Neutral Citation: 1992 ONICDRG 29

File No. A-000380

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

ANTONIO PROVENZANO

Applicant

and

METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Antonio Provenzano, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 19, 1990. He applied for and received weekly accident benefits payable under Regulation 273/90 (the "No-Fault Benefits Schedule"), under the Ontario Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

The Applicant's weekly income benefits were terminated effective May 22, 1991, on the basis of his failure to make progress in a rehabilitation program. The Applicant disputed the termination of his benefits.

The Applicant applied for mediation of his dispute with the Insurer. The mediation was unsuccessful, and the Applicant subsequently applied for the appointment of an arbitrator.

The issue to be determined at the arbitration hearing was:

Is the Applicant entitled to weekly income benefits from May 22, 1991 onwards?

The Applicant also claimed interest on any outstanding amounts and his expenses incurred at the hearing.

Result:

The decision is:

The Applicant is entitled to weekly income benefits from May 22, 1991 onwards.

Hearing:

A hearing was held at Niagara Falls, Ontario, on February 3, and 4, and resumed on February 25, 1992, before me, Frederika Rotter, Senior Arbitrator.

Present at the hearing were:

Applicant:

Antonio Provenzano

Applicant's Representative:

Joseph Nicoletti

Barrister & Solicitor

Insurer's Representative:

J. Claude Blouin

Barrister & Solicitor

Witnesses:

Antonio Provenzano, Applicant

Joe Caruso, Applicant's son-in-law

Giuseppina Provenzano, Applicant's spouse

Mary Caruso, Applicant's daughter

Mary Wegner, Rehabilitation Consultant

John Halpenny, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), Orthopaedic Surgeon

George Lewitzky, M.D., General Practitioner

Mark A. Bosilac, Doctor of Chiropractic

Peter Joseph Lanni, Registered Physiotherapist

Gabriel Jeremias, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery

Kathy Elaine Palangio, Private Investigator

Maureen Ann Clark, Bookkeeper, Salit Steel

Debbie Diamanti, Claims Supervisor, Metropolitan Insurance Company

The proceedings were interpreted to the Applicant by Dora D'Uva, an Italian interpreter. A court reporter was present to record the proceedings on February 3 and 4, 1992.

Documents before the Arbitrator:

Application for appointment of an arbitrator in Form 4, dated July 30, 1991

Response in Form 5, dated September 6, 1991

Report of Mediator, dated August 15, 1991

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1

Report of Mary Wegner, Progressive Rehabilitation Consultants Inc., dated November 1, 1990

Exhibit 2

Report of Mary Wegner, Progressive Rehabilitation Consultants Inc., dated March 6, 1991

Exhibit 3

Report of Mary Wegner, Progressive Rehabilitation Consultants Inc., dated May 7, 1991

Exhibit 4

Final Report of Mary Wegner, Progressive Rehabilitation Consultants Inc., dated June 4, 1991

Exhibit 5

Report of Dr. John Halpenny, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated March 22, 1991

Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10

Reports from Dr. George Lewitzky, dated November 23, 1989, November 8, 1990, February 6, 1991, April 24, 1991 and May 1, 1991

Exhibits 11A & 11B

Report from Sujeeth Perera, Registered Physiotherapist, dated December 5, 1990 and copy of referral from Dr. Lewitzky, dated October 31, 1990

Exhibit 12

Report of Mark A. Bosilac, B.Sc. (HON), Doctor of Chiropractic, Centre for Vocational Evaluations and Rehabilitation Services Ltd., (undated)

Exhibits 13 & 14

Discharge Reports from Peter Lanni, Canadian Back Institute, dated January 31, 1991 and May 14, 1991

Exhibit 15

Report from G. Jeremias, M.D., C.M., Orthopaedic Surgery, dated March 15, 1991

Exhibits 16A 16B

& Letter from Frances Cleary, Claims Representative, Metropolitan Insurance dated May 28, 1991 and attached Assessment of Claim by Insurer, dated May 28, 1991

Evidence:

Mr. Antonio Provenzano gave viva voce evidence under oath with the assistance of Dora D'Uva, an Italian interpreter.

The Applicant has lived in Niagara Falls, Ontario for 14 years. He is married and has a married daughter who does not live at home.

The Applicant testified that he was born in San Biasi, Italy in 1942 and came to Canada towards the end of 1974. He completed first grade and some of the second grade in Italy and has had no other education. He does not speak, read or write English. Prior to coming to Canada, he worked in Germany and Italy, in factory, construction, and agricultural work.

When the Applicant came to Canada, he went straight to work and did not study or attend school. He worked in construction, and then laying asphalt. In 1975, he started working at Salit Steel. He has worked there ever since, and last worked there on April 3, 1991.

The Applicant testified that he worked as a shearer of steel reinforcing rods. His job was to lay 60 foot long steel rods, of various thicknesses, on a roller. A machine would cut the rods to the required length. The Applicant testified that this was heavy work. He was always on his feet and had to bend frequently to lift the steel rods up and down. The Applicant had to ensure that the rods were laid straight on the roller and were cut to the correct length.

The rods were dumped on a belt from a truck. The Applicant's job involved lifting the steel rods, throwing them onto the roller and adjusting them as required. They were then cut and sometimes bent to their required length and shape. The cutting machine was located a few feet from the area where the Applicant worked. After the steel was cut, it was chained in bundles, and carried away with a crane. The Applicant was responsible for lifting the cut product when necessary.

The Applicant explained that some of the rods are quite heavy and may weigh more than 20 pounds.

The Applicant testified that he always worked with other individuals in the plant. In addition to his specific duties, he would go from one area to another to help out as required. For example, he would often carry bundles of steel to the truck. The bundles of steel rods were laid on 2 x 4's in the truck, then the chains were removed from the bundles.

The Applicant's duties also included cleaning up at the end of a job. He would pick up debris from the floors, sweep up any scraps of steel, and throw the scrap steel into a box. The Applicant testified that, although the work was rather heavy, it did not bother him before his motor vehicle accidents.

Prior to 1987, the Applicant had no back pain and enjoyed very good health. He had missed very little work. He had been absent for seven or eight weeks for a work-related accident, however, his back was not involved.

