The victim of a work-related accident or an occupational disease has the right to physical rehabilitation as required by the state of his health. In an unfortunate situation, it may be that the treatment provided by doctors triggered a new injury or lead to complications and worsened the physical condition of the injured worker.

Article 31 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases [1] (hereinafter the Act) provides that an injury or disease arising out of, or in connection with, the care received by a worker for a work-related injury, or due to the lack of such care, can be considered an employment injury within the meaning of the Act and compensable by the CSST.

For example, consider the case of the worker who suffered a knee injury which was approved by the CSST in the decision Modulfab inc. and Demers 2013 QCCLP 4334. Following necessary surgery to take care of the initial lesion, he developed patellofemoral pain syndrome that required extra care. The Commission des lésions professionnelles then ruled that the patellofemoral pain syndrome was indeed a work injury within the meaning of Article 31 of the Act.

In addition, under Article 329 of the Act, the employer may submit to the CSST an application for transferring costs, and charge all or part of the cost of the benefits for this new lesion to the employers of all of the units.


[1] An injury or a disease is considered to be an employment injury if it arises out of or in the course of:

 1° the care received by a worker for an employment injury or the lack of such care;
 2° an activity prescribed to the worker as part of the medical treatment he receives for an employment injury or as part of his personal rehabilitation program.
The first paragraph does not apply if the injury or disease gives rise to compensation under the Automobile Insurance Act (chapter A-25), the Act to promote good citizenship (chapter C-20) or the Crime Victims Compensation Act (chapter I-6).