Recognizing an occupational disease doesn't necessarily mean that every resulting health limitation is compensable under the same claim. That distinction was central to Decision No. 1692/06, 2008 ONWSIAT 611.
The compensation Board had accepted that the worker had asbestosis, an occupational lung disease. A separate question arose about entitlement to a permanent impairment award. According to the tribunal's published summary, the worker had respiratory limitations, but those limitations were attributable to other compensable and noncompensable conditions rather than to the accepted asbestosis.
The Tribunal therefore did not award additional compensation for permanent impairment caused by asbestosis. The result doesn't mean that the disease wasn't genuine or work related. It reflects a narrower finding about the cause of the worker's functional restrictions in this particular evidentiary record.
The practical point is that diagnosis, work relatedness and measurable impairment can be distinct questions in a compensation assessment. A condition may be accepted as occupational while the medical evidence attributes a claimed limitation to something else. Assessing those steps separately can matter to the outcome.
The official summary doesn't provide the underlying clinical measurements, specific alternate diagnoses or the worker's detailed medical history. It's therefore not a basis for general medical conclusions about asbestosis.
Source note: This analysis relies on the WSIAT's brief official counsel summary rather than the unavailable full historical decision.