Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 1  
Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation  
Docket No.: AC0208-20-83  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Introduction  
[1]  
[2]  
This is a worker appeal of the WCB’s denial of claim acceptance.  
Background  
While at work on August 7, 2018, the worker felt lightheaded and dizzy and  
fainted. She hit the back of her head on the concrete floor when she fainted. The  
worker is appealing the denial of acceptance of a head injury, neck and shoulder  
pain.  
[3]  
[4]  
The WCB did not accept the claim indicating the injury was not caused by a  
hazard on the job. A Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body decision of  
June 8, 2020 upheld the adjudicator’s decision to deny claim acceptance.  
A Notice of Appeal was filed on June 16, 2020.  
Preliminary Matters  
[5]  
[6]  
The panel received the following prior to commencement of the hearing:  
From the appellant’s representative;  
presentation notes consisting of three pages  
local news reporting - marked as ADP documents 214-231  
From the respondent’s Representative;  
[7]  
[8]  
[9]  
presentation notes consisting of five pages  
Matters Arising during the Hearing  
It was observed the ADP contained three pages that were essentially illegible  
due to poor photocopying. The respondent’s representative indicated she would  
forward clearer copies of documents 102, 103 and 145 following the hearing.  
Post-Hearing Matters  
On May 11, 2022 the Appeals Commission sent a letter to the respondent’s  
representative advising the requested documents had not yet been received.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 2  
[10]  
On May 17, 2022, clearer copies of the requested documents were made  
available. The panel is satisfied that the contents of the clearer copies of the  
requested documents were discussed and addressed in the hearing. We are also  
satisfied the contents of the clearer documents are no different than discussed in  
the hearing and, after considering the parties and the panel had opportunity to  
address the contents of the information in the hearing, there was no need to  
invite additional submissions.  
[11]  
[12]  
The Appeals Commission is directed to amend the original Appeals Documents  
Package (ADP) and substitute the clearer copies for the original documents. The  
parties are to be advised of the receipt of the clearer copies and provided a copy  
for their respective records.  
The panel proceeded to finalize the decision.  
Majority Decision  
[13]  
[14]  
This decision document contains a dissenting decision.  
Section 13.1(2.1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA)  
states that a decision of the majority of appeals commissioners is the decision of  
the Appeals Commission. This means that the decision of the majority below is  
the final and binding decision of the Appeals Commission.  
Issues  
[15]  
Does the worker have an acceptable claim for head, right shoulder and  
back injuries?  
Analysis  
Legislation and Policy  
[16]  
[17]  
[18]  
[19]  
[20]  
Section 24(1) of the WCA indicates that compensation is payable to a worker  
who suffers personal injury by an accident.  
Section 1(1)(a) of the Act provides the interpretation of “accident” as meaning an  
accident that arises out of and occurs in the course of employment.  
Policy 02-01 specifies that, to be considered compensable, an accident must  
meet two conditions: it must arise out of and occur in the course of employment.  
Interpretation 1.0 indicates that the meaning of accident is satisfied when it can  
be shown that a worker’s employment has contributed to personal injury.  
Interpretation 2.0 stipulates that an accident arises out of employment when it is  
caused by some employment hazard, that is, an employment circumstance,  
which presents a risk of injury.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 3  
[21]  
[22]  
Interpretation 3.0 specifies that an accident occurs in the course of employment  
when it happens at a time and place consistent with the obligations and  
expectations of employment.  
Policy 02-01 further addresses work-relatedness of injuries, in part, as follows:  
“To be considered compensable, an accident must meet two conditions: it must  
arise out of and occur in the course of employment. When the WCB is notified of  
an accident, it initiates inquiries to obtain all relevant evidence, and adjudicates the  
Worker’s Compensation act eligibility of the claim based on the weight of that  
evidence.  
Questions to be Answered  
[23]  
Does the weight of evidence, on a balance of probabilities, establish that:  
the worker was exposed to a hazard of employment;  
at a time and place consistent with employment obligations; and  
the worker’s injury was causally related to employment duties?  
Does the statutory presumption apply in this case?  
Key Submissions  
[24]  
[25]  
The following is a summary of the submission provided by the appellant’s  
representative.  
[25.1]  
[25.2]  
[25.3]  
[25.4]  
File notes from the medical consultant to the case manager dated  
September 18, 2019 indicate the worker was on a combination of  
medication that might have caused a situation that could lead to an  
increased risk of fainting in a hot environment.  
There is no medical evidence that indicates the worker has a medical  
condition or that the medications on their own, would have put her at  
increased risk for a syncope episode. Labs and CT scanning were normal  
and did not indicate a cause for a syncope episode.  
The appellant’s representative discounted a co-worker’s statement dated  
August 6, 2019 regarding building temperatures. The statement was  
written one year after the date of accident and it is unlikely an average  
person would recall the temperature one year previous.  
The appellant’s representative provided two news articles dated August 7,  
2018 that confirmed that at the time of the worker’s accident there were  
wildfires across Alberta prompting air-quality advisories across the  
province. Air quality index exceeded the scale of 1 to 10, hitting a 10+ on  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 4  
the evening of August 10, 2018. There had also been heat warnings in  
effect for most of the province. It is reasonable to believe the temperature  
could have been higher than normal inside the building and there was also  
likely smoke still present.  
[25.5]  
[25.6]  
The worker had indicated on the morning of August 7, 2018 it was hot  
humid and smoky. When the worker fainted, she recalled being dizzy as  
though she could not catch her breath.  
The appellant’s representative argued the worker injured herself during  
the course of employment. There was no dispute the worker was  
diagnosed with a head injury on August 7, 2018 and that there was  
swelling and a laceration as confirmed by her physician. Therefore under  
section 24(4) of the WCA if an injury occurs during the course of  
employment, unless the contrary is shown, it is presumed it arose out of  
employment.  
[25.7]  
[25.8]  
[25.9]  
The worker stated her fall occurred because it was both hot and smoky  
which caused her to faint. She remembers opening her eyes and trying to  
focus.  
The worker indicated the first people around her at the time of the incident  
were not questioned. She noted the package of information only contained  
statements from secondary people who had not witnessed the fall.  
