- Evidence (adverse inference)
- Eye condition
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
The worker was a Logistics Operator at a chemical processing company, involved in extinguishing a flash fire on January 8, 2019. The employer disputed the worker's presence at the fire scene, but video evidence supported the worker's claim of involvement. The fire occurred near many drums of potentially flammable chemicals. The worker sought benefits for a right eye condition and psychological injury attributed to traumatic mental stress (TMS).
The Panel allowed the appeal, in part. The worker's accounts about the fire, eye condition, and symptoms showed significant inconsistencies, including varying dates of the incident, descriptions of symptoms, and claims of being struck in the face. The worker was deemed an unreliable historian, and greater weight was given to documentary evidence.The employer provided minimal documentation, failed to produce ordered evidence such as a facility manager's notebook, and withdrew from the hearing mid-process. A negative inference was drawn against the employer for lack of evidence supporting their claims that the worker was not present at the fire. The worker had a pre-existing right eye condition, including ptosis and exotropia, confirmed by photographs and witness statements predating the fire. Medical specialists diagnosed inflammatory and possibly autoimmune conditions unrelated to the workplace incident or chemical exposure. No medical evidence linked the fire or work exposures to the eye condition. The fire was found to be objectively traumatic due to the potential for serious harm in a chemical environment. The worker was diagnosed with PTSD in 2021, linked causally to the January 2019 fire. Delay in psychological treatment was explained by the worker's limited understanding and focus on physical symptoms.