The case of Rear v British Columbia, dated August 28, 2023, involved the petitioner, Lianne Rear, a registered nurse who had sought judicial review of a Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) decision. This decision had denied her benefits claim for wrist tendinitis, which she alleged had been caused by her work conditions.
She had transitioned to a new role in 2012, which involved extensive computer use, phone calls, and mouse operation.
By mid-2013, she had experienced constant wrist pain. Despite adjustments to her work setup for ergonomic purposes, her condition had not improved.
On September 26, 2013, a WCB case manager had conducted a brief review of her modified workstation, resulting in the denial of her benefits application.
Subsequent appeals and medical reports had supported her claim, with a doctor diagnosing her with tendinitis attributed to her job.
However, in its May 2015 decision, WCAT had upheld the denial of benefits, asserting that her condition was not work-related.
They had relied on observations of her improved workstation and the WCB medical report, arriving at their own medical conclusions, which were deemed unreasonable.
The court ruled that the petitioner's judicial review was allowed because WCAT's decision had been considered patently unreasonable and that the petitioner's work had met the criteria for occupational risk factors, and her tendinitis had indeed been due to the nature of her employment, supporting her claim for benefits.
No specific amount provided in the case regarding financial award.
