- Epilepsy
- Seizures
- Organic brain injury (mild traumatic)
The worker was employed as a construction labourer. On March 19, 2021, the worker struck his face/forehead on a 4" x 4" piece of lumber. Upon arriving home after work, the worker went to bed and suffered a seizure in his sleep (as observed by his spouse). Paramedics were called and the worker was taken to the hospital. The worker was later diagnosed as having suffered a post-traumatic seizure and diagnosed with post-traumatic temporal lobe epilepsy. The issue to be determined in this appeal was whether the worker had initial entitlement for a head injury with a resulting post-traumatic seizure and post-traumatic temporal lobe epilepsy.
The Panel allowed the appeal.An EEG ordered by Dr. Chen showed "intermittent focal slow wave activity over the left temporal region as well as interictal epileptiform discharges over the left anterior mid temporal region." Dr. Chen was of the view that the head injury at work on March 19, 2021 resulted in the later seizure and was also the cause of the worker's post-traumatic temporal lobe epilepsy. Although Dr. Chen used the word "presumed," when describing the first seizure as post-traumatic, in the context of this type of medical reporting, the Panel did not interpret it to mean that the causation was only possible. Rather, the Panel interpreted Dr. Chen to be applying a standard differential diagnostic technique: given that other causes were ruled out, the remaining and hence most likely cause of the onset of the temporal lobe epilepsy was the blow to the head (i.e., it was post-traumatic).The Panel noted that there were no medical opinions contradicting Dr. Chen's opinion, nor any medical opinions suggesting an alternate cause for the worker's seizures and his epilepsy diagnosis. The Panel also observed that Dr. Chen was well-placed to render an opinion in this case: he is a neurologist with a specialization in epilepsy disorders. He had the opportunity to review the diagnostic tests he believed were relevant for diagnosing the worker, and he assessed the worker on multiple occasions. The Panel noted that these were all reasons to place considerable weight on Dr. Chen's opinion.