1997
and goes up to December 31, 1997.
This is just before the Ontario workers compensation law and in doing so, changed the workers compensation board.
The February 6, 1997 work accident and subsequent work injuries removed me from work for several months and still plagues me today.
Start on day of Work Accident - February 6, 1997:
On February 6, 1997, I started my day like any other day. I arrived at work then went to my truck inspected it. Then I got my paperwork from the guard shack, looked for my trailer hooked up inspected it and departed the warehouse for my first store. I had the Hamilton run and in my deliveries, I had five deliveries the first in Aldershot, the second in Dundas, and the remainder in Hamilton itself. The store started receiving at 8:00am and I arrived shortly before then. I proceeded to started unloading by hand. This was placing each item on the rollers. I didn’t like unloading at this store as it was through a window style. There was no actual loading dock. Then inside the store there was like a five-foot landing then a set of stairs straight down to the basement, which is where the conveyor filled with product from the trailer went. I usually get a little weary when I start a load as there is nowhere to escape when the load starts to collapse. It has happened to me so many times that when I hear a creek, I run. Then the whole load comes down. However, in the case of starting the trailer, there is nowhere to run, which you can see in the photos on the previous page.Workplace Accident & Injuries - February 6, 1997:
I had just starting unloading, when I was about seven or so feet into the trailer. My back was turned to the load, when I heard a creek, when the load started to fall. I looked forward all I could see was the flight of stairs to the basement. In a split second a thought went through my head of the load collapsing and pushing out of the trailer and down the stairs. So, my instinct took over I planted my foot firm in front of me to brace for the hit. Boy was it a hit. I struggled to stay on my feet another fear set in that I would be buried alive. I used effort ounce of strength I had and push the load back away from me as it slowly fell about my legs and feet. It was just then I noticed the old women in the store who was the receiver screaming. She was screaming for the manager. The manager came running and she yelled at him the driver’s been seriously hurt. The manager climbing in and helped me dig myself out of the product that fell all around me. I felt the immediate pain, but it was like it didn’t bother me. I have been told this is normal as the adrenalin kicks in.Reporting of Workplace Accident & Injuries - February 6, 1997:
I climbed out of the trailer and went and called dispatch and my employer to report the accident. I spoke to the Canadian Tire dispatch they told me they didn’t have anyone to replace me and I would have to finish the run. This happened at about 8:45am on February 6, 1997. I explained to the dispatch that I would not be able to do any physical unloading so they would have to call the stores inform they will have to do it. The Aldershot store put someone in the trailer and the trailer was unloading. They signed their paperwork and my initially my trip sheet. I then proceed to the other stores and I explained to them what happened, because no surprise the Canadian Tire dispatch never called any of the stores. I explained to the remaining four stores that I was injured and could not unload the trailer if they wanted their product they would have to do it. I had delivered to the stores many times in the past and they all knew me and knew I was not faking. When I got to the last store the store employees unloaded the trailer while I watched. Ironically, I was standing watching them I turned and walked away, just as I did a stack of eight or so bins collapsed and fell and landing right where I was standing. The store employee looked and smiled at me he said man you lucky. I said not really, I am in so much pain right now it would have possibly put me out of my misery. Just as the first store did, all the stores I delivered to, initialed my trip sheet, as they always did. I then proceeded back to the warehouse. While I was driving the truck back to the warehouse I was in so much pain I was struggling to keep the truck in my lane. When I arrived in the warehouse I parked the truck in front of the dispatch building I never dropped the trailer or properly parked the truck. I went into the dispatch dropped my paperwork on the counter and ask the dispatcher for a copy of my run sheet. I did this for two reasons. The first was to prove that I had to finish the workday out and the employer refused to relieve me form work. The second was to show I did in fact report it to my employer. I wrote on the trip sheet that I was hit by six bins and ten cases of oil and the load was dangerously loaded. I finished work at 9:05pm. This was also the reason why I am glad I copied my run sheet as the employer lied on the report of injury sheet and said I was relieved from work at 9:05 am, but in actuality I was not relieved from work until 9:05pm. If I am lying then how did I get the run sheet with all the initials on it for each store. You can see it on page three of the employer’s report of injury form.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
Visit to Doctor for February 6, 1997 Work Accident & Injuries:
The next morning, I called my doctor’s office and was told the earliest I could get into see him was the following Monday February 10, 1997. The last time I went to the hospital, for my finger injury, I sat and waited over six hours to get four stitches. I was in so much pain I could not drive myself to the hospital let alone sit in an emergency room for six or seven hours. This was a major reason and the other was that I was hoping the injury would not be as bad as it was. I was in genuine fear of losing my job. I didn’t want to lose my job like others did from having a work injury.Here is another problem
It is sepaarte of injured workers, but directly impacts injured workers!
When the cuts to government funded healthcare are too deep,
then people actual stop seeking care, even emergency care!
It is unbelievable, but very real.
On February 10, 1997, I went to my family doctor. He examined me.
Then provided me with a doctor’s note for my employer stating I would be off work until reassessed in three days. He also prescribed Tylenol 3’s for pain. On the same day, my doctor completed a WCB form entitled "Physician's First Report of Injury form for WCB.
I did not see him complete this form. In the form, my doctor reported a stack of bins fell and hit my back. He also reported that there was pain with flexion and rotation to the right at the lumbar spine (lower back) and pain at the thoracic spine (upper back). In medical terms, he diagnosed an injury and pain to the entire back. He also made a referral to physiotherapy.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
Doctor's Clinical Notes - February 10th, 1997:
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Feb. 10th to April 30th. On February 10th, my doctor notes stacked bins full of auto parts and cases of oil fell on my back, neck, and head. He indicates pain at back and neck. Pain with prolonged sitting, standing and especially with driving. He observes that the lumbar spine [lower back] and thoracic spine [upper back] have decreased rotation, flexion is at 15 degrees, extension is at zero degrees, side flexion is at five degrees, SLR [straight leg raise] was at zero [or not able to lift legs], reflexes were 2+ [ or noted as normal]. On physical examination, the doctor noted tender back and neck. The doctor determined soft tissue injury, back neck strain/contusion. He ordered me off work and prescribed Tylenol #3 - 40 pills for the pain.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
Formal Report to Employer:
After seeing my doctor, on February 10, 1997, I went to my employer, Action Force Driver Service and provided them with the Doctor’s note. I explained I would be reassessed by my doctor in three days where he would know more then. The employer gave me some forms to report the accident and injuries. I completed all the forms. I completed pages three, five, and six of the employer’s report of injury information. I also provided the employer with a copy of my day’s trip sheet, which showed I had worked a full day until 9:05 pm and not 9:05am. It was clear to me that the employer saw I had been forced to work the entire day and decided to change the time I was relieved from work. This was to cover the risk of them being punished by the WCB. From this information, the employer completed and signed the first page which was typed and completed. In the employer’s completed form they reported that worker did receive healthcare but was going to doctor for first time on Feb 10. They even indicated his name and phone number. The employer reported to the WCB that they did not have a return to work program. Under benefits they said not applicable, yet they lied when I had benefits they stopped them shortly after I was injured. They also stated I did not get paid for vacation pay which confirmed they were in fact breaking the law as this was mandated and confirms what I said earlier about no vacation pay or overtime pay. In the type of employment, they indicated temporary. I found this to be strange as I worked at Canadian Tire for Action force for according to the forms I started working for them in 1995 and had been working an average of 60 hours or more each week.It is strange how employers can actually declare and get away with claiming this is temporary work. The employer indicated to the question has the worker had a previous similar work injury the employer indicates no, but then says probably. Then in the next question was any individual who does not work for you totally or partially responsible for the injury the employer reported No. But as stated earlier, it was in fact the Canadian Tire employees and other labour service workers who worked for Canadian Tire who were the people who loaded the trailer. Again, the employer was lying to the WCB.