The worker also indicated much has been stated about the location of the  
air-conditioning outlets. She disputes that she was within 50 feet of an air-  
conditioning outlet and stated she felt it was closer to 75 feet away.  
[26]  
The following is a summary of the submissions provided by the respondent’s  
representative.  
[26.1]  
The respondent’s representative argued the evidence supports that the  
worker had a fainting event that was not related to employment factors,  
rather it was more probable to be related to the worker’s syncopal  
diagnosis.  
[26.2]  
The respondent’s representative pointed to a Facebook message of  
August 7, 2018, in which the worker reported she got very dizzy and  
extremely hot. The worker wrote that her doctor advised her that her  
blood pressure dropped too low because of a prescription issue.  
[26.3]  
[26.4]  
The worker reported her incident to WCB on July 3, 2019, a year after the  
claimed event.  
The worker asserted the building was hot, however the employer has  
indicated the air-conditioning was working and building is kept at  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 5  
70°Farenheit when the building is occupied. There is no indication that  
the air-conditioning was not working that day.  
[26.5]  
[26.6]  
The worker began her shift at 4 a.m., her fainting episode occurred around  
4:30 a.m. The respondent’s representative indicated Environment  
Canada temperature readings on that day between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m.  
were 17.7° and 16.0° Celsius respectively.  
Although it was mildly smoky owing to wildfires in the province, there was  
no mention that this was a problem in the initial medical reporting. A  
smoky environment would not have been a work related or work specific  
situation as the worker would have experienced this at her home, in her  
car, or walking in the general community.  
[26.7]  
[26.8]  
[26.9]  
Initial medical reporting identified the worker had experienced a syncopal  
event and it was surmised her medication regime was the cause of this.  
One of her medications was decreased by her physician. It was not until  
later, that the worker described being hot and dizzy and indicated it was  
hard to breathe.  
The respondent’s representative argued there was insufficient evidence to  
determine eligibility for compensation. There is not enough evidence to  
prove the worker’s injury arose out of or occurred in the course of  
employment. The evidence did not demonstrate a work relationship to the  
cause of the worker fainting and then sliding to the floor.  
Although there is a temporal relationship of the worker being at work when  
she felt hot, dizzy and faint - a medical relationship of the symptoms to the  
work environment has not been identified. The worker was also taking  
Paxil for a hormonal imbalance at the time of the fainting event at work.  
[26.10] The panel was asked to consider that the fainting event was not related to  
environmental factors. A workplace hazard has not been identified and  
the incident is not compensable simply because she was at work.  
[26.11] The respondent’s representative indicated the evidence does not support  
that environmental factors caused her to faint.  
[26.12] The respondent agrees with the WCB decision to deny the claim.  
Evidentiary Findings  
[27]  
The panel finds the weight of evidence does not establish the worker was  
exposed to an employment hazard or circumstance which presented a risk of  
injury.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 6  
[28]  
Accordingly, the panel finds that the worker does not have  
an acceptable WCB claim. The panel makes these findings based on a review  
and analysis of the following evidence.  
Time, Place and Injury  
[29]  
[30]  
To be compensable, WCB Policy 02-01 requires that an accident occur at a time  
and place consistent with the normal expectations of employment and be the  
result of an employment hazard. An employment hazard is defined as an  
employment circumstance that presents a risk of injury.  
There is no dispute the worker fell to the floor at work on August 7, 2018,  
following a dizzy spell.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 7  
Analysis Of an Employment Hazard  
[31]  
The worker has indicated she felt suddenly lightheaded, nauseated, dizzy and  
then fainted. This description is consistent throughout the initial medical  
reporting and does not identify an employment hazard.  
Initial Medical Reporting  
Family Physician Reporting – August 7, 2018  
[31.1]  
We have provided the worker’s physician’s chart notes as we find they  
document the worker’s description of the event, time, place and  
circumstances leading to her syncope episode. We note, the worker did  
not report a work place hazard to her physician and specifically reported  
“feeling” hot, sweaty and dizzy. We find the worker’s recounting of events  
to her physician within hours of the occurrence fails to indicate the incident  
was caused by external or workplace factors.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 8  
Physician First Report, August 7, 2018  
[31.2]  
The family physician completed the WCB reporting form on the date of  
accident. The physician indicated the worker described the incident  
occurred while she was stocking clothing onto a rack and felt lightheaded,  
dizzy and fainted. The worker had a previously scheduled appointment  
with her physician and drove herself to the appointment after her fainting  
spell.  
[31.3]  
[31.4]  
[31.5]  
[31.6]  
[31.7]  
The physician’s diagnosis was a syncopal episode and the symptoms  
were described as being that she felt suddenly lightheaded, nauseated,  
dizzy and fainted.  
The treatment plan included investigative labs, encourage by mouth (PO)  
intake, decrease her zoplicone hs (bedtime) dose to 7.5 from 11.25 mg,  
physiotherapy for her shoulder.  
Additionally, the family physician observed that a polypharmacy factor  
could be contributory and reduced the worker’s hypnotic medication  
dosage by 42%.  
We find this initial reporting, both the chart notes and WCB report, to be  
significant. The worker saw her family physician on the date of accident  
and the worker’s description of the event was recorded.  
We find it is significant the worker did not relate her syncope episode to  
any workplace hazard to her physician on the date of accident.  
Physician First Report, August 11, 2018  
[31.8]  
[31.9]  
This report was completed by an emergency room (ER) physician who  
stated “while at work the patient felt syncopal. She fell over and hit her  
head on cement.” Lab studies were completed and sinister causes of  
syncope were normal and a head scan did not indicate an acute injury.  
The worker saw the ER physician three days following the workplace  
syncope episode. We observe this reporting to a second physician within  
days of the incident did not indicate that an employment hazard was  
identified that contributed to the worker’s injury.  
Physician Progress Report, August 21, 2018  
[31.10] The worker returned to see her family physician who has indicated the  
previous diagnosis of syncopal episode is now changed to right-sided  
head traumatic injury. The mechanism of injury as related by the worker  
did not change.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 9  
[31.11] We note the diagnosis has changed to head injury, which we understand  
was a consequence of falling to the floor upon fainting, but an employment  
hazard causing the worker to faint was not identified.  
