Neutral Citation: 1994 ONICDRG 70
File No. A-005516
ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION
BETWEEN:
ROSA FERNANDES
Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
DECISION
The Applicant, Rosa Fernandes, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on August 4, 1992. She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, payable under Ontario Regulation 6721. Weekly income benefits in the amount of $284.00 per week were paid by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under section 12 of the Schedule. Weekly income benefits were terminated by the Insurer on September 7, 1993. Ms. Fernandes claimed ongoing entitlement to weekly income benefits. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute through mediation and the Applicant applied for arbitration.
Issues:
The issues to be determined at the arbitration hearing were:
Is the Applicant entitled to weekly income benefits from and after September 8, 1993 under section 12 of the Schedule?
Is the Applicant entitled to a special award?
The Applicant claims interest on any overdue weekly income benefits and her expenses in relation to this arbitration.
At the outset of the hearing there had been an issue with respect to ceasing expenses. During the course of the first day's evidence, I was advised by counsel that this was no longer in dispute.
Result:
The Applicant is entitled to weekly income benefits in the amount of $284.00 from September 8, 1993.
The Applicant is not entitled to a special award.
The Applicant is entitled to interest on overdue weekly income benefits pursuant to section 24(4) of the Schedule.
The Applicant is entitled to her expenses of this arbitration.
Hearing:
A hearing was held on March 22 and 23, 1994 in Hamilton, Ontario and on April 15, 1994 in North York, Ontario, before me, Suesan Alves, Arbitrator.
Present at the Hearing:
Applicant:
Ms. Rosa Fernandes
Applicant's
Mr. Frank G. Zambosco
Representative:
Barrister and Solicitor
Insurer's
Mr. Peter Robinson
Officer:
Claim Superintendent
Insurer's
Mr. Joseph J. Sullivan
Representative:
Barrister and Solicitor
Witnesses:
Ms. Rosa Fernandes, Ms. Isobel Rodrigues, Mr. Manuel
Fernandes, Dr. Tom Stanton, Dr. Donald T. McNeely, Mr. Peter
Robinson, Dr. Fred Langer, Dr. Arthur M. Bookman.
Translation Services were provided by Mr. Wilson S. Teixiera of Global Translations.
Exhibits: Six exhibits were filed at the hearing. They are detailed in Appendix A.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS:
In order to succeed in this arbitration, the Applicant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the injuries she sustained in the motor vehicle accident on August 4, 1992 leave her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her occupation or employment from September 8, 1993.
The Applicant's pre-accident occupation:
Prior to the motor vehicle accident on August 4, 1992, Ms. Fernandes had been self-employed performing housecleaning at six different homes in Oakville, Ontario. She cleaned one home each day. She took Sunday as her day off. Ms. Fernandes performed basic cleaning, dusting, vacuuming, laundry, and ironing.
Ms. Fernandes worked by herself. She worked each day for a total of five to six hours. She took no coffee breaks at any of the homes. She took a ten to fifteen minute break at the homes of the three employers who gave her lunch. In the other three homes she would work straight through the five or six hour day. Ms. Fernandes was paid by the job; not on an hourly basis.
The physical requirements of her job include prolonged standing, repetitive bending, stooping, twisting, lifting, carrying the vacuum up and down stairs, and constant getting up and down, especially when cleaning bathtubs and floors.
Ms. Fernandes testified that she had been cleaning homes for approximately fourteen years. Before this she worked in factories for three years. Her uncontradicted evidence, corroborated by family members, was that over the seventeen years prior to the accident, she never missed a day of work.
Post-accident medical condition:
On August 4, 1992, Ms. Fernandes was a passenger in a car operated by her husband, which was involved in an accident. The damage to the Fernandes' motor vehicle was repaired at a cost of $10,847.84.
Following the accident, the Applicant was taken to a hospital emergency department by ambulance. X-rays of her left knee, left scapula, sternum and chest were all negative. The discharge diagnosis was back strain. She was given an advice sheet on sprains, prescribed Tylenol No. 3 and advised to see her family physician in follow-up.
On August 17, 1992, thirteen days following the accident, Ms. Fernandes saw Dr. Stanton, a locum physician in the offices of her family physician, Dr. Manchester. Based on her complaints, his examination and x-rays, Dr. Stanton diagnosed a compression fracture to T9, one of her vertebrae.