Doctor Visit - February 13, 1997:
On February 13, 1997, I visited my doctor. He examined me.He then said I was to remain off work until reassessed in two weeks.
Doctor's Clinical Notes - February 13th, 1997, visit:
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Feb. 10th to April 30th. After examining me he notes in his clinical notes, that my back and neck are still painful and I was unable to sit for long due to the back pain. He referred me to physiotherapy and to come back in ten days.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
My Workers Report of Accident & Subsequent Injury Form:
The Wrong Form:On February 16, 1997, I received a worker’s progress report form, from the WCB. It was the wrong form. They sent me a workers progress report form instead a worker's initial report of injury form. In the injury area box, it stated injury was “neck” and “back of head”. I contacted the WCB by telephone and informed them that they had sent the wrong form. They should have sent a worker’s report of injury form. Also, they have the wrong injury reported it should be back, neck and back of head. I spoke to Mr. Baird my adjudicator. Mr. Baird explained that he would send the proper form, but in the meantime, I could send in that form anyways. He also stated that in their computer system they have the injury as neck, back of head back, but it does not fit in the box, so when the form was printed, it cuts of the last part of the injury. In the injury box, I manually wrote in the word “back”.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
The Correct Form: On April 2, 1997, the WCB finally sent the worker’s report of injury form to me. The area of injury again stated “neck” and “back of head”. I decided to leave it this time, as I believed what the adjudicator told me that the “back” portion of the injury wasn’t printed. In the form I reported neck trauma, lower back pain, back pain, discomfort when sitting and standing. I also reported that I did attempt a return to work and worked on March 10th-14th and the 17th. I said it was modified duties. This statement was based on what I was told by the employer. The only difference was, there was no physical unloading. Driving was still very physically intensive work. Later the WSIB ergonomic specialist would determine that driving jobs were unsuitable for me.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
Acceptance of Workplace Accident & Subsequent Injuries::
As previously discussed, the employer reported the accident to the WCB, where items fell and struck my back, neck, and head. They also indicated a subsequent injury to my back, neck and head. The WCB accepted this reporting of information. Also, as previously discussed, my doctor reported to the WCB that I suffered an injury to the back, when bins fell on me. He also made a referral to physiotherapy. In the physiotherapist report indicated injury to back, and neck. This was what my doctor agreed with. In the worker’s progress report, I reported to the WCB an injury to my neck, and back. There was no correspondence or any other documents in the WCB or WSIB claim file from the WCB or the WSIB claiming they had not accepted the injury to the mid back, upper back, neck, and head. There was no indication of the determination of area of injury not until 2001.I emphasize the issue of the reported accident and subsequent injury as well as the fact that the WCB nor the WSIB disputed the accident reporting or the injuries. I mention this, as later on in my dealings with the WSIB they will claim I only ever suffered an injury to just my lower back, but never proved or disproved the other injuries.
Treatment of Workplace Accident:
On February 25, 1997, the physiotherapist prepared a report for my family doctor in his report he stated that back/neck pain with twenty minutes sitting. The physiotherapist observed the following: Decreased lumbar ROM (Range of motion) in all directions; Considerable tender nous over spinous process; neurological sls elicited with pressure over vertebrae. In The comment section, the physiotherapist reports that soft tissue injury source of problem; treatment ultrasound and work hardening; and don’t expect return to work before March 10, 1997 unless light duties. My doctor responded that he agreed with what the physiotherapist had reported.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of Claim file)
March 1997 - Treatment & Attempted Return to Work:
Throughout March, of 1997, I would attend physiotherapy five days a week, which was for an hour each day. My Doctor also prescribed Tylenol 3’s for the pain. Of course, WCB would only pay for the cheaper generic brand of Oxycodone. I was off work while I recovered from my injuries. I called my employer and asked if they had any light duties like office work I could do. My manager Greg, told me to stay home and to get better. To not worry about working. He said they had no light duty work, aside from driving a truck, which I was not presently able to even attempt. However, later this so called modified work by the employer would be determined by the WSIB ergonomic specialist as unsuitable and not modified worker. This was before the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act came into effect, which meant workers were not forced back to unsafe work. Of course, this would change for me in later years. It appeared to me that I was slowly improving. My neck and upper back pain was slowly dissipating that I was no longer experiencing severe pain or other symptoms, but my lower back was still painful. In a worker’s progress report, sent to the WCB, dated March 3, 1997.I had indicated that the present condition of my injury was back pain.
I also indicated that my doctor said I can return to modified suitable work as of March 10, 1997.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the report)
Doctor's Clinical Notes From February 25th 1997
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Feb. 10th to April 30th.On February 25th, I saw my doctor and after examination he documented that I was slowly improving and I was able to sit longer. He also notes physio suggest March 10th for return to work. He provided me a note to say that on March 10th I could return to modified suitable work. Later it would be determined that the work was not modified or even suitable.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of of the Doctor's clinical notes)
First Attempted Return to Work – March 10, 1997:
While I was off work I maintained contact with my employer I would call them once a week keeping them up to date on my recovery status. The employer would tell me how if I did return to work soon I would not have any work. I was working for a “Temporary Agency” and my regular work was provided by Canadian Tire, so if they became displeased they could tell the Temporary agency at any time they didn’t want me for any reason. Even though the work offered was modified in that there was no unloading is all. The work was not suitable, as there was a lot of physical force need with hooking, unhooking trailers, and climbing in and out of the transport truck and trailer. Out of concern for losing my job with Canadian Tire, I agreed to go back to work. On March 10th, 1997, I went back to work. This was until March 17th. I took March 18th and 19th off work as I could not handle the pain while working I saw my doctor on the 19th, which was the earliest I could see him. This work of just driving as classified by the employer as modified and suitable would later be determined by a WSIB ergonomic specialist as totally unsuitable for my condition. On March 19th, I was again removed from work by my doctor. A letter was submitted by my employer with a not from my doctor proving I would be off work.
Employer's letter to WCB & Docotor's note.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the employer's letter)
Again, the employer lied! They said my last day of work was March 19th.
It was March 17th when I told my employer I was off work and would be going to my doctor’s as soon as I could get an appointment.
I took the 18th off to call my doctor’s office, who could give me an appointment for the 19th.
Progress of Recovery - March 1997:
I was removed from work again by my doctor on March 19, 1997, as previously stated. At this point, my doctor in his progress report only mentioned low back. This simply was because my greatest concern or area of most pain was in my lower back area. My doctor is reporting what he observed. This does not mean that my other injuries did not exist or were fully recovered. It just meant they were not a persistent problem at that time. The doctor also reports a complete recover expected in two to three months, with another attempted return to work in two to three weeks. I reported in the workers progress report of April 2, 1997, "neck trauma, low back pain. and back pain". I also indicated discomfort with sitting or standing for long periods.
Employer's letter to WCB & Docotor's note.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the employer's letter)
Doctor’s Clinical Notes March 19 – Apr 9th:
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Feb. 10th to April 30th. On March 19, 1997, my doctor reports in his clinical notes that after a return to work, which was driving No modified duties [ this meant I informed my doctor I was doing regular work] pain in lower back and neck. On examination, he noted increased pain in lower back region, also unable to sit for more than twenty minutes.On March 26, 1997, my doctor notes in his clinical notes back and neck still painful. Lower back tender and painful. Flexion 45 degrees, extension 10 degrees. He orders continued physiotherapy and return in ten days.
