An Alberta employer has been denied cost relief from workers’ compensation costs after a worker suffered a crush injury to his finger, despite the company’s arguments that the employee misrepresented his fitness for work and refused available modified duties.
The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation upheld a January 2025 decision rejecting the employer’s request for relief from all claim costs beyond six weeks after the December 2020 accident.
The worker injured his left pinkie finger while using a power jack at work and underwent surgery the following day. After experiencing continued problems with range of motion and strength, he required a second surgery in March 2021. He returned to modified duties in April 2021 and resumed full duties in October 2021.
The employer sought cost relief on three grounds: the worker’s error in judgment, failure to cooperate with modified duties, and compensation overpayment for wage loss benefits. However, the commission found it only had jurisdiction to consider the error in judgment claim, as the lower tribunal had declined to review the wage loss benefits decision.
Medical evidence disputed
The employer’s representative argued the worker provided incorrect information about his fitness for work to various medical professionals, pointing to what she described as inconsistencies in medical reporting. She contended the worker misrepresented that he was not fit for any work according to his surgeon and hospital hand clinic.
The commission rejected this argument, finding no compelling evidence that the medical reports were illegitimate or failed to reflect genuine medical opinions.
“The representative did not point us to any evidence showing how this reflected an action or decision on the part of the worker that could be considered an error in his judgment,” the commission stated.
The tribunal noted that different medical professionals at different times throughout the claim provided varying assessments, but found this did not establish worker error.
Recovery timeline examined
The employer’s representative argued the worker could have returned to some form of work within days of surgery and that Alberta Disability Duration Guidelines suggested recovery should have occurred within four to six weeks for medium work. She maintained modified duties had been available since the beginning of the claim.
However, the commission found the medical evidence did not support claims that the worker’s recovery was prolonged by his actions. The decision outlined a timeline showing continued legitimate medical issues:
After the initial surgery, the worker’s surgeon, hospital hand clinic and physiotherapist all reported ongoing problems with reduced range of motion and strength, recommending further treatment including splinting and rehabilitation. By February 2021, medical professionals indicated a second surgery might be necessary.
In March 2021, the surgeon confirmed the worker had an adhesion to the extensor tendon requiring additional surgery. Following the second procedure, medical professionals continued to note stiffness and reduced strength requiring further treatment.
A Workers’ Compensation Board medical consultant who reviewed the file in October 2021 concluded both surgeries were consequences of the compensable injury. A plastic surgeon’s 2024 assessment noted the worker still had decreased grip strength and range of motion related to the original accident.
Policy requirements not met
Under Alberta workers’ compensation policy, employers can receive cost relief when a worker’s recovery is prolonged by an error in judgment. The commission determined this standard was not met.
“The representative did not argue that the worker’s alleged errors prolonged his recovery. Instead, she argued that the worker’s decisions caused him to remain off work and receive benefits to which he was not entitled,” the decision stated.
The tribunal distinguished between the length of a claim and actual recovery time, noting cost relief applies when recovery itself is prolonged, not merely when a worker remains off work longer.
The commission found no medical professionals expressed concern that the worker’s recovery was inappropriate or prolonged, or indicated his actions impacted his healing process.
Jurisdictional limitations
While acknowledging the employer’s concerns about the worker’s entitlement to wage loss benefits and potential refusal of modified duties, the commission determined it lacked jurisdiction to address those issues. The lower tribunal had explicitly declined to consider compensation overpayment claims because no review had been requested regarding the wage loss benefits decision.
“We do not have the jurisdiction to address the decision to provide unreduced wage loss benefits or cost relief for a compensation overpayment on that basis,” the commission stated.
The decision noted this ruling does not prevent the employer from seeking adjudication of these matters through proper Workers’ Compensation Board processes.
Appeal unsuccessful
The commission confirmed the January 2025 Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body decision denying cost relief. The worker and Workers’ Compensation Board were notified of the appeal but did not participate in proceedings.
The employer’s representative had initially raised concerns about missing documents from the appeal package, suggesting potential bias, but later clarified she was not alleging panel prejudice and confirmed all relevant materials were ultimately provided.
For more information, see Decision No: 2025-0579, 2025 CanLII 92466 (AB WCAC).
