Worker challenged WCB's award of benefits beginning with diagnosis more than 30 years after exposure
The date of a worker’s impairment from a progressive occupational disease for the purposes of workers’ compensation should be when he began experiencing problems, not when he was officially diagnosed, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled.
Maurice Schneider was a plumber and pipefitter who was frequently exposed to asbestos on the job between 1968 and 1972. Decades later, on March 10, 2003, Schneider was diagnosed with asbestosis, a lung disease caused by heavy exposure to asbestos.
Schneider applied for workers’ compensation benefits because his asbestosis was an occupational disease and resulted in permanent clinical impairment. The Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board (AWCB) approved him for benefits and needed to determine when his disablement took place. Using the AWCB’s policy as a guide, the date of his disabling “accident” was determined to be when the disablement came to the board’s attention. This was the date of his diagnosis in 2003.
Schneider appealed, arguing he had suffered from the effects of the disease before he was officially diagnosed three decades after his initial exposure to asbestos. He claimed his condition affected his ability to work and earn income long before it was identified and he should be compensated for work time lost before 2003 because of his condition.
The AWCB Appeals Commission denied the appeal, finding there was no evidence Schneider lost work because of his condition before his diagnosis. Though a medical specialist in 2003 found Schneider’s asbestosis may have resulted in “some clinical impairment” before then, the medical documentation didn’t indicate his ability to continue working was affected. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found the commission’s decision was reasonable and denied a further appeal.
However, the Alberta Court of Appeal had a different view. The court found it likely Schneider’s asbestosis was a progressive disease that developed over time, particularly since his exposure to asbestos was more than 30 years before his diagnosis. According to the same policy that was used to identify the date of his “accident” as his diagnosis, the date of injury for a progressive disease can be considered to be the first time medical treatment was provided or earnings were lost because of the condition.
The court found the commission considered whether there was evidence of loss of earning specifically caused by Schneider’s asbestosis, but not when he began to receive medical treatment. This was important because although his diagnosis didn’t specify impairment in the past, it did indicate a history of problems that likely required treatment.
“Critically, the first date on which medical treatment is provided requires no connection to first earning loss,” said the court. “If Schneider had such treatment, which appears to be the case, that would be the date of his accident.”