On April 9, 1997, my doctor notes in his clinical notes that back and neck injury improving still painful in lower-back. He also noted lumbar spine range of motion improving. He also prescribed Tylenol #3s 40 pills and to continue physiotherapy. He also noted return to modified duties April 14, 1997.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's clinical notes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Exceeded for
Permanent Injury Status for
February 6, 1997 Work Injuries
Now what is interesting, at this point in time of my work injury, is that my doctor says at more than a month and a half into an injury recovery phase, that I will be an possible additional two to three months before recovery.
The WCB if they were doing their job, would have realized that I was well beyond the "usual healing times" in accordance with their policy on determining permanet injuries (or permanet impairment).
The WCB should have monitored the file, or more importantly advised my doctor of the possibility it would likely be a permanent injury, instead they played stupid!
In actual fact the WCB never played stupid!
They forced me back to work, like even today, the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe forces hundreds of thouasands of injured workers back to work. Not carign whether the work is safe or suitable.
Afterall, why would they care? Who is going to hold the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe, accoutnable, when they are wrong?
The courts, have already said they will not and forget about our elected officials! Sad for me, but great news for the WCB/WSIB, that it would take the WCB/WSIB another three years before they would finally reluctantly agree that I did in fact suffer from a permanent injury!
However, after the three years, the WSIB would only agree for a permanent injury to just my lower back and nowhere else. They said I only injured my lower-back.
What is even more troublesome, is that in August of 1998, a year and a half after the February 6, 1997 work accident and injury, I would be assessed for a permanet injury. At that assessment, a WSIB doctor would say I would be AGAIN, fully recovered in six to eight weeks. This seems logically impossible with having the injury for so long, especially when he recommends no formal treatment.
Upon reflection of the way the WSIB docotr delat with me, was identical to the Steinnagel vs. WSIB civil lawsuit.
Dr. Steinnagel is suing the WSIB and her employer for having her wrongfully terminated. She was wrongfully termianted becuase she refused to chnage her diagnosis and prognosis of a patienet she had assessed for a permanet injury. As a result the WSIB had her employer fire her. Dr. Steinnagel has likely been blacklisted, by both the College of Phsycians & Surgeons and the WSIB!
This they do, instead of hailing her a true hereo for standing up agaisnt corporate corruption and greed within Canada's helathcare system.
In comparing the following information that I now have regarding the WCB/WSIB's assessment process:
The WCB/WSIB policy for usual healing times states 3 months from dated of injury.
This is what is used to determine Maximum Medical Recovery - MMR
Yet it took the WCB/WSIB more than 3 years, to make the determination in my claim.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Board policy)
Prior to the WSIB finally making the deetrmination for permanet impairment, in August 1998, I had to be assessed by one of the "WSIB Doctors" to be assessed for a permanent injury. The WSIB doctor said, in his reprot, that after me having my injury for more than a year and a half, that I would be fully recovered in six to eight weeks, and with no formal treatment. He said I was to just go back doing my regular job! You can raed this for yoruself in the Doctor's report.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's report)
Now with the lawsuit between Dr. Steinnagel and the WSIB. As previosuly mentioend, Dr. Steinnagel had been wrongfully termianted for not changing her diagnosis & prognosis of a pateient she had seen. In reviewing all of the facts, it is quite clear, that there is a covert attempt to push injured workers back to work, even if the injured workers are severely injured. Regardless of harm to the injured workers, other workers, or the general public. Moreover this effort is done by the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe, all the while knowing the jobs of the workers being pushed back to work are safety sensitive jobs. Jobs that one would think the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe, would take extra care with. These such jobs are for example,truck driver, bus driver, locomotive engineer, pilot, ship captain, fork lift oeprator, crane operator and the list goes on and on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Second Attempted Return to Work - April 1997:
I again attempted a return to work in mid-April 1997, just after my doctor’s visit of April 9, 1997.I did this because I was receiving pressure from my employer. This pressure was in the form of the employer reminding me that I worked for a temporary agency – Action Force. Canadian Tire was the customer and not the employer. Canadian Tire had no obligation to keep my position available for me. According to Action Force and Canadian Tire I was not Canadian Tire’s employee therefore there was no obligation for re-employment.
Another fatcor that typically weighs heavy on an injured worker is the economic cliamte. If the economy is very bad, then jobs are really scarce. This causes workers to take greater risks to keep their job. Risks they should NEVER have to take!
Well, I returned to what the employer claimed to be was modified work. This was in fact my regular job, just no hand unlaoding. I again reiterate that this was later determined, by the WSIB ergonomic specialist, as work that was not suitable for me. While I was working in this "so called modified work", my work day would be anywhere from a 6am start time, or earlier. To a finish time of 9 pm, or later. It is obvious that I was not working a 9am to 5pm job. So, when it came to physiotherapy treatment and medical appointments, while I was on "so called modified work", this was a major problem for me and many others in my position. How could I attend treatment when I was at work, let alone book appointments and make the appointments?
Employers are never held responsible for their behavior of preventing their workers form obtaining proper medical care/treatment. They would and do intentionally and knowingly prevent workers, from attending medical treatment for their work injuries, because of work schedules. For example, I worked at Canada Cartage, a major transport company. When I was hurt, he I told by them, that I was expected to attend all medical treatments and appointments outside of work schedules, on my own time and at my own expense. So, throughout the month of April 1997, I missed all my scheduled appointments and missed any further treatment. I was unable to make any further scheduled appointments, due to my work schedule and stopped trying to make any more appointments, as I kept missing them due to my unpredicatable work schedule. The missed physiotherpay appoinments are confirmed in the physiotherapy discharge report, which is disucssed after the next section.
Threat for Return to Regular Work:
Prior to my returning to regular work, I was doing what the employer claimed was modified suitable work, which as I again reiterate was proved later to be unsuitable for me by the WSIB ergonomic specialist.On Friday April 18, 1997 I stopped by the Action Force office to pick up my pay cheque. At this time, it was only a few employers that had payroll direct deposit for its employees. It was really only beneficial for the employees to have this feature, so most temporary agencies didn't have it. So, drivers if passing by the office, would stop by and pick up their paycheques. I was at the office at Action Force and the manager was speaking to a Candian Tire dispatcher. The manger told me to be quiet and put the call on speaker phone. This was so I could hear the call. I heard the conversation between Sheldon Wheeler, dispatcher for Canadian Tire, and Monique Rivard, manager at Action Force. Sheldon did not know that when Monique had the phone on speaker phone that I was present in the office and could hear everything he said. Sheldon asked Monique when myself and another driver, Lou Gordon, would be returning to regular work. She responded she was unsure at this point. He replied that if Lou and myself did not return to regular work by the end of the month (April 97), then we woudl not be allowed to work at Canadian Tire. After he hung up the phone, Monique apologize to me she said I wasn’t supposed to hear that conversation and felt embarrassed as to what I had heard from Sheldon. I was panicked, in the sense of work was scarce. I didn’t want to lose work. I decided to tell my doctor I was fully recovered. Even when I was still in a lot of pain.
When I stated I was fully recovered, I cna confirm this as it was stated in the physiotherapy discharge report. The report also showed the many missed appointments and unresolved issues.