Ms. Fernandes saw Dr. Manchester, her family physician, on September 1, 1992. He initially estimated that her period of disability would end on November 10, 1992. By November 24, 1992, however, Dr. Manchester noted that her treatment program had failed to improve her symptoms, that her pain had become worse and spread to other areas of the body and that she was "developing a more diffused painful entity consistent with the diagnosis of fibrositis". Dr. Manchester believed that Ms. Fernandes continued to be incapable of gainful employment. He stated that while it is difficult to predict the future, "returning to employment as a house cleaner is going to be very difficult, if not impossible". Dr. Manchester attributed Ms. Fernandes' ongoing symptoms and her disability to the motor vehicle accident of August 4, 1992.
Dr. Manchester referred the Applicant to Dr. McNeely, a rheumatologist, for musculoskeletal assessment because of his concern with her lack of improvement. Dr. McNeely examined Ms. Fernandes on March 5, 1993. Dr. McNeely testified that he spent about an hour with the Applicant on that occasion. In his testimony, Dr. McNeely stated that it was obvious that Ms. Fernandes exaggerated her responses. He testified that after taking the time to settle Ms. Fernandes down, and to reassure her, he was able to separate out her complaints of discomfort from her true expressions of pain.
Dr. McNeely testified that he found that the Applicant was relatively illiterate, lacked sophistication, had little command of English and was frightened. He felt that her hyperreactions are not uncommon in people who lack sophistication, are frightened, and who want to ensure that medical examiners fully appreciate just how badly they hurt. Dr. McNeely concluded that Ms. Fernandes wanted to assist her examiners in reaching an accurate diagnosis and in recommending appropriate treatment.
He considered that Ms. Fernandes had sustained a significant soft tissue injury in the accident; the impact had been sufficient to cause a compression fracture to one of her vertebrae and bruising to her chest. He considered that she developed an altered pain pattern once her acute symptoms had regressed. The pain became more global; she developed tingling hands and feet. She developed an altered sleep pattern, waking tired in the morning. She was having signs and symptoms of secondary depression. In effect, a secondary wave of illness hit her. He felt that this was consistent with the development of fibromyalgia following trauma. In his opinion it was very unlikely that a person of Ms. Fernandes' lack of sophistication and relative degree of illiteracy would know the symptoms of fibromyalgia, or be able to fake the pattern she displayed.
Based on his examination and the Applicant's clinical history, Dr. McNeely concluded that the Applicant had well-developed post-traumatic fibromyalgia which was directly related to the August 4, 1992 motor vehicle accident. He found her to be severely disabled, barely able to do even simple activities around her home. He viewed her situation as worsening rather than improving as time passed. He, too, gave a grim prognosis for the Applicant in his report:
"It is highly unlikely that this patient will ever get back to gainful employment. Probably our best hope, or goal, is to get her functioning in her home situation at an improved level and even that is going to be very hard to achieve."
Ms. Fernandes was seen by Dr. McNeely again on March 16, 1994. Dr. McNeely testified that his opinion was unchanged following his second examination of the Applicant.
Dr. Tom Stanton became the Applicant's family physician in mid-July 1993 when Dr. Manchester moved to Bend, Oregon. Dr. Stanton had been the locum physician in Dr. Manchester's office and had diagnosed the fracture to Ms. Fernandes' vertebra on August 17, 1992, thirteen days after the accident. When asked whether he thought that Ms. Fernandes was exaggerating her complaints, he stated that he had no evidence to suggest this. Dr. Stanton agrees with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia and accepts that the Applicant's condition is genuine.
In the course of cross-examining the Applicant and her witnesses, counsel for the Insurer suggested that the Applicant had complained of headaches and of pain to her neck, back, and leg before and after the accident. It was suggested that her ongoing complaints related to her pre-accident medical status. I heard evidence that since 1988 there were four entries relating to headaches. All appear unrelated to the Applicant's present condition. Two were associated with infections, one with menstrual cramps and one possibly with her allergies. Dr. McNeely testified Ms. Fernandes' post-accident headaches were quite different from localized headaches. He stated that her post accident headaches were occipital in nature. They extended along the back of both shoulders, up her neck and along both sides of her head.