The Applicant testified that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 14, 1987. His back and neck were injured and he was obliged to stay off work. He was treated by Dr. Lewitzky, his family doctor, and Dr. Halpenny, an orthopaedic surgeon. He was absent from work for approximately 18 months. He was first absent for a year, returned to work, and then took another period of absence, which lasted approximately six months. During that second period of absence, he participated in a therapy program at the Canadian Back Institute ("C.B.I.").

The Applicant testified that at that time he was happy with the treatment at the Canadian Back Institute. After the therapy, he missed perhaps a day or two from work when his back was really bothering him. However, he was generally able to work, although he still had some pain, and his back sometimes bothered him at the end of the day.

After he had been back at work steadily for about six months, the Applicant was involved in a second motor vehicle accident on September 19, 1990. His vehicle was struck from behind at an intersection, while he was attempting to make a left turn. The Applicant testified that he re-injured his back and neck.

When the accident occurred, the Applicant's infant grandson was with him in the car. The Applicant went straight to the hospital, since he was worried that the child might have been hurt. The Applicant testified that he started feeling pain in his back and neck immediately after the accident. He remained at the hospital about five hours. X-rays of his neck were taken. The Applicant was discharged with pain pills, and advised to see his family physician, which he did the next day.

The Applicant testified that he complained to Dr. Lewitzky of pain in both his neck and back. Although his back had been bothering him since 1987, the injury was aggravated after the second accident.

The Applicant confirmed that after the 1989 accident he applied for benefits from the Insurer. His daughter filled out the claim form and he signed it. He told his daughter what to write in the application for benefits. The Applicant testified that, although the claim form only refers to the fact that he injured his neck and has headaches, his back also bothered him.

The Applicant testified that Dr. Lewitzky again referred him to Dr. Halpenny, the orthopaedic specialist. The Applicant complained to Dr. Halpenny both about his back and about his neck. Dr. Halpenny sent the Applicant to physiotherapy. The physiotherapy treatment dealt with both his neck and his back problems, with concentration on his back.

Dr. Halpenny again recommended therapy at the C.B.I. The Applicant attended the program, but was discharged after approximately three months. He testified that he attended at the C.B.I. every morning for about 50 minutes. He forced himself to do the exercises prescribed for him because he wished to get better, however, he testified, after doing the exercises, he would feel severe pain.

The Applicant stated that he did not know why his treatment at the C.B.I. was terminated. He suggested that it might have been because the Insurer would not pay. He still does exercises at home daily.

The Applicant testified that after his accident he continued to see Dr. Lewitzky approximately once a week and he also saw Dr. Halpenny regularly.

The Applicant testified that he attempted to return to work on April 3, 1991, on the advice of his doctors. He tried to perform the light duty he had been assigned, which was sweeping the parking lot, but could only work for less than three hours. The Applicant testified that sweeping the parking lot was quite heavy work because the lot was very dirty with lots of rocks.

He testified that after about two hours his back hurt so much that he could not straighten up. He therefore told his boss that he could not continue to do the job, and went home. Immediately afterwards, the Applicant saw his family doctor. He subsequently saw Dr. Halpenny.

The Applicant testified that his back has not improved since the accident in September 1990. His back condition has worsened since the second accident and his back now bothers him much more than it did previously. Because of that, he has not been able to return to work. He liked his work and prior to the accident was earning approximately $14.60 an hour.

The Applicant testified that he still experiences problems sitting for more than 15 minutes. Standing in one position also bothers him. He is better off in motion than maintaining a still posture. However, his back bothers him after he has been walking for about 15 minutes. He also gets a cramp in his left knee. He still experiences spasms in his back from time to time, and his upper neck still bothers him.

The Applicant now cannot do many of the things he used to do before the accident, such as working in his garden, and planting tomatoes. Since the accident, he has not been able to shovel or dig up the earth. His wife and son-in-law now do the gardening.

The Applicant also testified that, since the accident, he cannot do household chores like clearing the snow from the driveway or raking the grass. His wife helps him with personal tasks like getting dressed and tying his shoes. She puts a hot towel on his back when the pain is particularly bad. He bothers his wife a lot at night when he cannot sleep because his back hurts.

When the pain is most severe, the Applicant takes strong medications which alleviate the pain temporarily.

In cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he had been sent by his employer's insurer to various doctors before he returned to work.

The Applicant was cross-examined about his garden and testified that he has about 15 or 16 tomato plants in his back yard. He denied that there are about 50 or 60 plants. He testified that half the back yard is grass and half of it is used for the garden.

The Applicant testified that his wife planted the tomatoes in the spring of 1991, and denied that he did the planting. He testified that he helped put in some of the stakes to support the tomato plants. His son-in-law staked the majority of the plants. The Applicant confirmed that prior to planting the tomatoes, the soil in the back yard was turned over with a rotor tiller. His son-in-law brought the rotor tiller on a truck, and used the machine. The Applicant denied helping his son-in-law lift the rotor tiller. He testified that he might have touched the machine, but he did not actually lift it himself.

The Applicant indicated that his yard is approximately 30 feet wide, and perhaps 150 feet long. He had never used a rotor tiller on his back yard prior to the accident.

Joe Caruso gave evidence under oath on behalf of the Applicant. He is the Applicant's son-in-law, and lives in Niagara Falls with his wife, about one and half kilometres away from the Applicant's home. The son-in-law often visits the Applicant's home. He testified that his father-in-law's lot is about 150 feet long, from the street to the end of the lot, but that the backyard garden is about 30' x 30'.

Mr. Caruso testified that he has helped his father-in-law with the garden since the accident. He helped him turn over the soil, plant his tomatoes, and stake the plants in May 1991. He dug up the soil with a small 5 h.p. rotor tiller, which he owns and keeps at his home.

He testified that in May 1991 he transported the machine to his father-in-law's home, in his pickup truck. In cross-examination, he confirmed that the exact date was April 25, 1991. The machine weighs between 90 and 100 pounds and the weight of the machine is concentrated in the front, where the motor is located. Mr. Caruso is capable of lifting the machine into his pickup truck himself. He generally lifts it at the front end, because that is where the weight is located.

Mr. Caruso testified that he removed the machine from the truck himself, although his father-in-law was there and assisted by guiding the handles of the machine. The handles are located at the rear of the machine and weigh about three or four pounds. Mr. Caruso then wheeled the machine to the backyard and dug up the garden. His father-in-law did not handle or utilize the machine while it was running. Mr. Caruso testified that he himself lifted the machine back into the truck, although his father-in-law might have held onto the handles at the back.

