It started like any other regular day at work for this K-9 officer. But just before he finished his shift, he received a call about a suspect who was in pursuit. Lights and sirens on, he had to get to the opposite side of town and track down the suspect.
Imagine the adrenaline rush while running with the dog, an excited 60-lb German Shepherd, tugging on the leash in your hand, tracking the scent of the suspect. After a long pursuit through rough terrain, the suspect was apprehended.
Within minutes of the arrest, the officer began to experience loss of vision, difficulty speaking, confusion, and loss of memory. He was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that he had suffered a stroke. The stroke was attributed to a carotid dissection that was found on the left side of his neck. This finding was significant, as the officer was holding onto the dog’s leash with his left hand during the pursuit.
After filing his claim for benefits with the WSIB, the officer’s claim was denied. The WSIB relied upon the Heart Conditions Policy (15-03-10) to adjudicate the claim, and concluded that there was no unusual physical exertion at the time that this officer suffered his stroke. Furthermore, the WSIB concluded his stroke was caused by an underlying condition, namely, vasculitis.
Setting aside the obvious fact that a live pursuit was an unusual physical exertion as it certainly doesn’t happen every day, there were 2 problems with this decision.
First, a stroke is not a heart condition. While it seems to be the general practice of the WSIB to adjudicate strokes under the Heart Conditions Policy, this is inappropriate. Therefore, the requirement that the worker must be engaged in “unusual physical exertion” is unreasonable.
Second, the worker did not have vasculitis. Even though his health care provider confirmed this, the Board maintained their position. We appealed this decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
In their decision, the WSIAT Panel found that the officer was in fact engaged in unusually strenuous activity on the day he had the stroke, but they also agreed with my submission that the Heart Conditions Policy does not apply to stroke cases.
In order for this officer to be granted entitlement to benefits, the evidence must show that the work activities that day made a significant contribution to the stroke.
In this case, the stroke was the result of a carotid dissection. The WSIAT Panel relied on the opinion of the officer’s neurosurgeon, as well as the opinion of a Tribunal Medical Assessor. While the carotid dissection likely existed prior to the day of the pursuit, the doctors’ opinions were that the activities that day advanced the dissection, causing the arterial wall to split and cause the stroke. The WSIAT Panel concluded that the strenuous activities on that day significantly contributed to the stroke and allowed the appeal.
This case turned on the detailed testimony of my client, and the supporting medical evidence. It is a prime example of why thorough appeal preparation is important.
This decision was released in 2 parts. You can find the interim decision here, and the final decision here.