The note of a physiotherapist "probable RA" made on April 16, 1993 contained in the Oakville Trafalgar Hospital records was explored with the Applicant and Dr. McNeely as a possible diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. The Applicant denied ever having had rheumatoid arthritis, or having been told that she had this condition, or that anyone in her family had suffered from such a condition. Dr. McNeely testified that the Applicant has no such history and that the physiotherapist was not qualified to make such a diagnosis.
On June 4, 1992, the Applicant saw Dr. Manchester about arm or shoulder pain. Dr. Manchester sent the Applicant for x-rays of her cervical vertebrae. The x-ray report indicates that the Applicant had mild degenerative disc disease. Dr. McNeely stated that this did not change his opinion in any way. With respect to the suggestions of neck, back and leg pain, Dr. McNeely testified that once the acute phase of her injuries had healed post-accident, Ms. Fernandes reported that she hurt all over; she complained of spreading and diffuse pain -- not of pain in specific areas such as in her neck, back, or leg. Dr. McNeely stated that notwithstanding any previous complaints of neck, arm or back pain, the Applicant was able to function well and to work prior to the motor vehicle accident and since then she has not been able to do so. Dr. McNeely stated that, in his opinion, Ms. Fernandes' disability and the majority of her pain were attributable to the motor vehicle accident.
On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant's present complaints are different in nature from her pre-existing complaints and that the majority of her pain is attributable to the motor vehicle accident of August 4, 1992.
On January 26, 1993, Ms. Fernandes was examined at the request of the Insurer by Dr. Fred Langer, an orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Langer labels the diagnosis of fibromyalgia "medico-legal sophistry" and "hogwash". In his report dated January 26, 1993, Dr. Langer stated "There is clear, gross magnification of her distress for reasons best known to Ms. Fernandes". He concluded that the Applicant did not have fibrositis. At the hearing Dr. Langer expressed the view that there had been some conscious exaggeration on the part of the Applicant.
On December 6, 1993, Dr. Arthur Bookman, a rheumatologist of some twenty years' experience, examined Ms. Fernandes at the request of the Insurer. Dr. Bookman stated that Ms. Fernandes did not meet the diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia on that date. Dr. Bookman agreed, however, that it was entirely possible that on some days the Applicant could meet the diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia, while on other days she would not. He stated that he could not say that Ms. Fernandes did not have fibromyalgia -- simply that hers was not a classical case, that is to say, not one that would be included in a clinical study on fibromyalgia patients.
Dr. Bookman described the Applicant's exaggeration of her symptoms as the worst case of such behaviour that he had seen in some twenty years of practice. He was unable to say whether the Applicant's exaggeration was conscious or unconscious. In his report he suggested that factors of secondary gain were at play.
The Applicant's ability to perform the essential tasks of her occupation post-accident:
When asked which of the essential tasks of her occupation she could perform, the Applicant stated that she could do a little bit of light dusting, and that was all. She did not believe that she could work through her pain. Ms. Fernandes does not believe that she is substantially able to perform the essential tasks of her occupation as a housecleaner. As she put it "Now, I'm stopped".
Isobel Rodrigues is the 28 year old daughter of the Applicant, who lives with her mother, father, brother and sister. Ms. Rodrigues confirmed that all her mother did around the house in relation to the essential tasks of her occupation was a little bit of the light dusting. She stated that in relation to her homemaking duties all her mother did was to cook one meal per day, dinner, with the help of her father.
Ms. Rodrigues confirmed her mother's evidence that she washes her mother's hair and ties her mother's shoes. Prior to the motor vehicle accident her mother independently performed these tasks. Ms. Rodrigues stated that she can see that her mother is in "an awful lot of pain"; she can see how her mother "flinches when she sits down or gets up". At other times her mother states that she is in pain.
Manuel Fernandes, the Applicant's husband, testified that he is generally at home all day. He is off work due to a heart condition. He, too, stated that the Applicant cooks one meal per day, dinner, with his help, and that "she cleans a little bit of dust". He testified that he now does the housework and that when his children are at home, they help him with this work.
In contrast to the views expressed by the Applicant and her family members, Dr. Langer, who examined Ms. Fernandes at the request of the Insurer, felt that the Applicant would have been able to perform the essential tasks of her occupation or employment by the end of February 1993. At the hearing he maintained this view.