Mr. Caruso testified that his father-in-law had perhaps 15 or 20 tomato plants in his garden. He testified that he himself put the stakes for the plants into the ground, and his mother-in-law tied the plants to the stakes, with his help.

Mr. Caruso also testified that he generally mows the grass for his father-in-law and has done so since the accident. He also does the snow ploughing for his father-in-law. His father-in-law often complains about his back, and that he cannot work or do any chores around the house.

Giuseppina Provenzano, the Applicant's wife, gave viva voce evidence about her husband's motor vehicle accidents.

She testified that in September 1990, the Applicant re-injured the same area of his back which had been injured in the accident of 1987. After the second accident, the Applicant constantly complained about his back and neck. Mrs. Provenzano often had to help her husband get dressed. He slept poorly. She still must help her husband from time to time, and often massages his back when he has pain.

Mrs. Provenzano testified that prior to his accidents the Applicant used to do the gardening in the back yard. Since the last accident, she and her son-in-law have done the gardening. They planted the tomatoes and tied the plants to stakes. Her husband was unable to help, and he simply watched.

Mary Caruso gave evidence under oath on behalf of the Applicant. She is the Applicant's daughter and is married to Joe Caruso. She sees her parents every day, either at their house or hers. She lives about a five minute walk away from her parents' home.

She testified that she was aware that her father was involved in two motor vehicle accidents. Prior to the two accidents, he used to garden, cut his own grass, and shovel his driveway in the winter. He would occasionally do other household tasks, such as sweeping the floor, or cooking supper. He would visit friends, and play cards. He did not require assistance with any of his chores or personal tasks.

Prior to his motor vehicle accidents, the Applicant used to dig the garden himself with a shovel. The Applicant's wife would plant the tomatoes, but the Applicant would place the stakes, tie the plants to the stakes, and water the plants.

The witness testified that in the months before the Applicant's second accident, he had started doing his outside chores, which he had stopped doing after the first accident. He still had problems with digging and therefore her husband used to help him dig the garden with a rotor tiller. However, he was able to mow the grass and do other gardening work.

The witness confirmed that after the second accident the Applicant first complained mostly about his neck. After about two weeks, he started complaining about having re-injured his back. The witness testified that her mother had to help the Applicant with tasks such as putting on his shoes. He had trouble going upstairs to his bedroom and her mother had to assist him on the stairs.

Her father has stopped doing most outside activities. He cannot walk for more than about five minutes. He cannot stand up for very long and the witness noted that he is always holding his back. He is able to sit for a while, then he gets up. The witness testified that she has not seen the Applicant lift anything since the second accident. He is not capable of lifting her five year old son to play with him, although this is something that the Applicant used to do frequently prior to the accident. The child weighs about 40 pounds.

The Applicant is not capable of picking up something that falls to the ground. The witness has not observed the Applicant kneel or stoop. He does not kneel at church, but simply sits.

The witness testified that the Applicant's attitude has changed. He is now moody and complaining all the time, and normally appears to be quite miserable. Prior to the second accident, he used to laugh and joke and frequently would play with his grandson.

The witness confirmed that she has assisted her father in looking for light duty jobs at the Canada Employment Centre. She assisted him in dealing with the insurance company and in filling out the insurance claim forms. She also assisted the Applicant in applying for a disability pension from the Canada Pension Plan.

Mary Wegner gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant. She has a degree in psychology from McMaster University, obtained in 1979. She outlined her professional experience and indicated that she has worked as a rehabilitation co-ordinator and counsellor for victims of motor vehicle accidents for approximately five years. She is usually retained by a lawyer or an insurance company to assess the client and devise a rehabilitation plan. The objective is to restore the individual back to the work force as soon as possible.

The witness testified that she was retained by the Insurer and became involved in the Applicant's case because she understands and speaks Italian.

The witness first met the Applicant in September 1989 following his accident in 1987. She arranged for the Applicant's attendance at the C.B.I. program, and he returned to work following the program.

The witness was contacted by the insurance company after the Applicant's second accident. Although the Applicant was able to return to work following the first accident, he has not been able to do so since the second accident. When the witness saw the Applicant on October 24, 1990, after his second accident, he complained about his lower back problems, neck pain and headaches. He felt that the accident had aggravated his entire back area.

The witness spoke to the Applicant's family physician, Dr. Lewitzky, and also contacted Dr. Halpenny, the orthopaedic consultant, to ascertain the Applicant's ability to function. The witness was aware of the Applicant's level of skills and education, and that he had always done some type of repetitive manual labour. She felt that the best plan for him was to return to the C.B.I., with the ultimate goal of returning to his old job. Because of the Applicant's education and language limitations, it would be unrealistic to expect that he could be trained for other work.

The witness testified that she next saw the Applicant on February 19, 1991. He complained that his neck pain, headaches and lower back pain were persisting. He indicated that he was attending at the C.B.I. on a daily basis and he was doing his best with the exercises.

The witness testified that she spoke to the therapist at the C.B.I., who indicated that the Applicant's progress was very slow.

The witness saw the Applicant on April 3, 1991, the day he tried to return to work. He appeared very frustrated. He had been asked to clean the parking lot, which had a lot of dirt and rocks in it. As a result of trying to work, he experienced neck pain and headaches and became dizzy. He had to go home.

After April 3, 1991, the witness spoke to the Applicant, but did not see him again. She understood that he had stopped attending at the C.B.I., but was still carrying on with his exercises at home. She asked him why he had been discharged, and he stated that he could not do everything that was asked of him at the C.B.I. The witness testified that the Applicant had never indicated to her that he did not wish to return to work.

In cross-examination, the witness confirmed that the employer was willing to assist the Applicant as much as possible. She suggested that perhaps the Applicant might have done better if he had gone back to his own job rather than trying to do a cleaning job. She confirmed that, when she spoke to the Applicant, he said that the angle at which he had to push the broom aggravated his neck and back.

Dr. John Halpenny gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant. He is a self-employed physician, who received a certificate in family practice in 1977 and completed his degree in orthopaedic surgery in 1985. He acts as a consultant in orthopaedic problems and sometimes does surgery.

