An Alberta worker has been denied workers’ compensation for a back injury after an appeals panel found her evidence too unreliable to establish that her workplace caused the injury.
The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation upheld a decision denying coverage for a disc herniation that required two surgeries in October 2022, citing contradictions in the worker’s account and medical evidence that disputed her version of events.
The case centres on whether the worker’s L4-L5 disc herniation arose from twisting her back while reaching for paperwork in a cramped work truck on Aug. 7, 2022, or occurred earlier when she attended physiotherapy.
Timeline contradictions emerge
The worker reported her injury on Sept. 13, 2022, claiming it happened while “completing paperwork in a cramped workspace” during her Aug. 7 night shift. She said she felt a pinch in her lower back that escalated to severe pain.
However, evidence showed the worker attended physiotherapy on Aug. 5, 2022, for “lower back right hand side” pain. On a physiotherapy questionnaire dated Aug. 4, she answered “no” when asked if she was there for a work-related incident.
Text messages between the worker and her mother from Aug. 4 showed the worker asking for money for “her physiotherapy appointment tomorrow.”
When confronted with these contradictions during the hearing, the worker admitted her memory was “foggy” due to pain medication and that “the injury could have been on a date of other than August 7.”
Delayed reporting raises questions
The worker didn’t formally report the incident until 40 days after the alleged workplace injury. She told dispatchers about her back pain in a text message on Aug. 9, saying “night shift was done yesterday but I have hurt my back so bad somehow that I haven’t been able to move very much.”
The worker explained she delayed reporting because “she knew that if she reported the injury immediately, she would not be allowed to keep working and needed the income.”
However, the appeals panel found this explanation unconvincing, noting the worker “appears to have had several opportunities” to report the injury during her multiple returns to the employer’s premises between Aug. 8 and Sept. 13.
Medical evidence disputes work connection
A medical consultant reviewed the claim and concluded there was “no medical connection between the worker’s work duties and her back injury,” stating that medical literature shows “a lumbar disc herniation cannot be caused by any minor trauma event or ergonomic risk factor.”
Initially, the worker’s orthopedic surgeon wrote that the injury “should fall within an acute injury that is caused by the WCB.” However, after speaking with the medical consultant, the surgeon clarified that this letter “reflected the worker’s opinion and not their medical opinion.”
The worker’s representative argued this conversation was concerning and appeared designed “to convince the orthopedic surgeon to recant.” The appeals panel disagreed, stating it’s “reasonable and normal” for medical experts to discuss cases to establish consensus.
‘But for’ test not met
Under Alberta’s workers’ compensation system, an injury must meet the “but for” test – meaning the work exposure was necessary for the injury to occur. The panel must find it more likely than not that the injury wouldn’t have happened without the workplace incident.
The appeals panel concluded the worker failed to meet this standard. They found “the worker’s evidence is too unreliable” and noted “the medical evidence explicitly contradicts her account of how her work caused her injury.”
The panel stated: “Given the unreliability of the worker’s evidence, the lack of corroboration, and the medical evidence contradicting the worker’s account, the panel therefore finds the worker’s injury was not caused by an employment hazard.”
Panel weighs credibility factors
The appeals panel identified several factors that undermined the worker’s credibility:
- Contradictory dates between her incident report and physiotherapy records
- Her admission that her memory was “foggy” and details were “unclear”
- The 40-day delay in formal reporting despite multiple opportunities
- Text messages and physiotherapy reports that didn’t mention work as the cause
- Medical evidence contradicting her account of how the injury occurred
The worker’s mother testified as a witness, corroborating that the worker said “I can’t get out of the truck” on the day of the alleged incident. However, the panel found this didn’t overcome the other credibility issues.
Legal framework applied
The case was decided under sections 1, 13.1, 13.2 and 24 of Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation Act and WCB Policy 02-01. For an injury to be compensable, it must both “arise out of” and “occur in the course of” employment.
An injury arises out of employment when caused by an employment hazard – defined as “an employment circumstance which presents a risk of injury.” The injury must also occur at a time and place consistent with employment obligations and expectations.
For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0319, 2025 CanLII 55784 (AB WCAC).