Dr. Bookman, who examined Ms. Fernandes at the request of the Insurer, testified that he felt that the Applicant is not inclined to return to work. Stated another way, it was her attitude to work and to pain which caused her not to return to work. Dr. Bookman testified that he had "sounded out" Ms. Fernandes' views. Ms. Fernandes' analysis had been: "I can't do my housework so how can I do my job?" He agreed that she never said: "I don't want to go to back to work".
In his report Dr. Bookman stated that due to the Applicant's exaggeration, "it is difficult for me to objectively say what she can do and what she cannot. I would suspect that she is capable of light housekeeping chores at the very least and that she can be graduated towards full housecleaning within 6-12 months at the outside". In cross-examination Dr. Bookman agreed that the six to twelve month time frame was an arbitrary one, and that he frankly did not think that anything her physicians did would improve her. Her response to all therapies tried had been refractory. The six to twelve month time frame had been given with a view to allowing the Applicant to adapt and work her way back into the workforce. He stated that he knew that at the end of that period of time the Applicant would be no different. The six month period would take the Applicant to June 6, 1994; the 12 month to December 1994.
Dr. Bookman in his oral evidence before me on March 23, 1994 indicated that in his view the Applicant could perform all of the essential tasks of her occupation. He believed that she might experience some difficulty reaching into the fridge or scrubbing the floor on her hands and knees. He added that he was sure that Ms. Fernandes did not feel that she is capable of performing the essential tasks of her occupation and that her family shares that view.
Dr. Bookman testified that whether Ms. Fernandes worked or not she would still have pain and it is not in the patient's best interests not to work. Even in a non-fibromyalgia patient, there was no degree of pain in relation to any condition where he would recommend that the patient not work. In his experience and that of many of his colleagues, not working leads to a spiral of depression, loss of self-image and a state of mind in which patients regard themselves as being unable to do anything. This in turn incapacitates the patient even more.
Dr. Stanton, the family physician, stated that of her essential tasks, he felt Ms. Fernandes could do light dusting, clean countertops and the kitchen sink. She might be able to vacuum, but would not be able to carry the vacuum up and downstairs. Dr. Stanton was asked about the approach of working through pain and to comment on Ms. Fernandes' response that she cannot do this because of the severity of her pain. Dr. Stanton stated that he did not agree that Ms. Fernandes should work through her pain. He stated that she did not experience this pain prior to the motor vehicle accident, "I don't think it's fair to make her work with the level of pain she is experiencing. I don't think she'll be able to work".
Dr. Stanton stated that given that Ms. Fernandes was 16 months post accident, had one eight week course of physiotherapy, one course of pool therapy, muscle relaxants, pain killers and sleeping pills with minimal to no improvement and had perhaps degenerated, his advice to Ms. Fernandes is to do what she is capable of doing without exposing herself to prolonged pain.
"While not bed or wheelchair ridden, if household chores are causing her pain, I would tell her not to do it."
Dr. McNeely, who saw Ms. Fernandes at the request of her family physician, testified that in his opinion, the Applicant can perform light dusting. He believed that she was doing the laundry at home. Dr. McNeely was asked about the approach of working through the pain for Ms. Fernandes. He stated that he encourages his fibromyalgia patients to keep on going, and reassures them that pain may hurt but won't harm them. If they exceed a certain point of activity, they experience a set back for a few days afterwards. He acknowledged that Ms. Fernandes had been a frustrating patient to treat. He was disappointed that she had not as yet been able to achieve better function in the home. He was not sure just how much she understood about the nature of fibromyalgia and of the concepts they try to convey in the program. Dr. McNeely felt that information was critical in achieving better function for Ms. Fernandes. In cases where language was a barrier, the therapists at the fibromyalgia program would usually get the family to "pick up the slack".
Dr. McNeely considered Dr. Bookman's report and his opinion that Ms. Fernandes could be graduated back to full housecleaning in six to twelve months as "very optimistic" and "not one with which I would agree".
Credibility:
I was presented with conflicting views as to whether the Applicant exaggerated her symptoms. Conflicting opinions were also presented as to the reasons for any such exaggeration. All of the specialists who examined the Applicant agreed that Ms. Fernandes exaggerated her symptoms. Dr. McNeely's explanation for the Applicant's obvious exaggeration makes sense when looked at against the Applicant's circumstances, in particular, the 13 day delay in the diagnosis of her fractured vertebra following the motor vehicle accident. Where there has been a delay in detecting an injury, an injured person such as the Applicant might well in future visits to doctors who are not familiar with her medical history, err on the side of being more expressive. I accept Dr. McNeely's evidence as establishing a credible and cogent explanation for the Applicant's exaggerated responses. I also accept his view that the Applicant's behaviour was not motivated by deception or malingering.
