A Quebec labor tribunal has determined that a ruptured breast implant is a compensable work-related injury after a City of Kirkland gardener was struck by a branch. The ruling requires the employer to provide partial reimbursement for surgical costs incurred at a private clinic.
The April 17 wood chipper accident in Kirkland
The incident occurred on April 17, 2023, while a gardener employed by the City of Kirkland was performing her duties. According to the report, the worker was feeding dead branches into a wood chipper when a large branch became jammed and recoiled, striking her forcefully in the right breast. The impact caused immediate pain, leading the employee to notify her employer at the end of her shift and subsequently seek medical attention from a plastic surgeon.
Following the accident, the worker underwent an MRI in August 2023, which confirmed a small tear in the right breast implant. Because the necessary corrective surgery was not available through the public health-care system, the gardener sought treatment at a private clinic. Her surgeon recommended that both implants be replaced simultaneously, even though the left implant had not been damaged by the wood chipper accident.
The City of Kirkland's 'living tissue' legal challenge
The City of Kirkland initially contested the claim, arguing that the rupture did not meet the legal definition of an injury under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases. The city's legal position was that the law only covers lesions to "living tissue," and since a silicone implant is a synthetic object, its rupture should not qualify as a workplace injury. The City of Kirkland further suggested that the rupture might have been an incidental discovery related to the worker's personal activities rather than the workplace accident.
However, the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAL) rejected this narrow interpretation. The TAL ruled that the biological status of the implant is not the deciding factor. Instead, the tribunal adopted a broad interpretation of the concept of injury, classifying the implant as the equivalent of a body structure. This decision ensures that workers with medical augmentations are not excluded from protections simply because the damaged part is not organic tissue.
The CNESST's initial $2,435.62 reimbursement offer
The financial dispute centered on the gap between public and private healthcare costs. The worker filed a claim with the Commission des normes,de l'equite, de la sante et de la securite du travail (CNESST) for $12,417, which covered the cost of two new implants and general anesthesia. As the report says, the CNESST initially determined the worker was only entitled to $2,435.62, a figure based on what the surgery would have cost if performed within the public health plan.
This discrepancy highlighted a systemic gap in the Quebec healthcare system, where certain reconstructive or corrective surgeries for implants are not provided. the worker was forced to use a private clinic to resolve the injury, creating a conflict over whether the employer should be responsible for the higher private-sector costs resulting from a workplace accident.
Splitting the $9,750 cost for private surgery
In its final decision, the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAL) ruled that it would be unfair to force the worker to bear the bulk of the expenses for an injury sustained during her employment. Because the surgery was unavaliable in the public system, the TAL affirmed the worker's right to choose a private provider.. However, the tribunal noted that only the right implant was actually injured during the wood chipper accident.
Consequently, the TAL ordered a partial reimbursement. The gardener was awarded half of the $9,750 cost for the replacement of both implants, plus the full $1,050 cost for general anesthesia. This ruling balances the employer's liability for the specific injury with the worker's choice to replace a non-injured implant for symmetry and medical consistency.
Unresolved gaps in public care and medical evidence
Despite the ruling, several points remain unlear. The source does not explain why the public health-care system specifically excludes this type of corrective surgery, leaving a question about the accessibility of care for injured workers with implants. Additionally, while the TAL accepted the link between the branch strike and the rupture, the report does not specify if the City of Kirkland provided any expert medical testimony to support their claim that the rupture was an "incidental discovery" unrelated to the accident.
Comments 0