WCAT Decision Number:
A2100606 (August 17, 2022)
[125] The OHOs also noted that there were 2 large canopy hood exhaust ventilation systems
servicing both the forge and welding areas. In their opinion, while the canopy hood design was
determined to be of a poor design for the scope of work, the exhaust fans were more or less
appropriately sized for the scope and nature of the student centered tasks. Additionally, the
employer took steps to restrict the use of certain equipment within the shop and/or put
conditions on their use until such time that the recommended upgrades could be completed. As
such, it was unlikely that welding fume and gas levels would have approached or exceeded the
Board exposure limits for these substances. In the OHO’s opinion, it was unlikely that the
worker was exposed to harmful levels of metal oxide fumes during her work in the metal shop.
[126] Overall, I accept the OHOs’ opinion, which was based on a thorough review of the relevant
claim file documents. In the absence of a persuasive opinion suggesting otherwise, I find the
evidence supports the exhaust ventilation system, albeit less than optimal, and the poor design
of the canopy hood, were nonetheless removing the welding gases and fumes in the metal
shop. This does not support the worker’s position that she was exposed to toxic levels of carbon
monoxide gases or fumes in her employment from mid-December 2017 onwards.
[127] While not necessary to my decision, I also considered whether the worker’s ongoing symptoms
supported a finding that she was exposed to toxic levels of carbon monoxide from mid-
December 2017 onwards. A problem for the worker is that from December 18, 2017 to May 30,
2018, it does not appear that she reported ongoing symptoms associated with carbon monoxide
exposure to the employer. More specifically, there is no documentation of the worker reporting
further headaches, nausea, fatigue, or dizziness during this time period. In my view, this lack of
ongoing reported symptoms suggests that there was no further carbon monoxide exposure
beyond mid-December 2017.
[128] I acknowledge that on May 30, 2018, the worker sought medical attention from Dr. Hollman and
reported ongoing symptoms. At the hearing, she testified that although some of the equipment
in the metal shop was shut down in December 2017, she did not notice much difference in her
symptoms. However, I have some difficulty accepting the worker’s testimony that she had
ongoing symptoms related to carbon monoxide exposure beyond December 18, 2017 given the
lack of documented complaints to the employer beyond that date (as discussed above). In
addition to this, I find there is a significant gap in the medical evidence from December 18, 2017
to May 30, 2018. This is particularly relevant given that on December 15, 2017, the worker was
advised to return to the hospital when she was symptomatic so that further testing for carbon
monoxide poisoning could be conducted. There is no indication that she returned to the hospital,
which suggests a resolution of symptoms associated with carbon monoxide exposure by
December 18, 2017. The worker did not address why she waited approximately 5½ months
before visiting Dr. Hollman if she remained symptomatic.
[129] Additionally, I find the worker did not lose time from work as a result of carbon monoxide
exposure from mid-December 2017 to May 30, 2018, which is further support that
her symptoms had resolved. In deciding this, I note that in her teleclaim application, the worker
advised that she had not missed any time from work as a result of the indoor air quality issues
27
150, 4600 Jacombs Road, Richmond, B.C. V6V 3B1
Tel: (604) 664-7800 | 1-800-663-2782
Fax: (604) 664-7898 | wcat.bc.ca