- Availability for employment (refusing suitable work)
- Health care (psychiatric treatment)
- Jurisdiction, Tribunal (final decision of Board)
- Stress, mental
- Loss of earnings {LOE} (disabled by non-compensable condition) (maternity)
The worker was a case manager and experienced a hostile interaction with a client on October 15, 2013. The worker learned a day later that the client had left a message with the worker's supervisor on October 15, 2013 threatening to blow up the worker's vehicle. The worker had driven her vehicle on October 15, 2013. The worker stopped working on October 25, 2013 and was granted initial entitlement for traumatic mental stress. She received LOE benefits until April 9, 2018. The worker appealed the termination of her benefits and the employer appealed the payment of LOE benefits.
The appeals were dismissed. The worker was entitled to LOE benefits from October 25, 2013 to April 9, 2018. The employer submitted that the worker was unhappy with how the employer handled the circumstances by not telling her about the threat until the next day, and that mental stress caused by employer actions was not compensable under s. 13(5) of the WSIA. However, as the worker had already been granted initial entitlement and this was not appealed by the employer, s. 13(5) did not apply to limit the worker's claim entitlement. The accident was a significant contributing factor in the worker's psychological condition. While the worker had pregnancy complications during this period that also prevented a return to work, she continued to be entitled to LOE benefits under the Board policy on non-work-related changes in circumstances because she was already prevented from returning to work by her compensable injury. Under the policy, the post-accident change had no bearing on the benefits paid to the worker. The medical evidence, and in particular an independent medical examination from a psychiatrist in early 2018, supported that the worker was fully functioning and able to return to work at that time. The worker's acute and distressing psychological reaction to the report's findings and expectation that she would return to work, was not compensable under her claim. The 2013 accident was no longer a significant contributing factor to her loss of earnings by April 9, 2018. The worker chose not to attempt the suitable work available to her around that time.