[31.12] The above noted reports provide consistent and similar descriptions of the  
syncope episode as related by the worker to two physicians.  
[31.13] Of particular note, the worker, on the date of accident and immediately  
thereafter, has consistently indicated that she felt lightheaded, dizzy,  
nauseated and then fainted. She did not identify any positional or  
environmental factors as the cause for the syncope episode on or near the  
date of accident, to her primary care physician or to the ER physician. In  
addition, the medical reporting does not support that an employment  
hazard caused or contributed to the worker fainting.  
Other Reporting/Evidence Considered  
First Aid Record, August 7, 2018  
[31.14] A First Aid Record completed at the accident employer’s premises  
confirms the date and time of the worker’s injury. The description states  
“became hot and dizzy and fell to the floor striking the back of her head.”  
The worker was treated with compression, ice and allowed to lay down  
until she felt well enough to get up.  
[31.15] The first aid record provides an answer box for the following question:  
“Describe what caused the accident or incident”. The answer was;  
“unclear, unexplained fainting.”  
[31.16] We find no indication of a workplace hazard identified in the first aid  
record.  
[31.17] We also note a previous First Aid Record completed at the workplace  
dated May 22, 2018, indicated the worker felt dizzy and complained of  
having a funny tummy. In that incident, the worker had been complaining  
of feeling overheated – similar circumstances as on August 7, 2018.  
Facebook entries  
[31.18] The worker’s own Facebook post on the date of accident indicated “this  
morning at work I got very dizzy and extremely hot. The next thing I knew  
I was looking up at people.”  
[31.19] A second Facebook post dated August 10, 2018, indicated the worker  
presumed her “head hit the concrete floor when she passed out at work on  
Tuesday.”  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 10  
[31.20] We note these self-written posts do not identify a workplace hazard. We  
find no evidence the worker has suggested her syncope episode is related  
to a workplace hazard, on the date of accident or immediately after the  
event. The worker has not identified a circumstance(s) whereby her injury  
was caused or increased by employment; rather she described a  
circumstance particular to herself.  
Other medical documents  
[31.21] The worker was seen by a neurologist on February 4, 2019. In the  
consultation letter, the neurologist described the worker’s incident as “It  
sounds like she had a syncopal spell.”  
[31.22] A consultation letter written by a second neurologist dated April 23, 2019,  
indicated “in August 2018, she fainted and fell backwards onto her occiput  
. . .”  
[31.23] We find both of these consultation letters are consistent with the initial  
medical reporting that the worker had a syncope spell. The additional  
medical reporting some months following the date of incident does not  
provide any evidence of an identified work place hazard which caused or  
contributed to the worker fainting.  
[31.24] We find the observations from two neurologists significant as they were  
addressing post-accident injuries and would have considered the cause of  
the syncope spell as part of their consultation.  
Medical Consultant Discussion with Case Manager  
[31.25] The case manager spoke to a WCB medical consultant on September 18,  
2019, and notes of the discussion about the worker’s multiple medications  
possibly playing a role in the syncope episode were documented.  
[31.26] The medical consultant indicated the worker was on a combination of  
medications that might cause a situation that could lead to an increased  
risk of fainting in an excessively hot environment.  
[31.27] In the absence of an analysis of the worker’s medication regime, along  
with consideration of other evidence such as: the initial medical reporting,  
the worker’s statements of the mechanism of injury and environmental  
conditions at work that day, we did not place much weight on the  
discussion.  
Second Family Physician  
[31.28] The worker’s long-standing family physician retired and a second family  
physician began treating her about three months after her syncope spell.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 11  
[31.29] The second family physician indicated the worker had stated it was hot  
and smoky that morning and it was very difficult to determine what exactly  
caused the fainting spell. The second family physician indicated it could  
be combination of different factors including the patient’s health that day,  
her medications and being in an enclosed space that was hot and smoky.  
[31.30] We were not persuaded by the observation proffered by a second family  
physician on November 17, 2019. In the absence of any indication that it  
was a hot smoky environment in the workplace causing an employment  
hazard in any of the initial reporting of the incident, we find the second  
family physician’s indication of cause of the syncope spell one year later to  
be speculative and did not persuade us to an employment hazard was  
present.  
Evidence of Environmental Factors Posing a Workplace Hazard  
[31.31] In analyzing whether the worker may have been placed in a positional risk  
situation, we reviewed Policy 02 – 01, Part II, Application I, which states  
positional risk occurs when a worker’s employment causes them to be in a  
time and place when they are exposed to a hazard.  
[31.32] We heard from the worker that her workplace was hot, humid and smoky,  
due to the elevated temperatures and wildfires in Alberta in August 2018.  
[31.33] A Government of Canada hourly data report for August 7, 2018, indicates  
that at 04:00 h, the temperature in Edmonton was recorded to be 17.7°  
Celsius and at 05:00 h, the temperature was recorded to be 16.0 Celsius.  
The worker’s accident took place at approximately 04:45 h.  
[31.34] The respondent’s representative indicated there were no reports of  
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) malfunction at the  
worksite on the date of incident and noted the main floor in the building  
(where the worker was working) is kept at 70°F when the building is  
occupied from, 04:00 h to 12:00 h daily. The cooling system shuts off at  
midnight unless the inside temperatures exceed 75°F.  
[31.35] The employer has reported the only HVAC work order carried out around  
the worker’s date of accident was on August 18, 2018, for a cooling unit in  
a different area other than where the worker was working.  
[31.36] We note that there are no reports, other than the worker’s report one year  
after the syncope episode, of excessive heat in the building on the date of  
accident.  
[31.37] We placed more weight on the multiple source reporting provided on or  
near the date of accident to more accurately determine whether the heat,  
smoke and humidity posed a workplace hazard.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 12  
[31.38] We observe that in the first aid record, the initial medical reporting, the  
worker’s own Facebook posts, and the worker’s own indication that she  
felt dizzy and hot, do not mention that environmental conditions were a  
factor.  
[31.39] The worker was in a large warehouse, with elevated ceilings, a setting we  
do not interpret as an “enclosed space”.  
[31.40] All of the reporting points to the worker’s indication of feeling hot and  
sticky, a personal risk and condition, rather than an employment hazard  
which may have caused or contributed to the accident.  