Physiotherapy Discharge Report:
On April 25, 1997, the physiotherapist sent a discharge report to the WCB. You can see the report my clicking on the image to the right. In the report it indicated the following:Limited Lumbar and Thoracic mobility – indicated as resolved
The Lumbar spine if the lower and mid back region and the thoracic spine is th emid and upper back region.
Poor Trunk Strength – indicated as not resolved
This is describing lower back region as well
Tender mid-back – indicated as resolved
This is obviously the mid back region
The report in the comment section also stated the following:
“Paul improved steadily with treatment and continued [illegible word] therapy until he was able to meet his regular work demands. Paul missed appointments for the end of April 97, but at his last assessment he was able to max. lift 60lbs and at this point in time should be capable of meeting his regular job demands.”
It also stated a return to unrestricted duties.
A concern I have with this report is that it is based on information that was not update and accurate for them to have recommended a full discharge. The discharge was solely based on the fact that I missed appoinements. The reason I stopped going was previously explained. Therefore, they concluded I was fully recovered.
When you look closely at the report, there are two points of concern.
The first is an unresolved issue of poor trunk strength. This clearly shows on this point I was not fully recovered.
Then on the second point, was the reported stated ability to max. lift 60lbs, which meets my regular job duties.
This was an assumption, as they never stated asked what my regular job duties were. Specifically how much I would be expected to lift on a daily basis. Soem companies have stated a single male should not lift more than, or be expected to lift more than 75lbs.The Ministry of Labour states a worker can not be expecte dto lift more htna htye are capable of. The Phsyiotherpy assessment is considerably less than the ministry guideline/rule. Furthermore, my regular jobs duties were considerable more than 60lbs. More than the ministry guidelines of what I was capable of and mroe thna what some companies stated as 75 lbs. as you can see in the pictures, on the previous page, some boxes weights in excess of a hundred pounds. I knwo I was forced to lift gym wieghts,w hcih said the weight was 110lbs on the box. Very few boxes inlcuding the grey totes had the weights marked on them.
Below is a copy of the Phsyiotherpay discharge reprot
where you can see for yoruself what it says.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the physiotherapy report)
My Doctor's Clinical Notes of April 30, 1997:
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Feb. 10th to April 30th.After examining me, my doctor notes in his clinical notes that range of motion is improving. Return to regular work would be May 1, 1997. Interesting he never stated I was fully recovered. It is clear upon reflection, he is assuming I would fully recover during a return to regular work. or that I was being forced back to regular (by my employer).
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's clinical notes)
Return to Regular Unrestricted Work:
After consulting with my doctor on April 25th, 1997, I returned to regular work, whcih wa sin addition to driving the truck I would be expected to hand unload the trailer, when I arrived at the stores, as I did beofre my work injury of February 6, 1997.I was not fully recovered from my work injury of Februayr 6, 1997, I knew it, and led my doctor to believe I was fully recovered. I did this simply because I was in fear of losing my job working at Canadian Tire.
On numerous occasions I would take days off work becuase of the pain form the injuries. It was not just the physical unloading, but the long workdays of working 12 to 14 hours per day. I did explain to my employer, Action Force that I was taking time off due to my ongoign problems from my work injury of February 6, 1997. I did explain that I didn’t want to report it as a work injury due to fear of reprisal from Canadian Tire.My employer, Action Force raised no concern with me taking time off of work for my work injury and never reported it to WCB.
It is ironic, as Canadian Tire ended up getting rid of me anyways. I alter learne dit wa snothing I did, but simply thye wanted rid of me becuase of my work injury - I was dmaged goods!
I should not have been surprised, as they typically did with all workers who got hurt. The work I returned to was as I previously described, where I was physically unloading the loads, as well as driving the truck. The difference was I was still suffering from my injuries.
At this point in the timeline I suffered a foruth workplace accident on July 7,1997.
To learn about my fourth workplace accident you can click here, or you can conitnue on with this work accident.
I also disucss what is "Employer Claim Supression" when I am discussing my fourth workplace accident.
August 20, 1997 - Removed from Work by Doctor:
On August 20, 1997, I went to see my doctor. I was in a lot of pain and was wanting stronger pain medication. This was so I could continue working. Driving a truck! I know but this is what the Workers Compensaiton does to people they force them back to work!My Doctor first examined me and after examining me my doctor provided me with a prescription for pain medication. My Doctor also explained to me that I was now off work due to my work injury. He explained his justification was that it was no longer safe for me to continue working. He reminded me of the importance of taking care of myself. My Doctor also advised me if I refused to stop working that he had the legal authority to have my licscence suspended for medical reasons. He explained to me he was acting not just in my best interest but in others as well. He also told me that he would rather avoid as he knew the hardship when a person loses a driver's licscence. My doctor also requested to come back and see him on August 29th to determine if I was improving at all. After getting the note, I provided a copy of the note to my employer on August 20, 1997 and informed them I was not able to return to work and this was under doctor's orders. I again did this on August 29th. Also I started back with Physiotherapy again.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's note)
Doctor’s Clinical Notes:
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Aug. 20th to Mar. 11/98.On August 20, 1997, my doctor noted in his clinical note that I am still having pain in my back and neck, but especially in my lower back and this was due to my work injury of Feb 6/97. He also notes pain at extension with lumbar spine [lower back]. Tender back and neck. He prescribed Tylenol #3 40 pills. He noted I was referred back to physiotherapy and I was off work.
On August 29, 1997, my doctor noted in his clinical notes that my symptoms are unchanged. Flexion at 25 degrees extension 15 degrees and painful. He also noted to continue with physiotherapy and to return in 10 days.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's Clinical Notes)
Employer's Letter to WCB
On September 2, 1997, my employer sent a letter to the WCB reporting that I was removed from work by my doctor, due to my work injury. Strangely they waited some fifteen days to report this to the WCB. The employer stated I claimed it to be a recurrence, which was a lie! I never made no such claim. I also reported to the employer on numerous occasions about several incidences of accidents, which were after the February 6, 1997 accident, but the employer lied to the WCB. The employer claims I was just making up a recurrence, because I was let go from steady work. This should be completely irrelevant, as the employer job is to provide work for the worker steady or otherwise. Is the employer saying I was fired? Laid off? Let go? This all shows the true intent of the employer, which was to persuade the WCB not to approve the claim. The employer goes on to state they are skeptical of the ongoing problems, but the actual person making the report never dealt with any workers. In fact, she worked in a completely different company, so she never had any firsthand experience of the workers, working arrangements, or working conditions. She did however, have a very strong working relationship with the WCB staff!
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Employer's Letter)
I am quite confused by this letter, but not surprised. It shows the true colours of the employer and what they will stoop to, in order to save money. What is even more of a concern, is that I did in fact report on a regular basis of problems from my work injury of February 6/97, as well as new accidents and injuries to my employer. They lied and never said I spoke to them.
My ongoing problems were also confirmed in the physiotherapy discharge report of April 25, 1997, which showed unresolved issues. Eventually after several months the WCB would finally get around to making a decision. The WCB would claim after a complete claim file review my problems were not related to my Feb. 6/97 accident. Even though the physiotherapy discharge report shows otherwise. I would eventually also provide documentation to the WSIB appeals that proved I did report ongoing complaints to my employer.
In submitting this documentation, I proved the employer lied! Not surprisingly no action was ever taken against the employer by the WCB. One should not be surprised knowing that the WCB generally sides with the employers. It is almost like the WCB and the employer are in fact one and the same!
