Neutral Citation: 1996 ONICDRG 70

File No.: A-015357

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL GAGNON

Applicant

and

JEVCO INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Michael Gagnon, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 29, 1991. He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Jevco Insurance Company ("Jevco"), payable under Ontario Regulation 672.ⁱ Weekly income benefits were stopped by Jevco on October 29, 1994. Mr. Gagnon seeks reinstatement of his benefits and occupational retraining. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation and Mr. Gagnon applied for arbitration under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issues in this hearing are:

1. Is Mr. Gagnon entitled to weekly income benefits after October 29, 1994, according to the provisions of section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule?

2. Is Mr. Gagnon entitled to occupational retraining as an electronics engineering technician pursuant to the provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the Schedule?

Mr. Gagnon also claims interest on any amounts owing, and his expenses incurred in the hearing.

Result:

1. Mr. Gagnon is entitled to weekly income benefits after October 29, 1994, under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule.

2. Mr. Gagnon is not entitled to occupational retraining as an electronics engineering technician pursuant to the provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the Schedule.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in Windsor, Ontario, on December 6 and 7, 1995, before me, David Evans, arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant:

Michael Gagnon

Applicant's Representative:

Michael DeBiase Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's Representative:

John D. Withrow Barrister and Solicitor

Witnesses:

Michael Gagnon

Robert Ancell

Colleen O'Brien

The parties filed 11 exhibits, as set out in the Appendix to this decision.

Evidence and Findings:

Michael Gagnon fractured his forearms in a motorcycle accident and, as a result, could not return to his job of drywall finisher. At issue is whether he can do another job and whether he requires retraining to return to work.

The Law

Mr. Gagnon received weekly income replacement benefits of $364.49 from Jevco through to October 1994 — the three-year mark — pursuant to section 12(1) of the Schedule. Jevco refuses to pay further benefits, relying on section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule: after three years of receiving benefits, Mr. Gagnon is only entitled to further benefits if his injury continuously prevents him from engaging in any occupation or employment for which he is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

Mr. Gagnon alleges that he cannot find reasonably suitable employment, and that he requires rehabilitation, life-skills training and occupational counselling and training pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(c) of the Schedule before he can return to any form of work.

I agree with Senior Arbitrator Naylor's rejection in Sandra Singh and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companyⁱⁱ of the concept that the language "any occupation or employment for which he or she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience" in section 12(5)(b) imports a standard in which suitable employment is any job within an applicant's physical or mental capabilities. Instead, the work must be suitable for that applicant, viewed fairly and realistically in the context of his or her educational and employment background.

I believe an applicant has an equal duty to take a fair and realistic view of alternative occupations.

Arbitrator Seife in Danny M. Wigle and Royal Insurance Company of Canada™ summarized a number of criteria that have been established for examining the suitability of an alternative occupation. One must consider such factors as the nature and status of the work compared with what the applicant did before, the hours of work and level of remuneration, the applicant's employment experience and length of time spent in different jobs, his or her age, and his or her qualifications and technical training and know-how. If the job is substantially different in nature, status, or remuneration it may not be an appropriate alternative. Finally, although the primary focus is on an applicant's functional limitations, job-market considerations are relevant in determining suitable employment.

Arbitrator Seife in Wigle points out that the applicant must also be continuously prevented from performing a suitable job.

It seems, therefore, that section 12(5)(b) poses a two-part test: is a job suitable, and if so, is the insured continuously prevented from doing it?

In assessing the application of section 12(5)(b), insurers often present a list of jobs an insured could do based on these criteria, and insureds respond by pointing out how these jobs are unsuitable in one way or another. This sometimes leads to insurers raising new possibilities, even late at a hearing, suggesting that the obligation of proving these occupations are unsuitable is upon the applicant.

There is a positive obligation on insureds. Of course, they must prove that they are incapable of returning to their former employment and, as Arbitrator Seife suggested in Wigle, at the very least identify some other "suitable" employment, describe the physical demands of the work and demonstrate with credible evidence that their injuries continuously prevent them from engaging in such employment. Thus, in Sandra Singh, the applicant failed to prove she was incapable of returning to work reasonably similar to her former employment.

In considering what is suitable employment, I do not think an applicant can expect to receive benefits merely because no job is available that is exactly like the previous job. Taken to its extreme, the only "suitable" job would be the job the applicant can no longer perform, nullifying any difference between the section 12(1) and section 12(5)(b) tests.

As part of discharging the onus of proof, applicants must explore career options that take into consideration their remaining capacity and establish that these options are somehow unsuitable. This burden could possibly be met by the applicants demonstrating that the occupations suggested by the insurers are unsuitable. The insurers then have to establish that their suggestions are suitable: merely listing a number of possible occupations without further evidence would be insufficient, in my view.

The essence of Mr. Gagnon's case, then, is that he is physically incapable of doing suitable work, and that the work he is physically capable of doing is unsuitable based on one or more of the above criteria.