[31.41] We acknowledge the air quality index the week of the worker’s syncope  
spell was poor and that warm August weather was present, however we  
were not persuaded the evidence supports that environmental factors  
such as heat, humidity and smoke were an employment hazard causing  
the worker’s syncope episode.  
[31.42] We also find that should the environmental conditions have been a factor  
in the workplace, they would more likely than not have been mentioned in  
the reporting on the date of incident.  
[31.43] Having weighed the cumulative evidence including: the medical evidence,  
workplace reporting and personal factors, we find the worker fainted  
because of a non-compensable reason.  
Finding that injury did not arise out of employment  
[32]  
[33]  
[34]  
WCB Policy 02 – 01, states that an accident arises out of employment when it is  
caused by some employment hazard.  
Our analysis indicates we did not find evidence that supports there was an  
employment hazard that presented a risk of injury.  
Policy 02 – 01, Part I, Interpretation 2.0, Arises Out Of Employment, addresses  
personal risks and conditions. This policy states that risks or conditions which  
are personal to the worker – such as the worker’s physical condition – are not  
hazards of employment unless employment factors contribute to the occurrence  
of the injury.  
[35]  
We find the weight of evidence does not support that the worker’s syncope was  
caused by an employment hazard. In other words, there was no evidence  
provided that indicates the worker’s employment contributed to the accident such  
that, if it were not for the employment, the accident would not have occurred at  
that time.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 13  
Consideration of Policy 02 – 01, Part II, Application 1: Employment  
Hazards, Question 5, Are the injuries compensable if a worker faints or  
collapses at work?  
[36]  
To be compensable, Policy 02 – 01 requires that an accident occur at a time and  
place consistent with the normal expectations of employment and be caused by  
an employment hazard.  
[37]  
[38]  
In the absence of an employment hazard we are unable to conclude the worker’s  
injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment.  
We also find the circumstances in this case do not meet injury compensability  
outlined in Policy 02 – 01, Part II, Application 1: Employment Hazards, Question  
5.  
“5.  
Are the injuries compensable if a worker faints or collapses at  
work?  
WCB’s responsibility varies according to the reason for the collapse. If a  
worker collapses because of some employment hazard (abnormally high  
temperatures, exposure to fumes, etc.) then the condition and any  
resulting injuries are compensable.  
If, on the weight of evidence, it appears the worker collapsed because of  
some non-compensable medical condition, WCB does not accept any  
responsibility for the underlying cause of the collapse. If, however, the  
worker’s injuries were increased because of the employment, WCB will  
accept responsibility for the resultant injuries.”  
[39]  
[40]  
As indicated above, we have found, on the weight of evidence, the worker  
collapsed because of a non-compensable medical condition.  
Our analysis did not indicate there was an employment circumstance that  
presented a risk of injury. We also noted there were no employment factors such  
as heat or smoke that contributed to the worker’s syncope.  
[41]  
When the worker collapsed, she was standing on a cement warehouse floor,  
folding clothes and next reported looking up at co-workers. There was no report  
her injury was increased because of the employment. The task she was  
undertaking was not strenuous, mainly standing and using her upper body to fold  
clothing items. The worker’s contact with the cement floor is a consequence of  
her collapse due to a non-compensable medical condition.  
[42]  
We did not view the cement floor as being an employment circumstance that  
increased the worker’s injuries, such as might be the case if the worker was, for  
example, on a ladder at the time she fainted. In this case the worker fainted and  
fell to the floor, which happened to be concrete. This did not in and of itself  
increase her injuries more than if she had fainted anywhere else and not at work.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 14  
[43]  
We acknowledge that there may be Appeals Commission decision which suggest  
a concrete floor is a work hazard (see for example Appeals Commission Decision  
No. 2006-203). However, there are also previous Appeals Commission  
Decisions, such as Decision No. 2019-0073, that concluded simply being at  
work, does not present an employment circumstance that presents a risk of  
injury. Previous Appeals Commission Decisions are not binding on this panel  
and we have made our decision based on the unique evidence, facts and  
circumstances of this appeal.  
[44]  
[45]  
In accordance with the above policy, the WCB does not have responsibility for  
any resulting injuries.  
Consideration of arguments that statutory presumption in section 24(4) of  
the WCA should apply  
While not binding on this panel, we rely on the rationale in a similar matter  
addressed in Appeals Commission Decision No. 2019 – 0073, in making our  
determination. In that decision, the panel was presented with similar  
circumstances where a worker fainted and hit her head on the concrete floor.  
That decision states in part:  
“[36]  
We do not accept the representative’s interpretation of WCB  
Policy. We find the policy wording “. . . the worker’s injuries were  
increased because of employment . . .” to mean the worker’s  
injuries must arise out of and occur in the course of  
employment. In other words, to be compensable, policy requires  
that it occur at a time and place consistent with the normal  
expectations of employment and be caused by some employment  
hazard. The focus cannot be placed solely on the requirement  
that the injuries are “increased”.  
[37]  
[38]  
The worker’s representative argues that WCB Policy Question 4  
does not require an employment hazard. He submits it is  
inequitable that workers who faint are subject to a more stringent  
requirement than those who suffer an epileptic seizure while at  
work.  
We note different language and criteria between the policy  
provisions. Questions 4 and 5 use different language and  
therefore lead to different outcomes. Question 4 states that the  
WCB will accept any injuries resulting from a seizure occurring  
while the worker is in the course of employment. As discussed  
above, Question 5 states that if injuries are increased because of  
employment, the resulting injuries will be accepted. We  
understand that for the injuries to be accepted under Question 5,  
the injuries must have arisen out of and occurred during the  
course of employment as defined by WCB Policy.  
[39]  
The worker’s representative argued that the head injury is  
compensable by application of the statutory presumption  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 15  
in section 24(4) of the WCA and WCB Policy 02-01, Part 1, which  
states that if a worker’s injury arises out of employment, unless  
the contrary is shown, it is presumed that it occurred during the  
course of employment. The presumption also states that if a  
worker’s injury occurs during the course of employment, unless  
the contrary is shown, it is presumed that it arose out of  
employment.  
