The worker was driving to work when he hit a pothole, exacerbating his previous symptoms
In a recent ruling, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected an appeal concerning the refusal of workers' compensation benefits for a 2018 incident that did not directly involve workplace activities.
In Manderville v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2024 NBCA 50, James Manderville initially suffered post-concussive syndrome following a workplace accident in 2015. Although he successfully claimed workers' compensation benefits for this incident, a subsequent 2018 incident involving a pothole while driving to work did not meet the criteria for compensation as it did not occur during the course of employment.
In the 2015 incident, Manderville was driving an electric power jack when he struck a crack on the warehouse floor, leading to significant health problems. The appeals tribunal of the Workplace Health, Safety, and Compensation Commission later recognized that this incident aggravated his pre-existing migraine condition, ruling the injury compensable under workers’ compensation laws. However, Manderville’s difficulties persisted, and he was unable to fully recover.
The crux of the 2018 claim revolved around an incident where Manderville's personal vehicle hit a large pothole, exacerbating his previous symptoms. The impact led to two weeks in bed, continuous headaches, depression, and post-concussion symptoms, resulting in his inability to work since May 2018. Despite these severe consequences, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal found that the accident did not arise from his employment and, therefore, was not compensable under the workers' compensation scheme.
Manderville contested this decision, arguing that the true nature and extent of his original workplace injury had never been fully appreciated or diagnosed and that his ongoing symptoms were a direct extension of his 2015 accident. However, the tribunal adhered to workers' compensation legislation principles, which require an injury to occur in the course of employment for a claim to be accepted.
The appeals tribunal applied various policies to determine the nature of the claim, concluding that the 2018 incident constituted a "new accident" and thus did not qualify for continuation of benefits related to the 2015 injury. They ruled that the pothole incident happened outside of Manderville’s employment scope and was not being directed by or performed for the employer's benefit.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal’s decision, agreeing that there was no error in the tribunal’s application of the law. The court noted that while Manderville’s ongoing health issues might be real and debilitating, the legal framework did not support his claim under the circumstances of the 2018 incident.