Dr. Halpenny first saw the Applicant on January 21, 1988, subsequent to his motor vehicle accident in November 1987. The Applicant had sustained a soft tissue injury. The specialist referred the Applicant to the C.B.I. program in the summer of 1989.

The specialist saw the Applicant again on December 27, 1989. At that time, the Applicant had returned to work but his back pain was persisting. His back would ache at the end of the day.

The Applicant had his second accident in September 1990. Prior to the accident, he had been steadily employed and his back was mostly resolved, although he still had some complaints of pain.

The specialist saw the Applicant on November 16, 1990. At that time, he complained of headaches, neck pain and back pain. The specialist testified that his physical findings substantiate the Applicant's complaints. When the specialist saw the Applicant, he was complaining mostly of his neck, but the specialist assumed that the accident had also re-aggravated the back problem. The specialist referred to Exhibit 5, his report dated March 22, 1991, which refers to tenderness from L4 to the sacrum, which is the lower lumbar area to the pelvis.

The specialist did not believe that the Applicant could return to work when he saw him. He ordered medication for the Applicant, and again referred him for therapy at the C.B.I.

The specialist saw the Applicant again in January 1991. He was still complaining of his back, neck and head injuries, and the aggravation of his lower back problems. At that point, the specialist felt that it was possible that the Applicant might never be able to return to his former employment, as his back problems had not cleared up. The Applicant might be capable of light duty work only.

The specialist testified that he has seen the Applicant five times since Exhibit 5 was prepared. His opinion has not changed. The Applicant's neck has improved, but the Applicant continues to suffer from lower back problems which prevent him from working.

The specialist confirmed that he is convinced that the Applicant's lower back was re-injured in the second accident.

Dr. George Lewitzky gave viva voce evidence under oath. He is a general practitioner who completed his medical education in 1948, and has had a general practise in Niagara Falls for 27 years. The physician confirmed that he is the Applicant's family doctor and first saw him in 1983 in connection with his blood pressure. He has been responsible for the care of the Applicant following the Applicant's two motor vehicle accidents on November 14, 1987 and on September 19, 1990.

The physician testified that he treated the Applicant for injuries to his neck, lower back and chest after the first accident. The physician confirmed that the Applicant had ongoing low back problems up to the date of the second accident. He saw the Applicant on September 20, 1990, the day after his second automobile accident.

He was seen in the emergency department of the Greater Niagara Hospital on the day of the accident, and an x-ray was done of his skull and neck. An x-ray of the Applicant's back was done on October 17, 1991.

The x-rays of the Applicant's lumbar spine show degenerative changes in his low back and neck. Although degeneration is part of the normal aging process, a car accident may accelerate the degenerative process. The physician confirmed that a car accident would also exacerbate any pre-existing back condition and would make the pain more pronounced than before.

On September 20, 1990, the physician observed that the Applicant had sustained injuries to his neck and skull. One side of his body was sprained. The Applicant suffered from stiffness to his neck. He was given Tylenol 3 to cover all the areas of his pain.

The physician confirmed that he treated the Applicant for pain in his entire body, including his lower back. At the beginning, the Applicant complained more about his neck area. Afterwards, the pain began to spread to his back. The physician confirmed that his notes from October 18, 1990 include a reference to the Applicant's back pain.

The physician definitely felt that the second accident aggravated the condition of the Applicant's back and neck. After the second accident, the Applicant could not return to work at all. He was sent to a physiotherapist. He spent some time at home resting.

The physician confirmed that, as a result of the accident, he saw the Applicant every two to three weeks after September 1990. He referred the Applicant to Dr. Halpenny. He testified that he strongly encouraged the Applicant to return to work.

The physician confirmed that in April 1991, eight months after the accident, he urged the Applicant to try to work. However, the Applicant simply could not do it. The physician believes that the Applicant was doing his best under the circumstances. The physician did not know what kind of work he did, but suggested that the Applicant restrict himself to light work involving no lifting, bending, or sharp movements. He felt that the Applicant would have problems if his company could offer him no such work. The physician confirmed that he saw the Applicant on April 3, 1991, after he went in to work.

Mark Allen Bosilac gave sworn testimony on behalf of the Applicant. He is a licensed doctor of chiropractic medicine, and received his chiropractic degree in 1990. He works for the Centre for Vocational Evaluations and Rehabilitation Services Ltd. ("CVERS") and has been there for about one year. The Centre tests the vocational abilities of injured individuals and tries to reintegrate these people into the work force, if possible, at their previous jobs.

The witness saw the Applicant on Tuesday, November 12, 1991, and spoke to him with the assistance of an interpreter. He performed an evaluation of the Applicant's functional abilities. He confirmed that the Applicant has limited education and cannot speak or read English.

The witness was advised that the Applicant had injured his back and neck and he testified that he could tell that the Applicant definitely had problems with his back and neck. The Applicant displayed problems sitting and standing. The witness performed a palpatory examination of the Applicant's neck and back, and found hypertonicity, which he described as a "real ropiness" in the Applicant's muscles. This indicated to him that the muscles were taking stress.

The witness tested the Applicant's range of motion, including bending forward, extension and rotation. The Applicant showed limitations in all ranges of movement.

The Applicant could only sit comfortably for about 30 minutes, and afterwards experienced discomfort when he tried to rise. He had problems standing for more than 20 minutes.

The Applicant advised the witness that walking made him feel somewhat more comfortable and he tries to walk several blocks each day. The Applicant's gait was slow and deliberate and his movements were very protective of his back.

Functional tests, which required the Applicant to perform various tasks manipulating objects, showed that the Applicant was limited in most uses of his lower back. He was able to lift a maximum of ten pounds, which only qualified him for work at the sedentary level. He was able to tolerate lifting weights at the bench or table level only. Any increase in weight created a great deal of back pain for the Applicant, and he also complained of neck pain with lifting.

Other tests indicated that stooping and kneeling were very difficult for the Applicant and caused intense pressure. Squatting was somewhat more acceptable. The Applicant experienced difficulty rising from both the squatting and kneeling positions. He tolerated overhead reaching very poorly. Overall, the Applicant had very poor endurance for any tasks that put pressure on his lower back.