[40]  
[41]  
The worker’s representative submits that as the worker’s injury  
occurred during the course of employment, it should be presumed  
that it arose out of employment. It is not necessary to find an  
employment hazard.  
We find that the presumption in section 24(4) of the WCA does not  
apply in this case. The presumption only operates “unless the  
contrary is shown”. We find that it is not appropriate to apply the  
presumption in this case where the circumstances of an accident  
are known and the panel has found no employment hazard  
exists.”  
[46]  
We adopt the above reasons and find they apply in the circumstances before us.  
In the absence of an employment hazard and on the weight of evidence that  
indicates the worker collapsed because of a non-compensable medical condition,  
the worker does not have an acceptable claim. We also find, the worker’s  
injuries were not increased because of her employment and in accordance with  
Policy 02-01, coverage is not extended.  
[47]  
As analysed above, we find the weight of evidence indicates there were no  
environmental factors noted in multiple reports/documents from multiple  
independent sources that could be considered an employment hazard causing  
the worker to faint.  
[48]  
[49]  
We are satisfied the statutory presumption does not apply because the contrary  
has been shown.  
Rather, a non-compensable medical condition - a syncope spell - was the cause  
of the worker’s collapse at work. As such, we were unable to make a finding that  
an accident arose out of employment that was caused by some employment  
hazard. We also did not find that her injuries were increased because of the  
employment.  
[50]  
[51]  
We find the worker does not have an acceptable claim.  
Conclusion and Reasons  
We concluded the weight of evidence did not establish the worker was exposed  
to an employment hazard or circumstance which presented a risk of injury that  
caused the worker’s injuries, as identified on her claim application. We  
concluded on the weight of medical and other evidence, that the worker fainted  
because of a non-compensable condition and her injuries were not increased  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 16  
because of employment. We also concluded the statutory presumption does not  
apply in this case because the contrary was shown. For these reasons the  
worker does not have an acceptable claim.  
Decision  
[52]  
[53]  
The worker does not have an acceptable Worker’s Compensation Board claim  
for injuries sustained on August 7, 2018.  
The Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body decision of June 8, 2020 is  
confirmed  
This decision is made with the agreement of the majority quorum of the hearing panel.  
Decision signed in Edmonton, Alberta on July 4, 2022.  
L. Faulder  
Hearing Chair  
(on behalf of the panel)  
Hearing Panel:  
L. Faulder  
T. Laycock  
– Hearing Chair  
– Commissioner  
Typed by: ab  
E_DEC08D (20210701)  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 17  
Appendix A  
Legislation – Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA)  
“Power of Appeals Commission  
13.1(1) subject to sections 13.2(11) and 13.4, the Appeals  
Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear  
and determine all matters and questions arising under this act and  
regulations in respect of  
(a) appeals from decisions of a review body under section 9.4  
. . .  
and the decision of the Appeals Commission on the appeal or other  
matter is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any  
court.”  
“Eligibility for compensation  
24(1) Subject to this Act, compensation under this Act is payable  
(a) to a worker who suffers personal injury by an accident,  
unless the injury is attributable primarily to the serious and  
wilful misconduct of the worker, and  
(b) to the dependents of a worker who dies as a result of an  
accident.”  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 18  
Appendix B  
Workers’ Compensation Board Policy  
Policy 02-01, Part I, specifies that to be considered compensable, an accident must  
meet two conditions: it must arise out of and occur in the course of employment.  
“POLICY:  
To be considered compensable, an accident must meet two conditions: it  
must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. When the WCB is  
notified of an accident, it initiates inquiries to obtain all relevant evidence,  
and adjudicates the Worker’s Compensation Act eligibility of the claim  
based on the weight of that evidence.  
If, after gathering all the available evidence, it is clear that one of the  
conditions is met but there is insufficient evidence on which to base a  
decision regarding the second condition, the statutory presumptions  
contained in s.24 of the Act will apply.  
. . .  
INTERPRETATION  
1.0  
Accident  
‘Accident’ is used in the usual and ordinary sense, and means an  
unexpected mishap or event. For the purposes of workers' compensation,  
‘accident’ also includes the circumstances defined in the four sub clauses of  
s.1(1)(a) of the WCA.  
2.0  
Arises out of Employment  
An accident arises out of employment when it is caused by some  
employment hazard. An employment hazard is defined as an employment  
circumstance which presents a risk of injury. The hazard may be directly  
related to the industry or occupation (for example, machinery, chemicals,  
worksite ergonomics), or may be incidental (for example, weather  
conditions, insect bites, third-party vehicles).  
Personal Risks and Conditions  
Risks or conditions which are personal to the worker (such as the worker's  
physical condition or personal relationships) are not hazards of employment  
unless employment factors contribute to the occurrence of injury (see Part  
II, Applications 1 and 4).  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 19  
3.0  
Occurs in the Course of Employment  
An accident occurs in the course of employment when it happens at a time  
and place consistent with the obligations and expectations of employment.  
Time and place are not strictly limited to the normal hours of work or the  
employer's premises, however, there must be a relationship between  
employment expectations and the time and place the accident occurs (see  
Part II, Applications 2 and 3).  
4.0  
Evidence  
Evidence includes accident reports, witness reports, medical information,  
and accepted medical opinion, as well as any other facts relevant to the  
accident.  
If the information received on the required reports is not sufficient to  
adjudicate the claim, the WCB is responsible for gathering additional  
evidence relevant to the claim.  
5.0  
Statutory Presumptions  
When determining the eligibility of an injury, the WCB normally bases its  
decision on the weight of evidence. In some cases, however, it is not  
possible to get sufficient evidence on which to base a decision (for example,  
if a worker is found unconscious on the floor; there were no witnesses to the  
fall; and, because of the injury, the worker has no recollection of the  
incident). The statutory presumptions of s.24 of the WCA are included so  
workers will be compensated in cases where one condition of  
compensability (either ‘arises out of’ or ‘occurs in the course of’  
employment) is met, but there is insufficient evidence to determine the  
status of the second condition.  
Section 24 of the WCA contains the provision that when one of the  
conditions is met, the other is presumed, unless the contrary is shown.  
