WCB must assess you holistically, not as a disconnected set of injuries.
When the Workers’ Compensation Board assesses whether an injured worker can return to employment, its responsibility is not limited to the worker’s compensable injury alone. Instead, WCB must consider the worker’s whole-body condition, including both compensable and non-compensable limitations, when evaluating their fitness for employment.
This principle has been reinforced by the Appeals Commission, which has repeatedly found that WCB cannot assess a worker’s employability in isolation of their broader medical reality. Despite this, WCB often fails to properly apply this standard—either by ignoring non-compensable conditions altogether or by misclassifying work-related aggravations as temporary rather than permanent.
Understanding these nuances is essential for injured workers navigating the claims process. A misclassification or incomplete assessment can mean the difference between receiving full benefits and being unfairly deemed fit for work when, in reality, no suitable employment exists.
Whole-Body Consideration: A Fundamental Obligation
Although WCB is not responsible for treating or compensating non-work-related conditions, it is required to acknowledge them in work capacity determinations. A failure to do so can result in unrealistic job placements that ultimately set injured workers up for failure.
Example: A Welder with a Crushed Foot and a Spinal Fusion
Consider
Harold, a welder who sustains a severe crush injury to his foot in a workplace accident. The injury is permanent, meaning he can no longer perform his previous role.
To accommodate his limitations, WCB suggests sedentary work as a suitable alternative. However, Harold had a lumbar spinal fusion five years prior due to a motorcycle accident—a non-compensable condition that leaves him unable to sit for extended periods.
In this situation, WCB cannot simply assess his ability to perform sedentary work based solely on his compensable injury. Instead, it must factor in both the crushed foot and the pre-existing spinal condition when evaluating suitable employment.
If WCB fails to do this, Harold could be unfairly deemed employable, leading to:
- Loss of benefits, despite having no realistic work options.
- Increased risk of further injury, if he is forced into a job that does not accommodate his full set of limitations.
- A flawed earnings calculation, which assumes he can earn an income that is not realistically attainable.
This issue is not hypothetical—it is a common pattern in WCB adjudications, where case managers take an overly narrow approach and fail to consider workers as whole individuals.
Fortunately, the Appeals Commission has ruled against WCB on this issue multiple times, most notably in Decision No.: 2022-0244, 2022 CanLII 99244 (AB WCAC). In this case, the Commission determined that WCB must assess the worker’s employability in light of all medical conditions, not just the compensable injury.
This decision reinforces an important principle: WCB cannot create an artificial return-to-work plan based on an incomplete medical assessment.
Aggravations of Pre-Existing Conditions: The “Temporary vs. Permanent” Debate
A second major issue arises when a work injury aggravates a pre-existing condition. Under WCB policy, an aggravation of a non-compensable condition is compensable—but WCB often attempts to limit its liability by classifying the aggravation as temporary.
This is where workers need to be particularly vigilant.
When WCB accepts an aggravation, they typically apply one of two classifications:
- Temporary Aggravation: WCB claims that the compensable injury caused only a short-term worsening of the pre-existing condition and that the condition will eventually return to its pre-injury baseline.
- Permanent Aggravation: WCB acknowledges that the work-related injury caused a lasting or irreversible worsening beyond the natural progression of the pre-existing condition.
The distinction between these two categories is critical because WCB frequently defaults to labeling aggravations as temporary—even when medical evidence suggests otherwise.
Why This Distinction Matters
If an injured worker does not challenge a temporary aggravation classification, WCB may:
- Cease benefits too soon, arguing that the condition would have worsened regardless of the work injury.
- Deny long-term treatment or accommodations, even if the condition has permanently deteriorated.
However, under WCB policy and legal precedent, the following remain compensable:
✔ If a work injury causes a pre-existing condition to become symptomatic, WCB is responsible for it for as long as the symptoms persist.
✔ If a pre-existing condition was already symptomatic, but a work injury permanently worsens it beyond baseline, WCB remains responsible indefinitely.
✔ If a work injury accelerates the onset of a condition that otherwise would not have manifested as early, WCB is responsible for that acceleration.
Example: Construction Worker with Pre-Existing Arthritis
A 50-year-old construction worker has mild degenerative disc disease but has never experienced debilitating symptoms. However, after a fall at work, his back pain becomes severe and chronic.
WCB may attempt to argue:
“Your degenerative condition would have progressed anyway, so we are only responsible for the temporary aggravation caused by the fall.”
However, if the workplace fall was a catalyst that made an otherwise stable condition permanently symptomatic, then WCB is fully liable for the worsening—even if the condition would have eventually worsened due to aging.
This is an important but often misunderstood principle that injured workers should challenge when necessary.
How Injured Workers Can Protect Themselves
Given these complexities, injured workers must be proactive in ensuring WCB conducts a fair and comprehensive assessment of their work capacity and compensability.
Steps to Take:
🔹
Obtain clear medical documentation.
- Physicians should explicitly state whether a compensable injury has permanently worsened a pre-existing condition or caused a previously asymptomatic condition to become symptomatic.
- Avoid ambiguous phrasing—WCB will use any uncertainty to classify an aggravation as temporary.
🔹
Cite Appeals Commission rulings that reinforce whole-body consideration.
- Decision 2022-0244 confirms that WCB must consider the worker’s entire medical condition when assessing job suitability.
- If a case manager ignores non-compensable conditions, workers should request a reconsideration or appeal.
🔹
Challenge the “temporary aggravation” classification if unsupported by medical evidence.
- Demand a clear explanation from WCB and insist on a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) if necessary.
The Wrap: Ensuring Fairness in WCB Claims
The distinction between compensable and non-compensable conditions, and between temporary and permanent aggravations, is more than a technicality—it can determine whether a worker continues to receive benefits or is prematurely cut off.
While WCB is not responsible for non-work-related conditions themselves, it must consider how they impact a worker’s overall ability to return to work. Likewise, if a work injury accelerates, aggravates, or permanently worsens a pre-existing condition, WCB is fully responsible.
Workers who understand these principles are far better positioned to protect their rights and ensure that WCB does not misclassify their case or underestimate their limitations.
When faced with a dispute, appeal, challenge assumptions, and demand a fair assessment—because a misclassification today could mean the loss of benefits tomorrow.