The Applicant's grip strength is functional. In the grip test, he demonstrated some tremors, which showed that he was making quite an effort and also that he was in some pain. The Applicant displayed normal dexterity, although the tremors in his hand led to a loss of co-ordination.

The Applicant maintained a slow, methodic pace throughout the tests. He co-operated with the testers, but showed no enthusiasm. The witness believes that this was at least partly due to the Applicant's pain. The witness did not think that the Applicant was faking or misrepresenting his pain.

It was recommended that the Applicant be placed in a job where he could do variable standing or sitting. The witness testified that the Applicant was incapable of even moderate work. He tested to the capacity of sedentary duties only. He was restricted to non-strenuous light duties, and to tasks requiring manual skills. The Applicant was not re-trainable because of his limitations in English.

The witness testified that sweeping could be considered a light duty if it is a very short task and done periodically. However, leaning forward and scraping puts stress on the lower back. The Applicant is not capable of doing that kind of job. The witness discussed with the Applicant the contents of his old job, and it is his view that the Applicant is not at all capable of returning to work at his old job.

In cross-examination, the witness confirmed that tenderness is a subjective complaint. He also confirmed that the tests done on the Applicant are to some extent subjective. He must accept a client's word if the client says he is in pain. However, hypertonicity is an objective finding.

The witness confirmed that a positive attitude is an important part of healing and, without such an attitude, the chances of anyone returning to work are reduced.

The witness confirmed that the fact that the Applicant had been sedentary for the past 14 months might decrease his abilities. However, the Applicant's test results were well below the level expected from someone who had merely been sedentary for the past 14 months. The Applicant's loss of functional ability was directly related to the accident.

Peter Joseph Lanni gave evidence on behalf of the Insurer. He testified that he is a registered physiotherapist and has been working at the C.B.I. since January 1989.

The witness testified that the Applicant was his patient after both motor vehicle accidents. After the first accident, the Applicant was referred to the C.B.I. on July 27, 1989 by Dr. John Halpenny, the orthopaedic surgeon. At that time, the Applicant appeared to be suffering from mechanical disc pain as a result of an irritation to a spinal component. The witness' task was to help make the Applicant more functional, so that he could return to work.

The Applicant responded to his treatment at the C.B.I. positively after the first accident. He made good progress in controlling his mechanical pain and tolerated the conditioning program well. At the end of the program, the therapist felt that the Applicant might experience some ongoing symptoms, but he was able to resume functioning in his job.

The physiotherapist testified that when the Applicant was discharged on October 10, 1989, he was capable of lifting 45 pounds from his waist level to his shoulder level. He did not experience pain while working out. He had a full range of motion. His strength had improved and he could lift 60 pounds from the waist to the floor level for some specific duties. In other words, he had marketable physical strength for his former job. He still experienced a general ache in the lower back and peripheral pain in his right thigh area, but, through exercise, he was capable of controlling the problem.

The witness testified that a person in the Applicant's condition in 1989, who comes into the clinic with a two-year history of pain after a traumatic accident, is considered to have a chronic pain problem.

On December 21, 1990, the Applicant was re-admitted to the C.B.I. with a recurrence of his previous problems because of a second motor vehicle accident. He had been referred by his family doctor, Dr. Lewitzky. At that time, the Applicant was complaining of additional symptoms, including pain around his neck and suboccipital headaches. He showed evident signs of a mechanical problem in the cervical area, and re-irritation of the problem in his lower back.

The witness saw the Applicant quite soon after the accident. He testified that the prognosis for recovery in acute cases, when individuals come in shortly after the trauma, is usually better than in chronic cases. Therefore, on this second occasion, the Applicant's prognosis for recovery should have been better than before. However, the physiotherapist testified, the Applicant appeared to be magnifying his symptoms by responding emotionally to the pain.

The physiotherapist testified that within one month he had determined that the Applicant was not going to respond to the treatment, due to his magnification of his pain and not because of his actual physical symptoms. The Applicant's pain level should have changed within four weeks. The first step in any treatment is pain control, that is, helping the patient to control acute pain with a mechanical motion. In this case, the Applicant came in every day and indicated that the pain was the same. Mechanical treatment was not altering the pain by making it either better or worse. The witness indicated that the Applicant may not have been aware or conscious of his magnification response.

The physiotherapist was concerned about the Applicant's attitude and motivation. He indicated that his pain was unbearable and he could not do the exercises. The witness often urged the Applicant to motivate himself. However, the Applicant's rehabilitation was not progressing as it had during the first session in 1989. Therefore, the physiotherapist discharged the Applicant from the program on January 31, 1991.

At the request of the Insurer, the Applicant was re-admitted into the C.B.I. program. The witness felt that the Applicant was moving towards a chronic pain syndrome. No mechanical treatment helped alleviate his pain. He was therefore placed in a sequence training conditioning program, to see if he could progress to a point where mechanical treatment could again be started.

The witness testified that the conditioning program emphasizes strength, endurance, and flexibility. It is designed to assist an individual who experiences pain to function and tolerate the pain. Normally, participants in the program find that their pain is controllable as time goes on.

Participants are expected to attend daily, Monday through Friday. The Applicant attended daily, but rushed through his program and would leave after an hour. All his responses were slowed down. He seemed to forget exercises and routines that he had learned at the first session. He seemed afraid to push himself because he feared producing more pain.

The witness testified that the Applicant does not speak fluent English, and he himself speaks only broken Italian, and so the communication problem might have exacerbated the situation. However, his communication with the Applicant had been adequate on the first attendance at the C.B.I., and so he did not feel an interpreter was necessary. He felt that the problem was that the Applicant was not trying as hard to get better this time, as compared to his efforts the first time.

The witness testified that the Applicant was finally discharged from the program on April 15, 1991. At that point, the Applicant had been working on his conditioning for almost five months, and was not making progress. His condition was not changing or improving. The witness feels that although the Applicant did wish to get better, he was not putting enough effort into the conditioning program.

The Applicant was given a home exercise program when he was discharged.

The witness testified that on average, 30 per cent of individuals are left with a chronic pain syndrome in response to an accident. The Applicant was able to return to work the first time. The second time he should have had a better ability to improve and yet he got worse.

Dr. Gabriel Jeremias gave evidence on behalf of the Insurer. He is a specialist in orthopaedic surgery. He received his M.D. degree from Queens' University in 1958, and he did a residence in orthopaedics at the Mayo Clinic at Rochester, Minnesota in 1963.