The presumption does not release the WCB from its obligation to inquire  
into and examine the circumstances of the injury.”  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 20  
Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 1:  
“1.  
What factors are considered when determining if an injury  
resulted from an employment hazard?  
The employment must have contributed to the accident so that, if it were  
not for the employment, the accident would not have occurred at that time  
(see Application 7 – Causation). The hazard may arise directly from the  
occupation or industry itself, or it may arise from positional risk. The  
following conditions apply when determining whether an employment  
hazard caused or contributed to an accident:  
the hazard must be related to the worker’s employment  
employer-provided residential, recreational, and food facilities are  
considered hazards of employment only when the hazard arises from  
the premises or equipment and the worker is making reasonable and  
permitted use of the facilities  
2.  
What is positional risk?  
Positional risk occurs when workers’ employment causes them to be in a  
place at a time when they are exposed to a hazard. Examples include  
environmental hazards such as insect bites and exposure to weather  
conditions, motor vehicle collisions, and unprovoked attacks.  
Usually, it does not matter whether the worker is at the same risk as the  
general public, provided the employment causes the worker to be in a  
certain place at a certain time when the accident happens. For example,  
a worker travelling to a business appointment is at the same risk as the  
general public if a rifle is fired accidentally in the vicinity. Were it not for  
employment, however, the worker would not have been there when the  
rifle was fired, so it is the employment which has placed the worker at  
risk.  
In the case of infectious diseases, however, coverage is not extended  
unless the worker’s employment requires sufficient exposure to the  
source of infection. In these situations the nature of employment must be  
of causative significance or create an increased risk of exposure for the  
worker (see Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 3, Question 4).  
3.  
What are a worker’s personal risks and conditions?  
These are characteristics and circumstances specific to the worker and  
present regardless of employment. For example, a degenerative or other  
pre-existing physical condition is a risk for the worker both in and out of  
employment.  
Personal relationships (e.g., spouse, family, friends) may also constitute a  
personal risk. Injuries resulting from personal relationships may  
coincidentally occur at the workplace, but claims will not be accepted if  
the cause is exclusively personal and has no direct or indirect relationship  
to the worker’s employment duties or the employer’s operations.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 21  
For example, if two co-workers who socialize outside of work fight during  
work hours because of some personal incident, the fight only  
coincidentally occurs during employment and does not arise out of  
employment. Any resulting injuries are not compensable (see Application  
5, Removing Oneself from Employment).  
However, if employment hazards increase the risk or aggravate a  
condition, the injury may be compensable (see also Policy  
03-02, Aggravation of a Pre-Existing Condition).  
. . .  
5.  
Are the injuries compensable if a worker faints or collapses at  
work?  
WCB’s responsibility varies according to the reason for the collapse. If a  
worker collapses because of some employment hazard (abnormally high  
temperatures, exposure to fumes, etc.) then the condition and any  
resulting injuries are compensable.  
If, on the weight of evidence, it appears the worker collapse because of  
some non-compensable medical condition, WCB does not accept any  
responsibility for the underlying cause of the collapse. If, however, the  
worker’s injuries were increased because of the employment, WCB will  
accept responsibility for the resultant injuries.”  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 22  
DISSENTING DECISION  
Introduction  
[1]  
[2]  
This appeal considers whether the worker has an acceptable claim for workers’  
compensation. The worker had an episode of syncope (or fainting) while at work.  
From the collapse she sustained, at minimum, a head injury.  
The majority decision concluded that there was no employment hazard and the  
injuries were not compensable. I disagree and provide my dissenting reasons  
below.  
Issue  
[3]  
[4]  
Does the worker have an acceptable Workers’ Compensation Board claim  
for head, right shoulder and back injuries, sustained at work on August 7,  
2018?  
Decision Summary  
I find the worker has an acceptable claim for injuries sustained at work on  
August 7, 2018. I return the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB)  
to investigate and adjudicate the extent of the worker’s injuries.  
[5]  
[6]  
I arrive at this conclusion in two ways, in answer to the questions posed in the  
majority decision at paragraphs [23] and [24].  
With reference to the WCB policy on fainting (Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 1,  
Question 5), I find that this policy applies both directly and in terms of increased  
injuries as a result of the worker’s employment.  
[7]  
[8]  
First I find, in relation to the WCB policy on fainting, that if the worker fainted from  
a non-compensable medical condition, the worker’s injuries were increased due  
to her employment.  
In the alternative, I find that smoke and heat were employment hazards that  
contributed to the syncope episode and therefore the syncope episode and  
resultant injuries are compensable. The worker’s injuries resulted from a  
work-related accident.  
Analysis  
[9]  
In reaching my decisions, I acknowledge the principles determined by the Alberta  
Court of Appeal that the WCA must be interpreted broadly, allowing compensation  
to be provided to as many workers in as many circumstances as the scheme will  
reasonably permit (Shuchuk v Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’  
Compensation), 2007 ABCA 213 ()).  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 23  
[10]  
I also acknowledge section 10 of the Interpretation Act, RSA 2000, c I-8, which  
states that an enactment (such as the WCA) “shall be construed as being remedial,  
and shall be given the fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation that best  
ensures the attainment of its objects.”  
1. Applying WCB’s policy on fainting as a result of non-compensable conditions  
WCB Policy and Principles of Workers’ Compensation  
[11]  
The WCB policy on fainting states that when a worker faints or collapses at work  
as a result of an employment hazard, both the condition and resulting injuries are  
compensable (WCB Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 1, Question 5). If the  
collapse appears to be from some non-compensable medical condition, WCB  
does not accept responsibility for the underlying cause of the collapse. However,  
if the worker’s injuries were increased because of employment, WCB will accept  
responsibility for the resulting injuries.  
[12]  
I find the worker fainted and fell to a concrete floor while working and therefore  
Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 1, Question 5 applies. In the Physician First  
Report of August 7, 2018, the first physician diagnosed a syncopal episode with  
a traumatic head injury. The First Aid Record from the date of accident, signed  
by the first aid attendant, the manager and the worker, notes the cause of the  
accident was unclear, unexplained fainting and the worker fell to the floor striking  
the back of her head. The worker’s descriptions of the incident support that she  
fainted. In the first physician’s chart notes of August 7, 2018, the worker is  
recorded as saying she passed out at work.  
