- Second Injury and Enhancement Fund {SIEF} (preexisting condition)
- Second Injury and Enhancement Fund {SIEF} (severity of accident)
The issue under appeal was whether the employer was entitled to Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief with respect to the costs of this worker's claim. The employer requested that SIEF relief be provided as the worker was found to have pre-existing ligamentous laxity, or joint hypermobility, which the employer claimed contributed to the worker's development of wrist/forearm and elbow injuries.
The appeal was denied. Decision No. 998/22 concluded that a predisposition cannot be viewed as a pre-existing disability or underlying condition. Decision No. 733/91 concluded there were also practical reasons for not equating a predisposition to injury with a pre-existing condition. This decision noted that mere vulnerability for individual accidents would be practically impossible to determine for the application of SIEF relief and concluded that "vulnerability – or pre-disposition – is not the test for SIEF relief." The Vice-Chair agreed that a risk factor is not a pre-existing disability or an underlying condition as defined by the SIEF policy. If a risk factor were considered a pre-existing disability or underlying condition, the evidence supported that the risk factor of joint hypermobility did not cause or contribute to the onset of the worker's injury, nor did it prolong or enhance the recovery of the injury. Therefore, in this case, SIEF relief was not applicable for the sole reason that someone had a predisposition or a risk factor. There must be evidence that supports that the risk factor caused or contributed to the onset of the diagnosis, or prolonged or enhanced the recovery of the injury. The evidence also supported that the worker's job function had changed in January 2017, which then led to the onset of the injury. The worker's diagnoses were specifically linked to her job duties by an orthopaedic surgeon. The worker was not performing her usual work when the accident occurred. The employer also had to modify those job changes as there were known issues/difficulties among workers relating to the changes in job function, which supported that an injury was expected as a result of the changes to the job duties put in place in January 2017. The Vice-Chair found it was reasonable to conclude that the severity of the accident was moderate, as it would more likely than not cause an injury.