Dr. Jeremias testified that he examined the Applicant on March 15, 1991, with the assistance of an interpreter. He found that the Applicant experienced pain, including pain radiating down his leg as far as his heel, following a L5-S1 nerve root irritation, at the bottom of his lumbar spine.

The physician performed a grinding test, placing pressure on top of the Applicant's head. The Applicant reacted with pain.

The physician testified that it is not dangerous for a patient to return to work while still experiencing pain. Often it can be helpful. The risk of re-injury is a reasonable risk under the circumstances. The physician felt it would have been reasonable for the Applicant to return to work in a couple of months.

In cross-examination, the specialist was questioned about the vocational test results. He indicated that the tests were all subjective and relied on the co-operation of the patient.

The specialist agreed that the second accident did re-aggravate the Applicant's symptoms on a temporary basis. He indicated that it is impossible to know if an individual can return to work. A physician cannot prognosticate, and therefore the use of the words "think", "suspect", etc., is deliberate in a medical report.

Kathy Elaine Palangio gave evidence under oath. She is a licensed private investigator and has been employed by Scope Investigations for eight years.

The investigator testified that she did an investigation and surveillance of the Applicant over four days, April 17, 26, 29, and May 18, 1991.

She first saw the Applicant at his residence on Wednesday, April 17, 1991, at 7:53 in the morning. She observed him leave his residence to attend at the C.B.I. He arrived home at 9:14. After that, the Applicant sat in his back yard. Then he drove to his daughter's home. The investigator then discontinued the surveillance.

The investigator next observed the Applicant on Friday, April 26, 1991. She arrived at the Applicant's home at 9:50 in the morning, and saw a beige pickup truck parked in the driveway. She observed a young man, who she identified as the Applicant's son-in-law, using a rotor tiller in the back yard. After the yard was tilled, the young man pushed the rotor tiller to the truck. He lifted the rotor tiller into the truck and the investigator observed that the Applicant grasped the handles of the rotor tiller to guide it into the truck. Once the rotor tiller was on the truck, the young man attended at a neighbour's home to do that back yard. The investigator observed the Applicant guiding the handles of the rotor tiller each time the machine was lifted on and off the truck.

The investigator then observed the Applicant sweeping the driveway after the rotor tiller activities. She videotaped this activity.

The investigator attended at the Applicant's home at 1:00 p.m. on April 29, 1991, and observed the Applicant seated in a lawn chair in his back yard. Shortly afterwards, he went to a food market a couple of doors away, where he talked with a male employee.

On Saturday, May 18, 1991, the investigator attended at the Applicant's home, at 8:00 a.m. She observed the Applicant from the back alley through the slats of a wooden fence, six to seven feet tall. The slats are approximately three inches apart.

The investigator testified that she observed the Applicant in his garden bending forward from the waist and planting small tomato plants. The investigator thought there were about six rows of plants, with approximately ten plants in each row. The investigator went to the front to get a better vantage point and was able to observe the Applicant reaching to the ground to plant a plant. She later observed the Applicant hammering stakes into the ground with a black headed, wooden mallet. The investigator testified that she was able to observe the Applicant's face and noted no grimace or expression of discomfort while he was hammering the stakes.

The investigator testified that she was unable to stay in the driveway to observe further at that point, because of delivery truck traffic and other activity in the lane. Later, after the stakes were put in, the investigator observed the Applicant tying two plants to stakes.

The investigator testified that at 11:46 a.m. she observed the Applicant at an outside tap, filling a green watering jug. He watered the plants from the jug, and when the jug was empty, he repeated the activity. The investigator noted that the Applicant was walking in a normal manner.

At 1:26 p.m., she observed the Applicant seated in a lawn chair as he cut pieces of cord from a roll.

Videotaped evidence was shown, depicting the Applicant assisting in lifting the rotor tiller. The videotape shows that the heavy part of the rotor tiller was lifted by the Applicant's son-in-law, and that the Applicant was guiding the rotor tiller but was not lifting the heavy part.

In cross-examination, the investigator confirmed that she took the videotape film from the parking lot about 150 feet away. The investigator confirmed that she was unable to film the Applicant planting and hammering in the stakes. She testified that she saw the Applicant do that, but she was only able to make a brief observation.

Maureen Ann Clark gave evidence under oath on behalf of the Insurer. She has been working at Salit Steel as a bookkeeper for 24 years. She attended at the hearing under a summons from the Insurer and brought the Applicant's file with her.

She testified that the file indicates that the Applicant started working with the company in August 1975, as a labourer in the shop. She testified that the plant processes steel reinforcing rods, which usually vary from about 3/8 of an inch in diameter to approximately 3/4 of an inch in diameter, although some can be up to an inch in diameter. The rods are approximately 18 meters long (something short of 60 feet). Two individuals handle them, one on each end, because of the rods' awkward length. A crane would put a bundle of ten rods down, and the workers would lift the bundle from the ground and put it on rollers. This was the Applicant's main task. The witness testified that one rod 3/8 of an inch wide weighed approximately 16 pounds. A bundle of ten rods, which was normally lifted between two individuals, would weigh about 160 pounds.

The rods are moved along on rollers and a mechanical arm cuts them. A crane lifts the cut bundles. She testified that the workers would probably lift a small bundle of rods, weighing perhaps 20 pounds, on their own.

The witness was not able to estimate how many times a day the Applicant had to repeat his tasks.

The witness confirmed that the Applicant was also obliged to pick up debris and flip rods and debris into the scrapper bin. The bins were more than five feet tall. If there was a lot of debris, it would be lifted with a crane or using a magnet, but smaller items were generally just thrown into the bin.

The witness was aware of the Applicant's accident of November 14, 1987. After his absences in relation to that accident, he returned to work in November 1989 and worked until September 1990 doing the same job as he had done previously.

The witness testified that on September 20th, the Applicant telephoned to say that he had been involved in an accident on September 19, 1990. The Applicant applied for a disability allowance from the employer's insurer, Zurich Insurance.

The witness testified that the benefits were terminated by Zurich Insurance because four different medical reports said the Applicant could return to work. Some reports indicated that the Applicant should return to light duties.

