An electrician's sneezing fit that aggravated symptoms from a back injury he'd sustained on the job seven years earlier may result in compensation spanning nearly 15 years.

The Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal ruled last week that a Yukon-based worker should be compensated for lost wages and medical benefits in a case that dates back to 1999.

The 56-year-old worker, who at the time ran a one-man contracting business, suffered an injury to his lower back while working in a crowded crawl space on May 25, 2006.

A "sneezing episode” in the crawl space likely caused a disc protrusion that in turn necessitated surgery the following year, according to an orthopaedic surgeon cited in the ruling.

"This disc protrusion ... is directly related to the annular tear from 1999,” Dr. Cory Cundal wrote in July 2011. The annular tear "has been the culprit all along.

Cundal was referring to an earlier on-the-job injury sustained by the electrician when a drill he was operating overhead suddenly seized.

That work-related injury, which Cundal said caused the worker to be "severely disabled with back pain for several months,” was already recognized by the Yukon Workers Health and Safety Compensation Board.

"He has never really fully recovered,” Cundal said.

"(T)he injury suffered in in 2006 is directly linked to the 1999 injury,” the appeal tribunal concluded last month.

The worker's identity is confidential, and his name is not revealed in the appeal tribunal's decision.

After each incident, the worker eventually returned to "modified duties” and maintained gainful employment, according to the decision.

Once the decision is vetted by the workers' compensation board, the amount in wages the electrician lost can be determined.

"We're going to have to go back years to try and determine exactly what the years' worth of expenses, ledgers, earnings are,” board spokesperson Richard Mostyn said today.

The worker will be entitled to his "average weekly earnings, up to the maximum wage rate for a week,” according to the territorial Workers' Compensation Act.

The board will review the decision to make sure it complies with the act, likely within two months, Mostyn said.

"We exist to compensate workers for injuries suffered on the job,” he added. "That is our goal.”

The appeal tribunal's decision on April 29 overturned an appeal ruling from earlier this year. That ruling was stayed by the workers' compensation board.

Its board of directors said the three-person committee did not make it clear "whether WCAT (the tribunal) decided that the 2006 incident was a continuation of the 1999 injury.”

Initially, the 2006 mishap was not accepted as a work-related injury, since it involved merely sneezing.

But the likelihood that the resultant disc protrusion stemmed from an on-the-job injury in 1999, as verified by Cundal, aligns with territorial legislation that permits compensation for recurrences of work-related accidents.

The case has a long history, dating back to November 2007, when an initial ruling turned down the worker's attempt at compensation.