My Letters to WCB September 9, 1997
I wrote a letter to the WCB informing them that I was removed from work by my doctor on August 20, 1997. I also informed him that I informed my doctor of this on August 20th and again on August 29th. I also informed him that I was in constant contact with my employer.
In the second letter, I attached the photos of my workplace. I expressed concern with the dangerous working environment as well as how temporary agency workers who got hurt were fired for no reason, but to save money. I explained that if the WCB found no value in them to please return them back to me. They were not the same photos as what I have already post in my story, these were different. The WCB never returned the photos even after I had made numerous attempts. I also provided a stack of photos of my working environment to my MPP. The problem I later learned was that he was a Harris Conservative and had no interest whatso ever in helping me. I also asked my MPP’s office to return the photos and they said they were misplaced!
Yeah Right!
They also said the boxes piled in their basement were piled higher and more dangerous.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of my first letter to the WCB)
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of my second letter to the WCB)
Physiotherapy Report - September 10, 1997
On September 10, 1997, I was again seen by the physiotherapist who provided a report to my doctor. In the report, my doctor agreed with the report. The report stated under subjective findings, which are what is reported by me, the patient. They documented the following under subjective findings:"back, neck pain from previous work injury of Feb 6/97 numbness, tingling, pain and weakness in arms, hands, legs, feet"
The physiotherapist examined me and from his observations under objective findings he noted the following:
“Decreased lumbar and cervical ROM in all directions”
The lumbar spine is the lower back region and the cervical is the neck region.
“Considerable tenderness over spinous process
Neurological SLS elicited with pressure over vertebrae”
He is indicating problems over entire back and neck region
Finally, in his analysis he states the following:
"Aggravation of previous back, neck soft tissue injury is source of problem
Continue with the previous treatment program: ultrasound, ROM program"
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the physiotherapy report)
Doctor's Visit of September 12, 1997
At the August 20th previous visit my doctor requested I come back and see him. I visited with my doctor upon his request. He again examined me and determined I was still not fit for work. After seeing my doctor, he provided me with another doctor’s note indicating that I was still off work. I provided a copy of the note to my employer and the WCB.My Doctor also referred me back to physiotherapy for further treatment a second physiotherapy assessment was completed.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's note)
Doctor's Clinical Notes Aug. 20th to Mar. 11/98
It was not until many years later that I obtained my doctor’s clinical notes for my medical history with him. These pages are from the clinical notes and covers the visits of Aug. 20th to Mar. 11/98.In his clinical notes, my doctor noted back and neck still painful.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy
of the Doctor's Clinical Notes)
Claim Re-Open Reports
As I had an existing claim (of Feb. 6/97) and the problems I was experiencing were consistent with that accident. The WCB sent out forms to the employer, the worker – me, and my doctor. These forms were to be completed and sent back to the WCB. This was to determine if my current symptoms were the result of the Feb. 6/97 workplace accident.Even today, I argue that this should not have ahppened as the claim should never been closed. I was expereincing problems from the day I returned to work, confirming that the WCB/WSIB's return to work programs are a pathetic failure!
Area of Injury:
I am bringing up the point of area of injury. It will become a major problem in the future. Even recently, with my appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario the WSIB and the WSIAT again changed the facts revolving around the area of injury. What will happen in my case will be that the WSIB will accept the workplace accident to my entire back, neck, and head. However, they will claim I only suffered an injury to my just lower-back. The WSIAT will then say I suffered a workplace accident to my back, neck, and head, but only suffered an injury to my lower-back and neck and I suffered a permanent injury to just my lower-back. One thing to notice in these forms, from the first report of forms to the claim re-open forms, is the area of injury. These forms were generated and sections such as area of injury were all pre-filled out by the WCB. They all consistently state (neck, back of head). As I previously stated, I had called and inquired as to why it did not also say back in late April 1997. I was told it is in the WCB computer system, but it did not fit in the form, when it was printed. This all indicates that the WCB did in fact accept a workplace accident and subsequent workplace injuries to my neck, back of head, and entire back. I mention this as some years later the WSIB would claim I only ever suffered an injury to just my lower-back, but provided no reasoning or justification for this. Then the WSIAT says I injured my lower-back, and my neck, but not my mid-back or upper-back. They go on to state that I only suffered a permanent injury to my lower-back.Presumption of Workplace Accident:
In the WCB Act (pre-1998 law) it states that a worker or dependent is entitled to benefits for a personal injury that resulted in a workplace accident - section 4(1) WCB act R.S.O. 1990. The law goes on to clarify that a workplace accident is presumed to be out of the course of employment unless shown otherwise - section 4(3) WCB act R.S.O. 1990.The First point, is that the WSIB and the WSIAT will provide no justification for these decisions, for changing the areas of workplace injury. They will only state that is what they believe or think. For example, the WSIAT in their decision in their opening statement of their decisions states there was entitlement for an accepted injury to the mid-back, but it was resolved. However, in their final decision they deny initial entitlement to the mid-back and provide no real justification for this.
The second point is that the WSIB and WSIAT’s decisions I can only assume, as they have never officially stated it. These decisions were solely based on my doctor’s reports. However, the WCB initially accepted the employer’s report of injury. This change should have been properly flagged and addressed instead of covertly changed. What happened was that initially my doctor reported a strain contusion of the back from bins falling on my back. Then later in the recovery process, I only suffered from symptoms of an accident to my lower-back. I would experience symptoms in other areas, but only when I over excreted myself. Therefore, my doctor later reports injury to just the lower back. Even though overtime my mid-back, upper-back, and neck injuries were aggravated by the WCB’s reluctance to deal with matters in a timely fashion. They would only ever accept an injury to the lower back and informed my doctor of this. So, in future reports and correspondence my doctor later informed me that he would only indicate lower back as the injury area, as this is what was accepted by the WSIB. The only exception was in a medical report in August 1998, where he reported lower-back and neck. When there is inconsistency in reporting of medical information the WCB and eventually the WSIB had a duty to notify me and clarify these inconsistencies. However, instead they chose not to, and attempted to cover-up the existence of the acceptance of other injuries, as though they never happened. They also lead me to believe my injury was in fact to my entire back, neck, and head and was fully accepted by them. What is interesting is that the WCB and the WSIB knew I was being treated for an entire back and neck injury and in the physio, reports my doctor signed them off. It was not until the fall of 2001, that they changed their position, which was some four and half years after the initial injury.
The point is that learning from my case, you must be careful in ensuring what the WCB has accepted and what they have not and their reasons why. If you do not understand them, then inquire in writing and be specific.
Worker Re-Open Report:
On September 15, 1997, I completed the WCB form Worker’s continuity report This was the WCB collecting information to determine if I had complained of ongoing problems, when I returned to work after my work injury of Feb. 6/97.In the form, I described my condition since my original injury as chronic back and neck pain aggravated by driving sitting or standing for long periods of time. I reported that every time my I drove the truck, the bouncing around in the [tuck] made it worse. Now I find it difficult to stand, sit, or walk for long periods.
In the form, I stated I had received no medication. I am confused why I stated this, as I had in fact been prescribed and received pain medication. I even remember getting the medication filled at Shoppers drug mart and exactly which one. So, I incorrectly reported I never received any medication, when in fact I did. This would have been clarified, had the WSIB brought this discrepancy to my attention. In typical fashion, they hide this and use it as an excuse not to pay benefits. As you can see, in my doctor’s clinical notes, I was in fact prescribed pain medications from my work injury onwards and specifically on August 20, 1997.