I had the opportunity of observing the Applicant as she gave her evidence. I accept her evidence for the most part. I accept the Applicant's evidence that she is in severe pain. Given the similarity between the Applicant's housework and her work as a housecleaner, I find that it is not unreasonable for her to use her ability to perform her own housework as a gauge in assessing her ability to perform similar tasks in the homes of other persons.
Ms. Rodrigues, the daughter of the Applicant, was clear and forthright in her evidence. She was able to separate out her beliefs from her observations of her mother. I have no hesitation in accepting Ms. Rodrigues' evidence in its entirety. She is the person who usually accompanies her mother on her medical attendances, acts as translator, and has had a great deal of involvement in her mother's ongoing medical care. She corroborated her mother's evidence in every material respect.
The videotape surveillance:
A videotape of the Applicant walking was filed on behalf of the Insurer as Exhibit 6. It is the result of 3 days of surveillance conducted with respect to the Applicant on January 28 and 29, 1993 and on February 3, 1993. Videotape footage was obtained on the second and third days. Only on the third day, were observations made of, or videotape footage obtained of the Applicant.
On February 3, 1993, Ms. Fernandes is observed to leave the house at 11:00 a.m. accompanied by her husband and her daughter. There is no dispute that the persons on the videotape were the Applicant and members of her family, that the walk was over a 1.5 kilometre distance, that the duration of the walk was approximately one hour and twenty minutes, or that the Applicant limps and uses her cane. I was asked to infer from the videotape that the Applicant was unreliable as a historian as she failed to advise the doctors of her walk, and she is portrayed as being considerably more active than she would have anyone believe.
I place little weight on the contents of the videotape surveillance. It has little to do with the essential tasks of the Applicant's employment. None of the physicians who testified were perturbed by its contents.
All of the medical practitioners felt that the Applicant could do more than she is presently doing. Dr. Stanton and Dr. McNeely even at their most optimistic view the Applicant as substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her occupation or employment. At the date of the hearing Dr. Bookman felt that the Applicant could perform all of the essential tasks of her occupation. Dr. Langer felt the Applicant was no longer disabled as of February 1993. I have a clear choice to make as to whether it is realistic and appropriate that the Applicant work through her pain, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the Applicant, as well as to the nature of her occupation or employment.
The range of opinions as to the Applicant's ability to perform the essential tasks of her occupation or employment reflect clear philosophical differences as to what an individual should appropriately do in relation to work in the face of pain.
I prefer the evidence of Dr. McNeely. He is a rheumatologist of extensive experience, he examined the Applicant twice; he has the confidence of the Applicant's present and past family physicians. I was impressed with the time he spent with the Applicant, his thoughtful approach to the particular circumstances of Ms. Fernandes, and his considered responses during his evidence.
In relation to this Applicant, the views of her family physician and of her treating specialist seem to me to be more appropriate to her circumstances. They know her, have seen her more often, are familiar with her background, her nature and circumstances. They have persuaded me that they understand the Applicant and can more realistically determine whether she is able to work through her pain.
On the balance of probabilities, the Applicant and her witnesses have satisfied me that her pain is genuine and severe, that the majority of her pain is attributable to the motor vehicle accident of August 4, 1992, that she is unable to work through her pain and that she remains substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her occupation or employment.
The opinions of Dr. Bookman and of Dr. McNeely in relation to Ms. Fernandes' disability may not be mutually exclusive. I heard no evidence that the approach of gradually getting the Applicant back to work as suggested by Dr. Bookman had been attempted. I do not underestimate the difficulty of this task. The Applicant has herself recognized the barrier posed by her limited English language skills in fully participating in the pool program to which she was referred by Dr. McNeely. Dr. McNeely described the need to enlist family members support in such endeavours.
Special Award:
I have considered the Applicant's claim for a special award. A special award is payable pursuant to the provisions of Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c I-8, s. 282 (10) where an arbitrator finds that an Insurer has unreasonably withheld or terminated benefits.