The witness testified that the Applicant returned to work on April 3, 1991. On that day, he only worked 2¼ hours, from 6:30 a.m. to 8:48, doing modified light duties. The witness arrived at work at 7:30 in the morning and saw the Applicant slowly sweeping the parking lot. The lot is very dirty with mud and dust. Approximately one hour later, she heard that the Applicant went home.

The witness testified that the Applicant's job was kept open until April 1991. Afterwards, the Applicant never tried to work again and he never asked for another job. The company terminated the Applicant's employment on April 25th, effective May 25, 1991.

As far as she knows, the Applicant did not ask for a different job from the employer. Although the Applicant may have approached the foreman, there is no other work in the shop that the Applicant could do. The only jobs available involve bending the steel rods, shearing them or sweeping up.

The employer never heard from the Applicant after April 3, 1991.

Debbie Diamanti gave evidence on behalf of the Insurer. She has been employed at Metropolitan Insurance for six years, and is the technical claims supervisor responsible for supervising the accident benefits unit. She was responsible for the Applicant's file and received his application for accident benefits signed in October 1990.

The Insurer commenced paying benefits to the Applicant on October 5, 1990. The Applicant's file was referred to Mary Wegner of Progressive Rehabilitation Consultants Inc. for an independent report on the possibilities of rehabilitation. Ms. Wegner recommended that the Applicant attend at the C.B.I. The Insurer approved and paid for the cost of this program.

The Insurer received a report from the C.B.I. dated January 31, 1991, discharging the Applicant because his response to the treatment was poor. At that point, the Insurer arranged an independent medical examination with Dr. Jeremias. Dr. Jeremias recommended further treatment at the C.B.I. Therefore, the Applicant was reinstated at the C.B.I. program. The Insurer received a final report from the C.B.I. dated May 14, 1991, indicating that the treatment was not beneficial to the Applicant.

The witness testified that the Applicant's weekly income benefits were discontinued based on Dr. Jeremias' recommendation and the Applicant's lack of interest in the C.B.I. program. The Insurer considered that after that program, the Applicant should have been able to return to work.

Submissions of Counsel:

Submissions of Applicant:

Counsel summarized the evidence of the Applicant and his witnesses, and submitted that the Applicant has established that he is substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment. Counsel submitted that the Applicant should be accepted as a credible witness.

He submitted that the medical reports show objective symptoms and therefore the Applicant's complaints cannot all be written off as simply subjective. The medical evidence confirms that the Applicant's injuries did disable him from returning to work.

Submissions of the Insurer:

Counsel for the Insurer submitted that the Applicant's immediate complaints after the accident of September 1990 were of neck pain. The low back pain did not arise until later on. Although the Applicant's position is that the ongoing problem which prevents him from working is his low back pain, counsel submitted that the medical evidence shows that the Applicant's low back problem has existed since 1987.

Counsel submitted that the 1990 accident did not significantly injure the Applicant's low back. He referred to Dr. Halpenny's report (Exhibit 5) and Dr. Jeremias' report (Exhibit 15) and submitted that the medical evidence shows that the accident did not result in an injury which made the Applicant incapable of performing the essential tasks of his employment.

Counsel submitted that the evidence of Peter Lanni indicates a marked change in the Applicant's attitude from the first accident to the second, and shows that the Applicant's major problem was that he was magnifying his symptoms and was not motivated to get better. Therefore, he did not put in the necessary effort at the C.B.I. program.

Counsel questioned the credibility of the Applicant's statement that his back hurts and he cannot work. He compared the Applicant's evidence regarding the planting of his garden with the evidence of the investigator. The Applicant did not admit that he helped to lift the rotor tiller. Counsel submitted that the Applicant was not candid at the hearing and that his credibility is crucial because we have no objective evidence of the Applicant's pain.

The Applicant had been cleared for work by four different doctors. Counsel submitted that, if the Applicant really wished to return to work, he should have made a stronger effort.

Counsel submitted that the Applicant can work but does not wish to. His complaints are all subjective. Therefore the insurance company did the only reasonable thing in the circumstances.

Findings:

Weekly benefits are payable under section 12 of the No-fault Benefits Schedule as follows:

Section 12.

(1) The insurer will pay with respect to each insured person who sustains physical, psychological or mental injury as a result of an accident a weekly income benefit during the period in which the insured person suffers substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his or her occupation or employment if the insured person meets the qualifications set out in subsection (2) or (3).

The Applicant claims he is entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits since, as a result of the accident, he is unable to resume his employment.

The evidence of both the Applicant and Ms. Clark, the employer's bookkeeper, indicates that the Applicant's job involved moderately heavy physical work, lifting and manipulating steel reinforcing rods on a conveyor belt, for cutting. The Applicant was obliged to lift (with another person) uncut bundles of rods from the floor to the conveyor belt. These bundles weighed approximately 160 pounds, and were lifted between two individuals.

The Applicant also handled the cut material. This involved frequently lifting and carrying bundles of steel weighing approximately 20 pounds. He also participated in cleaning up scrap and debris, which entailed throwing pieces of scrap material into a five-foot tall disposal bin.

The Applicant's evidence is that his low back pain, which arose as a result of the accident, disabled him performing his essential tasks at work. I accept the Applicant's evidence, which was corroborated by the evidence of the various medical and rehabilitation professionals, as well as by his family members.

All the medical professionals agreed that the accident of September 19, 1990 re-aggravated the Applicant's existing back condition. The Applicant had been injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 14, 1987, and that earlier accident had also caused neck and back problems. The Applicant's neck condition had resolved by the time of the second accident. The evidence is that, although the Applicant continued to experience some pain and discomfort in his lumbar spine, his condition had improved substantially, and he was able to function normally at work and in his daily activities.

The fact that the Applicant was functioning normally both at home and at work in the months prior to the accident of September 1990 was confirmed by the Applicant, by his wife and daughter, by Ms. Clark, the employer's bookkeeper, and by the Applicant's doctors.

None of the professional witnesses doubted that the Applicant's low back had been re-injured in the second accident, even though his immediate complaint was of neck pain. The evidence is that the injury to the Applicant's back became apparent and started causing the Applicant distress some weeks after the accident. Notwithstanding his failure to complain immediately of back pain, I am satisfied that the Applicant's low back problems after the accident of September 19, 1990 resulted from that accident, and do not represent merely the continuation of his pre-existing back condition.