[13]  
[14]  
I find that if the worker collapsed from a non-compensable medical condition, her  
injuries were increased because of employment and therefore are compensable.  
In reaching this conclusion, I adopt the reasoning in Appeals Commission  
Decision No. 2006-203. In that decision, the worker collapsed for  
non-compensable medical reasons, onto a concrete floor. The WCB did not  
accept responsibility for the syncope, but as per policy, did accept responsibility  
for the resulting injuries. The employer sought cost relief. The decision states in  
part:  
“[36] We find that the worker's injuries were increased because of  
employment. The concrete floor on to which the worker fell  
presents a work hazard that we find exacerbated the injuries that  
he suffered. The fact that the worker may have been exposed to  
a concrete surface in other circumstances, for example a  
shopping mall floor, a concrete sidewalk or cement basement,  
does not make the concrete warehouse floor any less of a hazard.  
[37]  
We cannot let speculation about whether a worker may have  
suffered similar injuries under other circumstances substitute for a  
fact-based decision on whether a known condition in the  
workplace increased the worker's injuries.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 24  
[38]  
Moreover, the witness statements make it clear, that it was  
evident that the worker was suffering medical distress while  
working immediately prior to the accident. Given the observations  
made by his co-workers about the injured worker’s trembling,  
flushed skin, sweating and confusion, we find that the mere act of  
standing and lifting boxes, however light these duties were, are  
employment circumstances that contributed to the worker’s fall.  
[39]  
[40]  
[41]  
Policy makes it clear that in the circumstances of this case, while  
the WCB will not accept responsibility for the underlying cause of  
the worker's collapse, it nevertheless, will accept responsibility for  
the resultant injuries.  
This is exactly what the WCB did in this case. It denied  
responsibility for syncope (the worker's temporary loss of  
consciousness) while accepting responsibility for the injuries to the  
worker's nose and hand.  
This is in keeping with the underlying principle of Workers'  
Compensation that is based on the doctrine of no-fault  
insurance. The WCB assumes liability for injury, in work-related  
circumstances, despite the presence of fault on the part of the  
worker or employer, based on a reasonable person  
test. Employers are expected to fund the system and in turn, are  
protected from lawsuit where the activities causing the injury are  
part of the employer's normal insured activities. The Worker's  
Compensation system encourages individual and employer  
accountability in other ways. In this case, the worker’s  
employment contributed to his injuries and we are unable to find  
any basis for relieving the employer’s experience account from the  
cost of the claim.”  
[15]  
I find the present case has nearly identical facts and the same principles noted in  
the above decision must apply.  
Worker’s injuries increased as a result of a hazard of employment (Concrete  
Floor)  
[16]  
[17]  
In the present case, I find that the concrete floor was an employment hazard that  
exacerbated the worker’s injuries.  
The evidence supports that the worker sustained injury from her fall to a concrete  
surface. She sustained an abrasion and swelling at the back of her head. Four  
days after the fall, an emergency physician and later, the first family physician,  
diagnosed a concussion.  
[18]  
The concrete floor is the known hazard in the workplace that increased the  
worker’s injuries. Impact with concrete is an employment circumstance that  
presents a risk of injury. It is speculative to assume the worker’s injuries would  
be similar if she had fainted elsewhere.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 25  
[19]  
Prior to fainting, the worker was reported to be in distress while engaged in her  
work duties. The first family physician wrote in chart notes that the worker  
reported waves of nausea and was getting hot, sweaty and dizzy. Her  
engagement in her work duties, no matter how light, were employment  
circumstances that contributed to her fall. Had the worker been elsewhere, she  
may have avoided the episode entirely by resting. However, she was engaged in  
her work duties, stocking merchandise onto a rack.  
[20]  
[21]  
[22]  
[23]  
The first aid attendant, in a statement of August 4, 2019, noted the worker  
recalled slumping over a work table and sliding to the floor. The first physician  
recorded the worker as trying to stand up and that was the last she remembered.  
The physical course of the fall, which cannot be determined with certainty, was  
tied to the worker’s employment circumstances.  
In a file note of August 23, 2018, a WCB adjudicator documented a call with the  
worker. The note reads, in part, “Fell at work – working – putting clothes away -  
got really hot on the inside and next thing I know I was looking up at people on  
the cold floor – saw fuzzy figures - someone gave me an ice pack. Blood on my  
hands. Blood on the floor on the left side. . .”  
The comments in paragraph [41] of the case above, regarding the underlying  
principle of Workers’ Compensation, are relevant today. It is with the doctrine of  
no-fault insurance in mind that WCB policy compensates workers for increased  
resulting injuries when the worker faints or collapses while working, even if the  
cause of the syncope is not from an employment hazard.  
When a worker faints, there may be some time, however brief, where the worker  
is not conscious and cannot provide direct evidence of the events, which may  
include physical collapse and resulting injury. The policy on fainting  
acknowledges this.  
[24]  
[25]  
I find that the worker’s injuries from the collapse were increased from her  
employment and therefore WCB should accept responsibility for the resulting  
injuries.  
In the alternative, I find the worker fainted as a result of workplace hazards.  
2. The worker fainted as a result of workplace hazards (heat, humidity and  
smoke)  
[26]  
[27]  
I interpret the policies to mean that if smoke, heat and humidity were contributory  
causes to the syncope, both the syncope and the resulting injuries are  
compensable.  
In a November 17, 2019 letter, the second family physician said it was difficult to  
say what caused the syncope. It could be a combination of different factors, the  
medications, the worker’s personal health that day and being in a hot and smoky  
enclosed space.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 26  
[28]  
The second family physician reviewed the first physician’s chart notes and  
concluded the first physician was unable to determine the exact cause “. . . but  
felt maybe her medications could be contributing; he also ordered blood work  
which came back normal. Given [the worker’s] statement her workplace was hot  
and smoky that morning, this certainly could have contributed to the syncope  
episode. . .”  
[29]  
I place significant weight on the second family physician’s evidence. The  
physician identifies heat and smoke as employment hazards, if present. She  
concludes that smoke and heat could “certainly” have contributed to the worker’s  
syncope. Several factors could have contributed to the syncope, including  
medications, heat and smoke and the worker’s personal health that day.  