In this case there were conflicting medical opinions. Dr. Langer's report anticipated that Ms. Fernandes would return to work by the end of February 1993. However the Insurer continued to pay weekly income benefits until September 7, 1993. The Insurer had in its possession two medical reports which documented the exaggerated behaviours of the Applicant in the course of the examinations of Dr. Langer and of Dr. Bookman. I have found that the Applicant's exaggerated behaviours were not motivated by fraud or deception. The Applicant's behaviours did, however, play some role in the Insurer's difficulties in continuing to accept her claim. It would appear that the explanation for the Applicant's exaggerated behaviours provided to me by Dr. McNeely at the hearing had not been provided to the Insurer prior to that time. Having regard to all of the circumstances of this case, I do not agree that a special award is appropriate. The claim for a special award is dismissed.
Expenses:
The Applicant seeks an award of her expenses. An arbitrator has a discretion to award these expenses pursuant to the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I-8, s. 282 (11).
In exercising my discretion I have considered the "McCormick principle" guiding an award of expenses, as set out by Senior Arbitrator Susan Naylor in the case of Ralph McCormick and Economical Mutual Insurance Company, October 2, 1991, OIC File No. A-000139, and approved by the Director of Arbitrations in the case of Vito Luigi Calogero and The Co-Operators General Insurance Company February 13, 1992, OIC File No. P-000251:
"The discretion to award expenses should be exercised, having regard to the intent and purpose of the legislative scheme. The arbitration process has been established under the Insurance Act, as amended, in order to facilitate applicants' access to relatively inexpensive, speedy and informal adjudication of disputes regarding no-fault benefits. The discretion to award expenses should be exercised in accordance with this objective, having regard to the individual circumstances of each case.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to award an applicant his or her expenses, unless, in the circumstances of the particular case, it is determined that the application for appointment of an arbitrator was manifestly frivolous or vexatious, or that the applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings."
I have also considered the submissions of counsel with respect to the manner in which I should exercise my discretion. The Applicant is entitled to her expenses as set out in Schedule 1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. In the event that the parties cannot agree as to the total amount of expenses, I remain seized of this issue and a party may apply for assessment of the expenses before me.
Order:
The Applicant is entitled to weekly income benefits in the amount of $284.00 from September 8, 1993.
The Applicant is not entitled to a special award.
The Applicant is entitled to interest on overdue weekly income benefits pursuant to section 24(4) of the Schedule.
The Applicant is entitled to her expenses of this arbitration.
August 3, 1994
Suesan Alves
Arbitrator
Date
APPENDIX A
Exhibit 1
Rosa Fernandes' Tasks
Exhibit 2
Joint Productions Brief, with twenty tabs:
Tab 1
.Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital records and physiotherapy records
Tab 2.
Ontario Automobile Insurance Medical or Psychological Report, September 1, 1992
Tab 3.
Report of Dr. Stewart P. Manchester dated November 24, 1992
Tab 4.
Report of Dr. Fred Langer dated January 26, 1993
Tab 5.
Report of Dr. Donald McNeely dated March 5, 1993
Tab 6.
Report of Dr. Stewart P. Manchester dated March 29, 1993
Tab 7.
Report of Dr. Fred Langer dated April 8, 1993
Tab 8.
Report of Dr. Stewart P. Manchester dated June 7, 1993
Tab 9.
Report of Dr. Arthur Bookman dated December 22, 1993
Tab 10.
Report of Dr. Tom Stanton dated March 9, 1994
Tab 11.
Clinical notes and records of Doctors Manchester and Stanton, July 25, 1991 to February 7, 1994
Tab 12.
Curriculum Vitae of Dr. McNeely
Tab 13.
Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bookman
Tab 14.
Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Langer
Tab 15.
Mitchell & Associates report dated February 17, 1993
Tab 16.
Ontario Automobile Insurance Employer's Confirmation of Income, September 1, 1992
Tab 17.
Letter from Susan Van Humbeck dated August 30, 1992
Tab 18.
Ontario Automobile Insurance Application for Appointment of an Arbitrator, November 17, 1993
Tab 19.
Report of Mediator, August 19, 1993
Tab 20.
National Occupational Classification, Index of Titles
Exhibit 3
Applicant's Exhibits, with twenty four tabs:
Tab 1
.Motor Vehicle Accident Report - August 4, 1992
Tab 2.