This is an important point, which is to be very careful how you complete the forms provided to you by the WCBs. Sometimes it may be best to just leave them for a day and double check the information you filled out another day. Better yet have another person review what you wrote, just to be safe.
Upon reflection, it is clear the WSIB believed I was never in pain with my injury and was never prescribed any pain medication - ever. Sadly, if they had been honest and forthcoming, by stating clearly to me for example, how come you say you’re in pain, when you say on this form you have not been prescribed pain meds. Then also having a discussion with my doctor at the time, would have revealed I was in fact prescribed pain medication.
As you can confirm, I was prescribed pain medication of Tylenol 3# on August 20, 1997. However, my doctor would, on occasion, refill the prescription and forget to note it, in his clinical notes. I remember this came up at the WSIAT hearing. I was GRILLED for an hour over this. Because according to the WSIAT, DOCTORS CANOT DO THIS, so it cannot happen!
Also on the form I stated that Monique, Todd, and Greg Binnie were all aware of my ongoing troubles.
It would later be proven that Greg and Todd lied and stated I never said anything. It would also be learned that I did in fact was suffering from my work injury of Feb. 6/97 as well as a new one in July 97 and took numerous days off work as a result.
I reported that the jolting and bouncing around in the truck aggravated my condition. I also reported that I had constant pain in my back and neck since the original work accidnet of February 6, 1997 and it has gotten worse to the point I could not drive the truck anymore.
I never mentioned the injury from the accident of July/97, as I was advised by the WCB at the time, that if the employer never reported the accident, then it did not happen and I could not report it. Also remember before in the Spring of /97 during my recovery process, that I had mentioned that I was being intentionally pressured to return to work by my employer and the client, Canadian Tire. Therefore, I previously didn’t complain of pain, even though I was in a great deal of pain, even having to take days off of work.
I also reported that I found it difficult to concentrate on driving when I almost hit a car because my back and neck was in pain and as a result I was moving my hand around.
Determining the suitability of work would be a major ongoing concern in the return to work programs by the employer and determined by the WSIB. If they say it is safe for a worker to return to work and it is not, then who is held accountable for their wrong action? Especially when an injured worker is further injured - No one! This is contrary to our laws and the constitution!
As you will later learn the determination of safe suitable work will become a major problem for my wellbeing as well as that of the public.
I also documented on the form that I had not worked since August 20, 1997. This is now almost a month after the date I was removed from work and it would be yet another two months before the WCB decides. Then an additional six months before an appeal decision is rendered and payments were issued.
If WSIB decisions, Appeal decisions, and /or WSIAT decisions, are going to take longer than a maximum of say three months from the initial claim, then the worker should either be paid full benefits while awaiting the decisions due to the delays, or alternatively, the WSIB/WSIAT should be severely financially punished for excessive delays. Paying an injured worker 10% is literally a slap in the face when they have financial lost everything due to these intentional delays.
|
 |
Employer’s Continuity Report:
On September 16, 1997, the employer completed the employer continuity report form. The employer reported that working conditions were the same but instead of going to one client (Canadian Tire) worker has been laid off and is “on call” daily basis and goes to various different clients. The employer goes on to state that they do not feel my present back problems are related to anything I did for Action Force. They claimed there were no ongoing complaints or any new accidents or incident.I was never provided a copy of this form until several years later when I gain access to my file. Workers should be provided copies of the forms and correspondence sent by employers to the WCBs, so they can properly respond.
Another point is that the form was completed by a Chris Panwic and her title was WCB administrator. This is typical in companies where the company will have one employee who deals directly with the WCB. This is confirmed if you look at the top of this and the other form below it says ACS management and not Action Force.
The problem is that it is not the workers supervisor or manager so they have no knowledge or experience of the working conditions or environment of the worker. Yet they provide the impression to the WCB they are the workers supervisor. In this case it was even more confusing as she didn’t work for Action Force as she leads the WCB to believe. She worked for ACS management, a WCB claims management company. This gives a false impression to the WCB staff that she has intimate knowledge of the work being done, when they do not.
In the same form, the employer states I was laid off. This is confusing as she is claiming I was laid-off, but as you will see in the next form she states I was working forty hours per week. Working forty hours per week is not a layoff. Also doing a different form of work is irreverent and not a lay off. It is obvious the statement was not of fact, but an attempt to discredit me.
The change in work I do agree with, as it also confirms my previous statements about having fears of reprisals, with how Canadian Tire treats injured workers. They get rid of them, instead of taking responsibility as the ‘real employer’.
She also states the work I was doing was the same, but the work was different in that I was not physically unloading the loads. When she mentioned that different work assignments are the likely cause, she contradicts herself. She does this by saying the work is the cause of my problems, but then in a personal opinion states she feels it is not the cause. She further misleads the WCB by claiming that my back problems had nothing related to anything I did for Action Force, when in fact I have previously provided documented proof of a second accident, even though there was more that were undocumented. Then her statement of claiming I never complained to anyone, is contradicted when I later produce a letter from one of the supervisors who use to work there. I believe the other two Todd and Gregg were told to lie and say I never complained to them when in fact I did.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the Workers Re-open Report)
Employer’s Re-open Claims Earnings:
On the same day, September 16, 1997, the employer also completed the reopen claims earnings form and sent it to the WCB. The employer modified the form by writing in the word temporary. They also reported my last day of work was August 19, 1997 and that I worded only forty hours per week.When the employer stated I worked forty hours per week was a complete fabrication as I never worked less than ten hours per day and if I worked five days a week this was fifty hours per week. I again later prove this, when the employer tried to pay me considerably less during their so called modified work program in 1998.
This is something an injured worker has to be very careful of is when you generally work more than the standard eight-hour work day. The employer will attempt to deceive the worker and the WCB into believing your normal work day is like everyone else which is eight hours per day, yet it may be considerably more. This is why it is always important to NEVER believe what your employer says, but to verify what they say with the actual law or in this case call the WCB.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the Workers Re-open Report)
Doctor's Re-open Report:
On On October 10, 1997, my doctor completed the WCB Physician’s report reopen claim. In the form, he provides a diagnosis of low back strain. He states I continue to have significant pain especially with driving. he also indicates the treatment is physiotherapy. He also states I am not to do normal work and I will be off work for more than twenty-one days. He also explains that after returning to work in March 10, gradually developed increasing pain with driving and was removed from work on Aug. 20/97.Note: That in the injury box it states injury as neck back of head.
My doctor was providing a simple diagnosis of what he thought at the moment was wrong. He dose not dispute the injury as stated in the injury box. Furthermore he even clarifies this as the injury in his clinical notes.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the Workers Re-open Report)
Doctor's Clinical Notes:
In the clinical notes, my doctor notes still pain and continue with physiotherapy. On September 26/97, he makes a referral to a regional evaluation centre. He notes that my condition is acute or has become permanent.A referral to a regional evaluation centre is a WCB standard procedure the doctor must refer an injured worker to a WCB Doctor to be assessed for a permanent injury. Unfortunately this request would be denied. However it would take the WCB, which becomes the WSIB another year before they change their mind and make the referral, which according to WSIB is then illegal as it can be only done within one year of the original accident.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the Doctor's Clinical Notes)
WCB Contacts Employer:
On October 23, 1997, the WCB contacts my employer to determine if I had in fact had ongoing complaints from my work injury, or if I reported any new injuries.The WCB adjudicator spoke to Gregg Binnie, who was the manager at Action Force. Mr. Binnie informed the WCB that I never complained to him about anything. He also stated that I worked doing my regular job of driving and unloading my truck complaint free. Mr. Binnie admitted to the WCB that the job I did was in fact physically demanding as I hand to physically unload the truck.
