- Credibility
- Evidence (inconsistencies) (reporting of accident)
- COVID-19
This decision concerned a worker's appeal for entitlement to benefits after contracting COVID-19 allegedly through work duties as a home support worker. This appeal challenged the denial of initial entitlement by the ARO based on whether the COVID-19 infection was contracted in the course of employment.
The worker, employed by a home healthcare agency since 2021, claimed to have tested positive for COVID-19 on December 28, 2023, attributing the infection to work-related contact with a client who tested positive on December 18, 2023. The worker initially indicated exposure on December 15 and 16, 2023, and later claimed contact on December 22, 2023. The Panel denied the appeal.The WSIB's Operational Policy Manual, Document No. 15-03-15 on Communicable Illnesses, guides entitlement decisions for illnesses like COVID-19. It requires that the worker contracted the illness and that employment made a significant contribution to contracting it. The policy acknowledges the challenges of widespread illnesses and states that sufficient evidence linking the illness to employment is necessary; otherwise, the illness may be deemed non-work-related.The Panel found the 14-day gap between the worker's last contact on December 16 and positive test on December 30 exceeded the typical incubation period. The client was asymptomatic during contact, and no other workplace cases were reported. The worker's negative antigen test on December 28, despite symptom onset claims, suggested infection timing inconsistent with workplace exposure. The use of PPE and absence of outbreak further reduced likelihood of workplace causation.The Panel did not find the worker's testimony about contact on December 22 credible, noting inconsistencies and delayed reporting. Employer records did not confirm this contact, and the worker's explanation for non-disclosure was deemed implausible. PPE use on that date would have included eye protection and N95 masks, further lowering transmission risk. The antigen test timing also did not align with infection from this date.The worker's family members, who had outside contacts, posed a more probable infection risk. The worker's claims about their limited exposure were considered unreliable. The absence of workplace outbreak and lack of corroborating evidence linking the workplace to infection led to the conclusion that the workplace was not a significant contributing factor.The Panel concluded that the worker did not likely contract COVID-19 through work duties. The evidence, including medical literature, testing results, PPE use, and credibility assessments, did not establish a sufficient causal link between the workplace and the infection. The appeal was therefore denied.