[30]  
The WCB medical consultant indicated that if the workplace was excessively hot,  
the worker’s medications might have increased the risk of fainting, but anyone  
sensitive to heat might faint in the same environment. From his review of the  
chart notes, he could not determine a definite cause for the syncope.  
[31]  
[32]  
I understand from this that the response to heat is individual, as some are more  
sensitive. The worker’s medications might have played a role if the workplace  
was excessively hot.  
No temperature readings were in evidence from inside the building. There were  
no mechanical problems recorded with the HVAC system. The employer’s  
representative indicated the cooling system was set to maintain the workplace at  
21.1° C, and 23.9° C from midnight to 4:00 a.m. At 4:00 a.m. when the worker’s  
shift began, the temperature outside was 17.7° C and the relative humidity was  
67%, according to the Government of Canada hourly data report for August 7,  
2018.  
[33]  
[34]  
The first aid attendant and the manager recalled in statements written a year  
after the accident that the workplace was normal, not hot, and air conditioning  
systems were working.  
Prior to the hearing the worker’s representative submitted a media report issued  
on the afternoon of August 7, 2018. It indicated much of the province was ‘mired’  
in a heat wave and the air quality was poor from forest fire smoke. I considered  
this relevant information.  
[35]  
In her Worker Report of Injury the worker described the workplace as hot, humid  
and smoky when she arrived. At the hearing, the worker said it was very hot and  
smoky at work and her reaction to these conditions caused her to fall  
unconscious to the floor. The worker also stated at the hearing, and I accept  
that:  
She had just returned from vacation the shift before. It was hot and  
smoky as well, but the day of the accident was worse.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 27  
She was extremely hot and sweaty and could not catch her breath.  
When she could not get a breath of air, she went unconscious and  
then fell backwards onto the concrete.  
The two witness statements were not from the co-workers who first  
responded.  
She was not close to the air conditioning output even if it was working.  
She was not in the middle of the aisle when she fainted, where the  
employer placed her on the floor plan map.  
The previous First Aid Record of May 22, 2018, referred to a resolved  
kidney stone; and  
She did not have side effects from any medications she was taking.  
She could not recall if she took the sleeping aid medication the night  
before. The second physician told her that her reduced dose of  
another medication would not have had that impact.  
[36]  
[37]  
I place significant weight on the worker’s evidence at the hearing and in the  
Appeal Documents Package.  
Given the air quality warnings regarding smoke posted on the day of the accident  
and the worker’s evidence that the workplace was smoky, I find on the balance of  
probabilities the workplace was smoky.  
[38]  
[39]  
[40]  
Regarding heat, I acknowledge that two witnesses wrote that the workplace was  
not hot. For these workers this could be true however, the evaluation of and  
response to heat is individual. The worker found the workplace extremely hot.  
The worker’s evidence was that she was not close to the air conditioning duct.  
Although the outside temperatures were mild at 4:00 a.m., there is no evidence  
of the temperatures inside the building.  
I acknowledge there is no record of the worker stating specifically that the  
workplace was hot, smoky and humid until she submitted her Worker Report of  
Injury the following July. However, the worker indicated that she was feeling hot,  
sweaty and dizzy prior to fainting, as recorded in the first physician’s chart notes  
of August 7, 2018. The worker’s claim should not be discounted because she did  
not immediately identify environmental factors at work as a cause of her fainting  
episode.  
[41]  
When asked at the hearing why she submitted her WCB forms almost a year  
later, she explained she had a severe concussion. She does not remember  
months of her life due to the concussion. The employer did not give her the  
WCB forms on the date of the accident. She realized that she did not have the  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 28  
forms from her employer and that is when she inquired about it. The employer’s  
representative replied that the worker had other WCB claims and would have  
known to call. I acknowledge there is record of another WCB claim, but a review  
of the medical documentation on file confirms that the worker suffered a  
concussion. Although the first physician initially did not diagnose a concussion  
on the date of accident, an emergency physician did on August 11, 2018. The  
first physician later diagnosed a concussion in a WCB Physician Progress Report  
of August 21, 2018. I note that the WCB adjudicator spoke with the worker on  
August 23, 2018 and denied the claim the next day.  
[42]  
[43]  
I also note the first physician indicated in the Physician First Report that the  
worker had no history of syncope. Other than a possible contribution by  
medications, no other medical causes were identified. I also accept the worker’s  
statement that she had a bad reaction to the conditions in the workplace.  
In consideration of the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, I find it more  
likely than not that the worker’s workplace was smoky, humid and hot. Given the  
second physician’s statement that a smoky and hot workplace certainly could  
contribute to the worker’s syncope, I find that the workplace hazards of heat and  
smoke likely caused or contributed to the worker’s syncope. I also find that, but  
for the heat and smoke in the workplace, the worker would not have fainted.  
[44]  
[45]  
I find that the worker fainted or collapsed as a result of a workplace hazard.  
Conclusions  
I find that the worker’s injuries were increased from the worker’s employment  
(hazard of the concrete floor) and therefore the resulting injuries are  
compensable pursuant to WCB Policy 04-02, Application 1, Question 5.  
[46]  
In the alternative, I find that the fainting episode was caused or contributed to by  
the employment hazard of hot and smoky conditions in the work environment.  
Both the syncope and the resulting injuries are compensable.  
Classification: Protected A  
Decision No.: 2022-0240  
Page 29  
Decision  
[47]  
I find that the worker has an acceptable claim for the syncopal episode and the  
resulting injuries, which include a head injury.  
[48]  
[49]  
[50]  
I direct WCB to investigate and adjudicate the extent of the worker’s injuries.  
Any resulting decisions are subject to the usual review and appeal process.  
The July 8, 2020 decision of the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body is  
reversed.  
This decision is made by the dissenting member of the hearing panel.  
Decision signed in Edmonton, Alberta on July 4, 2022.  
C. Read  
Commissioner  
Hearing Panel:  
L. Faulder  
C. Read  
T. Laycock  
– Hearing Chair  
– Commissioner  
– Commissioner  
Typed by: ab  
E_DEC08D (20210701)  
Classification: Protected A  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission