N.B. court upholds denial of further benefits after workplace wrist injury

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has upheld the denial of further workers’ compensation benefits to a personal support worker, finding no reviewable error in a tribunal’s conclusion that his workplace injury had temporarily worsened a pre-existing wrist condition rather than permanently aggravated it.

In Doucette v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2026 NBCA 81, Justice LeBlanc explained why the court dismissed Noël Doucette’s appeal on April 14, 2026. The reasons were released July 9, with Justices Drapeau and Dysart concurring. Each side was left to bear its own costs.

The decision distinguishes continuing symptoms from continuing effects of a workplace accident. The court did not say Doucette’s underlying condition had disappeared. It upheld the tribunal’s finding that the accident-related worsening had resolved and was no longer materially contributing to those symptoms.

Benefits ended after the commission found the workplace injury had resolved

Doucette, a personal support worker with the Vitalité Regional Health Authority, injured his right wrist at work in January 2023. He received wage-replacement benefits, medical aid and vocational rehabilitation services until October 2023, when the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission determined that his compensable injury had resolved and he could return to work.

The commission’s Decision Review Office upheld that determination in March 2024. A separate decision rejected a claim that a left wrist and hand condition was linked to the same accident. After the review office upheld that decision in July 2024, Doucette sought reconsideration of both decisions, relying on material he described as new evidence. The commission refused reconsideration in September, finding the evidence was not new and would not change the outcome.

Doucette then appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, where he testified with the assistance of a worker’s advocate. The tribunal dismissed his appeal on January 28, 2025. His further appeal raised challenges to how it assessed the evidence, determined causation and applied the test for ending benefits.

Temporary worsening and permanent aggravation are different

Under the Workers’ Compensation Act provisions considered by the court, an aggravation is a permanent clinical effect of an accident on a pre-existing disease or condition. An exacerbation is a temporary clinical effect. Compensation is payable for effects reasonably attributable to the workplace injury, not for the natural progression of the underlying condition.

The medical evidence was divided. An orthopedic surgeon who treated Doucette considered that the accident had worsened his existing arthritis and later expressed the view that its progression had likely accelerated. She also acknowledged uncertainty about whether the arthritis would have progressed to the same extent without the injury.

Other evidence pointed in a different direction. A September 2023 MRI found no new acute traumatic injury in the right wrist and identified degenerative changes associated with arthritis. An October multidisciplinary assessment by Canadian Health Solutions concluded that the compensable injury and any associated temporary worsening had resolved, while the chronic degenerative condition remained.

The tribunal gave greater weight to the latter assessment, explaining that it relied on imaging and specialist assessment, whereas the treating surgeon had not explained the evidentiary basis for her opinion. The appeal court found that the tribunal had addressed the conflicting evidence and applied the commission’s decision-making policy, rather than simply overlooking evidence favourable to Doucette.

The appeal was not a fresh weighing of the medical record

The court explained that questions of law or jurisdiction are reviewed for correctness. Factual findings, and mixed findings without a separable legal question, attract the more deferential palpable-and-overriding-error standard in determining whether the tribunal decided the case on its real merits.

Doucette argued that the tribunal had imposed an unfair burden, failed to consider all the evidence and improperly preferred the multidisciplinary assessment to his own account and his surgeon’s opinion. The court rejected those arguments. His testimony and reported symptoms were part of the record, and the tribunal assessed both objective and subjective evidence together.

The decision-making policy allowed the tribunal to assess relevance and reliability and to give greater weight to objective evidence where supported by consistent opinions from multiple sources. The court also stressed that administrative reasons need not mention every argument, statutory provision or item of evidence to withstand review.

The left wrist and hand claim failed on the evidence linking it to the accident. The tribunal relied on the absence of that injury from the initial accident and medical reports and the later timing of the claim. It concluded there was no objective evidence establishing the required connection.

Ongoing symptoms did not establish ongoing accident-related disability

Doucette also argued that an ongoing disability should be presumed to result from an established workplace injury. The court treated causation as a factual question. Once the tribunal reasonably found that the temporary worsening caused by the accident had subsided, its conclusion that the accident no longer materially contributed to the ongoing symptoms was entitled to deference.

Finally, Doucette argued that the tribunal should have asked whether he had returned to his usual pre-accident state, rather than whether his injury had resolved. The court found no use of the wrong test. Read as a whole, the tribunal’s reasons meant that the temporary accident-related effect had ended, not that the underlying arthritis or every symptom had disappeared.

The appeal was dismissed without a new benefits award or an order for reconsideration. The ruling is tied to the medical record and the tribunal’s assessment in this case. It does not exclude compensation simply because a worker had a pre-existing condition; the decisive question was what continuing effects were attributable to the workplace accident.