The WCB adjudicator requested to speak to Monique Rivard, but he was informed she no longer workers there as of June 1997.
The WCB adjudicator then spoke to Todd. Todd was the dispatcher who would assign work to workers. He was Monique’s replacement. He stated that Todd informed him that I never complained to him until August 19, 1997 and I only told him my low back was sore. Todd told the WCB I never mentioned any injury or anything else.
I had informed the adjudicator that I had reported complaints to Monique Rivard, and when she no longer worked there I reported to Todd and Gregg. I told the WCB adjudicator I also even took days off work due to my work injury. I initially attempted to contact Monique through Action Force, but they lied and said she moved and they did not have her new address. It would later be confirmed that the employer, specifically Todd and Gregg, were both lying about my ongoing reports of complaints from my injury as well as new injuries.
Not surprisingly no action was ever taken against the employer, or Todd & Gregg for lying. It is important to document your conversations with your employer. The purpose is that in the event later they may deny it, which this happens more than you know!
If you have a phone conversation or a personal conversation with a boss or supervisor, you can always follow it up with a letter or e-mail confirming what was said. This way they cannot deny what was said later.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the Doctor's Clinical Notes)
WCB Decision November 6, 1997:
After almost three months of delay the WCB finally makes a decision on what they and the employer claimed was a "Recurrence of August 20th, 1997".In the letter, the WCB adjudicator explained that he was informing me of his decision regarding my recurrence of August 20/97. He says that a worker can receive additional entitlement and benefits if the ongoing problems are related to the original injury. He provided a brief history of what transpired. He states a load of boxes fell on my back, neck, and head. He noted that according to the physiotherapy discharge report I was capable of full regular duties. He stated benefits were paid from Feb. 7/97 to Mar. 10/97 and Mar. 17 to Apr.97. He went on to state I was now claiming a recurrence of Aug. 20/97 as I claimed I had ongoing back pain which got worse from April to Aug. 97. He said I denied any new accidents or medical treatment and said I had no ongoing complaints to co-workers. As a result of no connect between my ongoing problems and my original injury he denied my recurrence.
I had informed Mr. Baird of the WCB that I did report ongoing complaints to three supervisors Monique, Gregg and Todd. However, in his letter he states I did not. If you go back to the worker re-open report you will see that I reported I did. He did not mention he contacted Todd and Gregg but was unable to contact Monique. It would be later proven that both Todd and Gregg lied. He also stated I never reported any new accident or injuries, when in fact I had informed him of the incident in July, but he informed me that because the employer never reported it, then it never happened. Again, as you can see by the evidence I provided the employer and the WECB lied about he second accident and subsequent injuries. I also make reference to the physiotherapy discharge report, which he references in his letter (community clinic). He says I was fully recovered however it shows unresolved issues and I can max lift 60 lbs when I would have to lift much more.
Upon reflection, I know I was never fully recovered. This was due to the totally unsuitable and unsafe work that was provided to me by the employer, as well as the constant pressure form the employer to return to work, which causes the permanent injuries that I suffer even today, some twenty years later!
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the WCB decision letter)
WCB Decision November 17, 1997:
The WCB states in their letter that they confirmed an in person visit I made to their office in Toronto. At that point, he stated he would refer the matter to a Board doctor. The WCB goes on to state in their letter, they had referred the claim to a board doctor with the medical evidence on file. He states there is no objective findings of any impairment. He also states there is no evidence the current problems are related to my Feb. 6/97 injury. Based on this he denies the recurrence of August 1997.This is interesting as he mentioned in a previous letter of the physiotherapy discharge report. This medical review should have also notice the discharge report especially that I was not fully recovered in April 1997, when I returned to work. Furthermore, as I previously mentioned I was being forced and pressured back to work. This caused the amount of missed physiotherapy appointments and the lack of complete recovery. As you can see by the past documentation nowhere does it state I was fully recovered. It is the WCB who makes this assumption. Not to mention I was lifting more than 60lbs in my regular job, yet in the discharge report said I could max lift 60 lbs. This means I was likely straining myself because of not being fully recovered and aggravated the injury.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the WCB decision letter)
My Letter of November 21,1997:
On November 21, 1997, I wrote a letter to the Toronto Sun newspaper. I sent a copy of this letter to my local MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament), and my family doctor. In the fax cover page to the letter faxed to the WCB. I expressed my severe financial hardship with a pending eviction from the WCB’s delays. I also mentioned the emotional distress as I was on the Board of Directors of the housing co-op. As well as having to deal with creditors from bills falling behind.In the letter to the Toronto Sun newspaper I provide a history of what transpired over the past year. Strangely I wrote the incorrect accident date as Jan. 28/97 when it is Feb. 6/97. However, my greatest concern was the length of delay in the WCB’s ability to make a simple decision. The second issue was the WCB to decide on a medical issue without consulting with the treating doctor. These are issues that I have even recently learned are problems with the existing WSIB, in Ontario and likely most WCBs. The other issue was the lack of ability of my MPP to actual help in any real way with the delays.
Remember the workers compensation system was designed to prevent financial hardships with injured workers but also on society, for if injured workers are not taken care of they become the responsibility of the social programs.
Not surprisingly no one helped me form writing this letter not the Toronto Sun Newspaper, nor my MPP or the WCB. My doctor did write a letter to the WCB, but even that would be of no real help. I would say in retrospective the best thing I have learn in the twenty-year journey is that the best person that could help my case was myself, for I was the only one who knew the case the best.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of my letter)
Doctor's Letter to WCB November 27/97:
My doctor had written a letter to the WCB. In the letter, he stated I suffered a work injury on Feb 6/97. I had been off work until April 14 where I was on modified duties and I was to return to full duties on May 30/97. He said when he saw me on April 30 I was still having some pain with lifting. When I saw him on August 8 I had informed him I had pain since the last appointment of April 30/97. He states that a drive to toronto was considerably painful.He goes on to state that clearly that my injury is not compatible with me performing my job as a truck driver, which may require 2-6 hours behind the wheel. He goes on to state he has no doubt that my current problems are the result of the original injury. He asks that my claim for benefits be reconsidered.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of my letter)
WCB Decision letter Dec. 10, 1997:
In the letter Mr. Baird states that he received a request of Nov. 27/97 from my doctor to reconsider his decision for a recurrence and a new accident. He mentions the claims was again referred to the Board doctor for a medical review. They state the board is of the opinion that the medical information does not alter their view as he states there was “no residual impairment in March and April of 1997” and I was able to return to my regular duties. They state a minor impairment seven months later to my resolved lumbar sprain does not support a connection with it seven months earlier.Again, he is stating that the injury was fully recovered and that I was able to return to regular duties. However, as I have mentioned many times in the past, the WCB intentionally and knowingly left off the fact that the lower back was not resolved. I was forced back to work before I was fully recovered medically. This is confirmed in the previous discussed medical clinical notes. He also leaves off the fact I had reported to the WCB and the employer of a second new accident and injury, which has been ignored.
It is obvious the WCB is ignoring crucial facts and going solely by what the employer claims. It would take me twenty years to conclude that the reasoning is the WSIB is composed of nothing but representation form Employers.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of my letter)
Doctor's Clinical Notes Nov. Dec. 1997
My doctor had attempted to have me assessed at a regional evaluation centre, but it was denied by the WCB. He stated on several visits and finally in the last visit of the year in Dec. 16/97 that my back and neck were still painful and symptoms were unchanged.