State Farm Repair Appraisal
Tab 3.
Employer's Confirmation of Income
Tab 4.
Letter from State Farm to Applicant dated January 8, 1993
Tab 5.
Letter from State Farm to Frank G. Zambosco dated March 8, 1993
Tab 6.
Letter from Frank G. Zambosco to State Farm dated April 1, 1993
Tab 7.
Letter from State Farm to Frank G. Zambosco dated April 5, 1993
Tab 8.
Letter from State Farm to Frank G. Zambosco dated April 27, 1993
Tab 9.
Letter from State Farm to Frank G. Zambosco dated April 28, 1993
Tab 10.
Letter from State Farm to Frank G. Zambosco dated August 25, 1993
Tab 11.
Letter from Frank G. Zambosco to State Farm dated August 30, 1993
Tab 12.
Letter from State Farm to Frank G. Zambosco dated October 27, 1993
Tab 13.
Application for appointment of an arbitrator
Tab 14.
Response by Insurer
Tab 15.
Letter from Janice Mackintosh, Arbitrator re pre-hearing discussion, dated January 20, 1994
Tab 16.
Letter from Frank G. Zambosco to Joseph J. Sullivan dated March 15, 1994
Tab 17.
Form 4 Certificate dated September 19, 1992
Tab 18.
Report of Dr. Stewart P. Manchester dated November 24, 1992
Tab 19.
Report of Dr. Donald T. McNeely dated March 5, 1993
Tab 20.
Report of Dr. Stewart P. Manchester dated March 29, 1993
Tab 21.
Report of Dr. Stewart P. Manchester dated June 7, 1993
Tab 22.
Report of Dr. Tom Stanton dated March 9, 1994
Tab 23.
Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital records
Tab 24.
Clinical notes and records compiled by Dr. Manchester and Dr. Stanton from August, 1991.
Exhibit 4
Applicant's Index of Authorities with twenty four tabs:
Tab 1.
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, s. 282
Tab 2.
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, s. 12
Tab 3.
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, s. 24
Tab 4.
Dispute Resolution Practice Code s. 21
Tab 5.
Gatt v. Coachman Insurance Company, December 31, 1991, OIC File No. A-000134
Tab 6.
Bonitatibus v. Wellington Insurance Company, March 16, 1992, OIC File No. A-000082
Tab 7.
Fleming v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, April 28, 1992, OIC File No. A-000406.
Tab 8.
Provenzano v. Metropolitan Insurance Company, August 5, 1992 OIC File No. A-0000380
Tab 9.
Provenzano v. Metropolitan Insurance Company - Search-Law
Tab 10.
Provenzano v. Metropolitan Insurance Company, August 26, 1993 OIC File No.P-000380
Tab 11
.Hunt v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada, October 15, 1992, OIC File No. A-000370
Tab 12.
Walicki v. Security National Insurance Company, January 27, 1993, OIC File No. A-001403
Tab 13.
Walicki v. Security National Insurance Company (Full Case)
Tab 14.
Edwards v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, July 12, 1993, OIC File No. A-001707
Tab 15.
Rustico v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada, February 15, 1994, OIC File No. A-002539
SPECIAL AWARD CASES
Tab 16.
Erickson v. Guarantee Company of North America, June 2, 1992, OIC File No. A-000560
Tab 17.
Erickson v. Guarantee Company of North America, July 16, 1992, OIC File No. A-000560
Tab 18.
Morin v. Lumbermens Mutal Casualty Company, June 16, 1993, OIC File No. A-001311
Tab 19.
Plowright v. Wellington Insurance Company, October 29, 1993, OIC File No. A-001311
Tab 20.
Philippe v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada, January 24, 1994, OIC File No. A-001736
Tab 21.
Rustico v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada, February 15, 1994, OIC File No. A-002539
Tab 22.
Beiler v. Alpina Insurance Company, February 22, 1994, OIC File No. A-003051
Tab 23.
Dugas v. Wellington Insurance Company, February 10, 1994, OIC File No. A-003417
EXPENSE CASES
Tab 24.
McCormick v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, October 2, 1991, OIC File No. A-000139
Exhibit 5
Particulars of Claim for Special Award
Exhibit 6
Videotape Surveillance, January 28, 1993 and February 3, 1993.