Poverty status of worker compensation claimants with permanent impairments

Abstract

Poverty levels have proven to be pernicious in Canada, with particular groups at heightened risk of poverty. Given that people with disabilities are consistently identified as among those ‘at risk’, we seek to determine the extent to which injured workers/worker compensation claimants who had sustained bodily impairments live in poverty. Employing two poverty indicators, we describe the poverty levels of Ontario injured workers with permanent impairments at an average of 52 months post-injury. For one indicator, we describe proximity to/depth of poverty; and in bivariate and multivariate analyses, we examine the factors associated with poverty in the post-injury period. Estimated poverty rates for the injured worker sample – ranging from 17 to 26% – compare unfavourably to published estimates of poverty in the general population of working-aged Canadians/Ontarians and equate to those of Canadians/Ontarians with disabilities. Pre-injury employment characteristics and income status only partly account for post-injury poverty, pre-injury health does not. Sample members in post-injury poverty were more likely to report having sustained multiple injuries at the workplace, were less likely to have returned to employment or to have recovered pre-injury earnings, and yet contributed significantly more to post-injury household incomes than those not in post-injury poverty. We discuss the implications of the findings for worker compensation boards that adjudicate and have final authority on worker claims for compensation for harms sustained in the workplace.

Keywords:

• poverty
• injured workers
• disability
• worker compensation

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge, with gratitude, staff of the Ontario WSIB Intelligence and Innovation Branch, Prevention Division, for identifying the sampling frame and producing the recruitment roster; and the injured workers, for participating in the survey.

Notes

1. Poverty estimates are based on household income. In the RAACWI survey, annual, before-tax household income was reported, to the nearest thousand dollars, by 76% of the sample. Eighteen percent elected to report a household income category from among 12 category options measured in $10,000 units; in these cases, the mid-point of the category was imputed for household income. This resulted in household income data for 94% of the sample.

2. In the survey, annual before-tax personal income for the pre-injury and post-injury period was reported (to the nearest $1000) by 83 and 89.5% of the sample. An additional 15 and 9% elected to report personal income as a category; as with household income, they selected from among 12 categorical responses for pre-injury and post-injury personal income. The mid-point of the income category was imputed for personal income in these cases. This resulted in personal income data for 98% of the sample in the pre-injury period, and for 98.4% of the sample in the post-injury period.

3. A major study limitation was the exclusion of injured workers without English-fluency. This likely influenced the numbers of immigrants achieved in the sample, and our inability to address immigration status – an important risk factor for poverty in the literature.

4. This variable is one of the four variables derived from the sum of diagnosed conditions/impairments, and undiagnosed health problems from a list of 42 conditions in the study survey. For each condition present, a respondent was asked to indicate if its onset occurred prior to or after the workplace incident that resulted in a WSIB claim, and if he/she attributed it to the workplace incident.

5. Many – 40% of injured workers – did not know or recall the WSIB designated impairment level that determined their NEL award.

6. For example, J. McKinnon, (personal communication, May 30, 2014) explains that Ontario’s experience rating programme can impose major penalties on employers whose claims’ frequency or cost is higher than usual for their industry. Keeping a worker with a permanent impairment is a liability because of the probability of lost time in the future. The incentives are to get the benefits cut-off or get the worker to resign or be fired for other reasons.

7. For example, the practice of ‘deeming’ – where a worker completes a training programme and is ‘deemed’ employable and consequently benefits are reduced by the income deemed to be received from that job (Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997), regardless of actual employment status; and current efforts to formalize a policy that disqualifies persons with pre-existing conditions from receiving on-going benefits for a permanent impairment (Monsebraaten, 2014).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada – Community-University Research Alliance funding envelope [grant number 833-2005-1012].