The evidence of Doctors Lewitzky, Halpenny and Jeremias all confirm that the Applicant complained of both cervical and lumbar pain as a result of the accident. None of the medical reports suggest that the Applicant is malingering, inventing or exaggerating his pain.

Pain is a subjective experience and its existence cannot be documented by means of objective tests.

Nevertheless, certain physical findings, such as tenderness in a specific area, tend to substantiate a complaint of pain. The medical evidence in this case supports the Applicant's complaints of pain.

Dr. Jeremias, the independent orthopaedic specialist retained by the Insurer, examined the Applicant on March 15, 1991 and reported in Exhibit 15 that he found tenderness at the level of C3-4 and L4-5. The Applicant also reported pain on a "grinding" test, where pressure was applied to the top of the Applicant's head.

Dr. Bosilac, the chiropractor from CVERS, who performed the functional tests on the Applicant, also was satisfied, after examining the Applicant, that the Applicant undoubtedly had difficulties with his back and neck. In addition to tenderness, palpation by the chiropractor revealed hypertonicity in the Applicant's muscles: a condition which he described as a "ropiness" in the muscle and which, he testified, was an objective indication that the muscle was under stress.

Dr. Bosilac confirmed that the functional tests he performed were "subjective", to the extent that one must rely on the client to indicate honestly when he or she is in pain. However, Dr. Bosilac did not feel that the Applicant was "faking" or misrepresenting his pain. Based on his evaluation of the Applicant's responses to the functional tests, he concluded that the Applicant was not at all capable of returning to his former employment, and was capable of sedentary work only.

Dr. Halpenny, the Applicant's orthopaedic specialist, expressed the same view. He found that the Applicant had tenderness in his lower spine, from L-4 down to the sacrum, and reported on March 22, 1991 (Exhibit 5) that there was "a distinct possibility" that the Applicant might never return to his former employment, and would be restricted to light duties only.

Peter Lanni, the physiotherapist from the C.B.I., also did not doubt that the Applicant was genuinely experiencing back pain as a result of the accident of September 19, 1990. He indicated clearly that the second accident had re-irritated the problem in the Applicant's lower back.

It was his view that, after the second accident, the Applicant was "magnifying" his pain symptoms, by responding emotionally to the pain. He felt that this emotional response prevented the Applicant from successfully controlling his pain, and contributed to the Applicant's chronic pain syndrome. However, he did not suggest that the Applicant's pain was not genuine, or that the Applicant was deliberately exaggerating his pain.

The physiotherapist also indicated that the "magnification" response was not necessarily a reaction of which the Applicant himself was aware. The physiotherapist indicated that, in his view, the Applicant wished to get better. However, his heightened emotional reaction and fear of re-injury perhaps impeded him from making the necessary effort to control his pain.

The physiotherapist confirmed that perhaps 30% of his clients are left with an intractable "chronic pain syndrome", similar to the condition of the Applicant.

The evidence of the Applicant's family members also supports the Applicant's complaints of back pain. The Applicant's wife, daughter and son-in-law all confirmed that the Applicant constantly complained of his back after the accident of September 19, 1990, and that he was unable to resume his normal lifestyle and activities after that date.

Accordingly, I find that the Applicant does suffer from a condition of chronic back pain, which makes it impossible for him to perform his previous job functions. I find that the Applicant is neither malingering nor deliberately exaggerating his pain. Although his emotional response to his condition may be a factor which has inhibited his recovery, I conclude that the Applicant is not purposefully manufacturing this response. I am not persuaded that this aspect of the Applicant's behaviour is under his conscious control.

The Applicant did regularly and conscientiously attend the C.B.I. program every day. His evidence was that he was not capable of the exertion which the program demanded of him. I accept that evidence.

The Applicant also attempted to return to "light duty" employment, on the recommendation of his doctors. His evidence, which I also accept, is that he could not perform those duties.

I find that the Applicant's continuing disability is not the result of his own deliberate failure to co-operate in his rehabilitation. Nor did he fail to follow the instructions of his medical advisors. Therefore, the Applicant's inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment is the result of his injuries from his accident, and does not result from any pre-existing condition or intervening cause.

The Applicant impressed me as a straightforward and credible witness. He was candid about his inability to recollect certain dates and details. He was not always able to express himself precisely and accurately, but I am satisfied that he did not fabricate or falsify his evidence with respect to the crucial issue of his pain, and the effect of his pain on his ability to function.

The Insurer submitted that the Applicant ought not to be believed because of the discrepancies between his testimony and the evidence of the investigator, with respect to the Applicant's gardening activities. However, the investigator's evidence reveals that her view of the Applicant was severely obstructed, on the day that she alleges that he was planting tomatoes and staking the plants. She was watching the Applicant, from the back alley, through the slats of his wooden fence. She was unable to keep the Applicant under continuous observation because of the traffic and activity in the back alley. She was unable to film or photograph the Applicant for the same reason. She actually observed the Applicant plant no more than one or two plants.

Under the circumstances, I prefer the evidence of the Applicant with respect to his gardening activities. The Applicant's own evidence in this regard was supported by the testimony of his wife and son-in-law, who stated unequivocally that they planted the tomatoes. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these witnesses.

Furthermore, the surveillance video of the Applicant confirms his evidence that he merely touched or guided the rotor tiller's handles, while his son-in-law lifted it on and off the truck. After viewing the videotape, I am satisfied that the Applicant did not actually bear the weight of the machine himself.

Therefore, the Applicant's credibility has not been impeached.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Applicant has continued to suffer substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment from the date benefits were terminated on May 22, 1991 and onwards, as a result of the motor vehicle accident of September 19, 1990. The Applicant is accordingly entitled to continuing weekly income benefits under section 12 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The Applicant is also entitled to interest on the benefits that are owing. He is also entitled to his expenses for participating in this arbitration hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Ontario Regulation 275/90.

Order:

1. The Applicant is entitled to weekly income benefits from May 22, 1991, onwards.

2. The Applicant is entitled to interest on all benefits owing, pursuant to section 24(4) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

3. The Applicant is entitled to the expenses that he has incurred in respect of this arbitration hearing, in accordance with Schedule 1 of Regulation 275/90.

August 5, 1992

Frederika M. Rotter Senior Arbitrator

Date