(Click image to obtain pdf copy of the Doctor's Clinical Notes)
No Income for no reason, but an employer acting with pure evil intent!
The interesting fact is that I had benefits with my employer, which I paid for.
So, whether my injuries were work related or other, I should never have had to go three months without income
In all this waiting, I was not paid a dime from either my employer or the WCB. The employer refused to provide safe suitable work they claimed they did not have to. If your employer ever refuses to provide you with safe suitable work contact the Human Rights Tribunal/Commission DO NOT Contact the WCB they are useless for injured workers!
Needless to say I filed an appeal with the WCB Appeals branch.
However on January 1, 1998 the Ontario Workers Compensaiton Board - WCB
would become
the Workaplce Safety & Insurance Board - WSIB.
So, the appeal was filed with the WSIB appeals branch.
I just want to again reiterate that I am telling my story, not to elicit sympathy, but instead for two reasons:
1. To let people, know that all is not fine with the WCBs, and
2. To encourage other injured workers to also tell their story!
Sad to say, but my story is to be continued...
My story now splits into two directions
The first is the appeal at the WSIB Appeals Branch click here to go there.
The seocnd option is to continue on past the WSIB appeal and
go right to my dealings with the WSIB - to do so click here
Change from Ontario's WCB to Ontario's WSIB
On January 1, 1998 the Ontario Workers Compensation Board – WCB, was renamed as the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board – WSIB. This was from enactment of law, the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act R.S.O. 1997. The law also changed the Tribunal form the Workers Compensation Tribunal to the Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal – WSIAT.
Still after more than twenty years now, I have wondered why the name change. Both names serve the same purpose, but the difference was that there was a great cost in changing all the building signs, letterhead, business cards and forms to say WSIB and of course the WSIAT was changed as well.
Who paid for this?
I believe it was injured workers through the forthcoming massive cuts to benefits.
Activities from January 1, 1998 until WSIB Appeal Decision April 28, 1998
My Doctor Notes - January 20, 1998:
In my Doctor’s clinical notes, he states he spoke with Mr. Baird of the WSIB. My doctor states in his notes that the WSIB has denied my claim for benefits and I have no ongoing support except through welfare. He also sates he will make referral to Dr. Nguyen, referral to OHIP funded physiotherapy, and referral to Peel Career assessment. He also mentioned x-rays were to be done on the lumbar spine region.
My Doctor’s Notes – February 11, 1998:
On February 11, 1998 I visited my doctor. My doctor examined me and noted in his notes increase back and neck pain. He also noted decreased range of motion. My doctor mentioned a referral to Peel Career Assessment as well as specialist (Dr. Nguyen).
My Doctor’s Notes – February 18, 1998:
On February 18, 1998 my doctor noted in his notes that the appointment for the specialist was booked for February 24, 1998 at 12:30 and I was notified by his office.
Specialist Exam – February 24, 1998:
Prior to visiting the specialist, I had x-rays done on January 20, 1998, of my lower back.
My lower back was the area which caused me the greatest problems and it was the focus of my doctor and the specialist. The pain in my mid back, upback and neck would only happen now and again depending what I was doing.
On February 24, 1998, I was examined by a specialist, Dr. Nguyen. He examined me and asked where it hurt. I explained to him the worst area was my lower back. Anytime I stand for long periods the pain becomes unbearable. I also told him depending on what activities I am doing I am doing the rest of my back will hurt as well. This was the same with my neck and head. I also suffered from numbness and tingling. He examined me and prepared the following report to my doctor.
Dr. Nguyen states in his report that physiotherapy has not really helped me as I have plateaued.
In medical terms plateaued means I will not get any better I have suffered a permanent injury.
Dr. Nguyen stated that forward flexion would make the pain in my lower back worse. Dr. Nguyen mentioned I had slight “retrolisthesis”.
When I researched this term it means disc slippage, which likely means that the disc was damaged during the accident of Feb. 6/97. Dr. Nguyen stated I suffered from mechanical back pain. After the examination I spoke to the specialist and he explained to me that I had in fact suffered a permanent injury and I will not get any better. He explained the best thing to do was avoid any kind of work to exacerbate the injury.
My Doctor’s Notes – March 11, 1998:
On March 11, 1998 my doctor noted in his notes that he stated that I continue with my WSIB appeal. He also stated he examined me and found that back and neck still painful, with tender lower back. He also mentioned that I was attending physiotherapy at Huron Physiotherapy. He also stated I was attending Peel Career Assessment. He also notes he advised me to return in four to six weeks.
My Doctor’s Notes – March 27, 1998:
On March 27, 1998 my doctor noted in his notes that he examined me and found that there was back and neck pain. The pain was noticed more in the upper back and low back regions. He also explained that the ROM (Range of motion) was unchanged – meaning has not improved in anyway.
WSIB Appeal – The WSIB is forced to reverse its position – April 24, 1998
Click here to see the specifics about the appeal, which has been setup on a separate page.
As mentioned in the WSIB appeal section of my story, I had won my appeal and the WSIB appeals branch granted entitlement to a recurrence, as they claimed. This was based on:
- The medical reports from my doctor which showed my present problems were the result of my Feb. 6/97
- I had provided documented proof that my employer lied. I did have ongoing complaints.
- I was in a job that could aggravate a back injury and I submitted evidence proving I had ongoing complaints.
My Doctor’s Notes – May 8, 1998: On May 8, 1998 my doctor noted in his notes that he examined me and found that my back pain was increased and upon examination was increased tenderness. He also noted decreased neck ROM. He also noted flexion and extension examination as well as SLR (Straight leg test). Notes motor sensory and reflexes worse. He also notes that I informed him that I received a letter from the WSIB dated April 28, 1998 agreeing to my WSIB claim. He also notes that return to physiotherapy and I need WSIB retraining.
My doctor explained to me that if the WSIB approved my claim I would likely get much need physiotherapy to help me mange. He would be also recommending that I be retrained in something else as driving a truck was not appropriate for someone with a back injury, with the long periods of sitting.
My Doctor’s Notes – June 23, 1998:
On June 23, 1998 my doctor noted in his notes that he examined me and found that my ROM in my back and neck still unchanged. He stated I informed him I cannot still get a clear answer form the WSIB. He states in his notes that I needed a regional evaluation assessment.
This is what the WSIB requires whenever anyone has been considered for a permanent impairment. Ironically the WSIB has a policy which states the assessment shall only be done within one year of accident date. This was a year and a half. In other words, my permanent injury should have been automatically granted, but the WSIB was determined to make sure I would not be given a permanent injury. My doctor also stated in his notes that I needed retraining and physiotherapy.
My Doctor’s Notes – June 29, 1998:
On June 29, 1998 my doctor noted in his notes that he spoke to the WSIB a Fern Figueredo. He said that she told him that she dictated a letter to him that day. My case with the WSIB will be reviewed after she received his response to her letter to him. He suggested to Ms. Figueredo that I needed an assessment at the regional evaluation centre, and he stated that she agreed to it.
I am still working on this page, so please check back later!
I just want to again reiterate that I am telling my story, not to elicit sympathy, but instead for two reasons:
1. To let people, know that all is not fine with the WCBs, and
2. To encourage other injured workers to also tell their story!
To read see my fourth workplace accidnet click here
To return to the second workplace accident click here