Background:

Mr. Gagnon, born July 11, 1966, testified that he is a Grade 9 drop-out. Other than on-the-job training, his only additional education consisted of instruction in handling hazardous materials and a half-course in drywall/acoustic tile installation. After leaving school he worked at a number of short-term unskilled jobs in the Windsor area: stock boy in a paint store; worker in a mold factory, a grain terminal, a chocolate factory, an autobody shop; lawn caretaker for a lawn maintenance firm; furniture packer; construction worker. Some jobs lasted one month, others six to eight months.

In 1987 or 1988 he started installing drywall, earning $15—$16 an hour. He described this as seasonal work, and the report filed by his expert witness suggests that he earned approximately $25,000.00 as a maximum annual salary before the accident.

On October 29, 1991, Mr. Gagnon was riding a motorcycle when he struck and flew over a car that had turned in front of him, causing his injuries.

Mr. Gagnon is right-handed. His injuries on the right included a "Galeazzi" injury of the right forearm (the radial shaft sustained a displaced fracture and the radio-ulnar joint was dislocated), fractures of the radius at the wrist and at the base of the right thumb metacarpal, and an injury requiring surgery to the ulnar side of the wrist. On the left, both the radius and the ulna were fractured in the forearm. After treatment by open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws, he was released to post-operative care, including six months of physiotherapy and some attempts at work-hardening and rehabilitation over the next three years.

Mr. Gagnon has not returned to work since the accident. He testified that by January 1993 he had essentially resumed his normal lifestyle. Since January 1994 he has been living with his common-law wife, caring for their two children while she works full-time outside the home. He testified he still has constant pain in the forearms, which he described as a "pins and needles" pain that increases with activity and becomes throbbing or piercing depending on the weather. Mr. Gagnon can do most activities for a short period, but he can only cut his grass once every two weeks. He has reported to his doctor sensitivity to cold in his forearms and wrists.

Mr. Gagnon had a good recovery: Dr. Fleming, the treating physician for the fractures, noted that Mr. Gagnon had a remarkable range of motion for the type of injury, particularly the injury on the right forearm, and his strength also appeared to have improved remarkably.

The various medical reports agree that Mr. Gagnon has problems doing heavy or repetitive work involving the forearms.

Dr. Haliburton and Dr. Bartol investigated Mr. Gagnon at Jevco's request. In December 1992 Dr. Haliburton found mild loss of forearm pronation and depressed tendon reflexes. He described the problem — apart from some pain and discomfort — as weakness and lack of endurance.

In August 1993 Dr. Bartol found similar restrictions to those noted by Dr. Haliburton. He concluded that Mr. Gagnon was able to perform occupations other than those that directly involve repetitious use of power tools, particularly those that require forceful grip and heavy intensive labour with repetitious lifting and use of the forearm. Dr. Bartol concluded that, as Mr. Gagnon's previous occupation of drywall finisher involved exactly that kind of activity, he remained unable to return to drywall finishing.

Dr. Bartol recommended retraining. To that end, Jevco retained Susan Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. in the fall of 1993.

Ms. Beasley-Tapak was not able to testify because she was recovering from surgery. Over the objections of counsel for Jevco, I allowed some of her correspondence into evidence. Counsel objected that he had not been served with proper notice that this correspondence would be entered. However, the correspondence was all from Jevco's own rehabilitation file, and accordingly I found any element of surprise was low and was outweighed by the material's possible relevance.

Ms. Beasley-Tapak ordered a functional capacity evaluation by the Canadian Back Institute ("CBI") and a vocational evaluation by Career Probe.

The CBI functional capacity evaluation report of December 28, 1993, shows that the evaluators set up a work simulation of a job involving lifting repetitively, pushing, pulling and carrying a load. The report concluded that Mr. Gagnon would be able to perform a physically demanding job.

As for the Career Probe vocational evaluation over the period December 20—24, 1993, the evaluator noted that Mr. Gagnon scored well in aptitude tests, in particular displaying the required aptitude levels for eight employment alternatives. Mr. Gagnon had selected five of these, four of which — including electronics engineering technician — required at least two years of college or apprenticeship. The other four jobs required training on the job: locksmith (the other job selected by Mr. Gagnon); electronic equipment assembler; material coordinator; production supply clerk.

The evaluator thought the wage ranges of those eight jobs were realistic in light of Mr. Gagnon's previous work history, with those of the jobs requiring college or apprenticeship being generally higher than those requiring only on-the-job training. The evaluator considered Mr. Gagnon to be a suitable candidate for the latter. He investigated the field of locksmithing in the Windsor area, and determined that the potential demand was variable, that no Windsor schools or colleges offer formal training programs for locksmiths, and that all employers train people on the job.

The evaluator found that Mr. Gagnon was not limited by any significant physical, behavioural, or aptitudinal barriers in resuming employment, other than what he termed a "credential" barrier: four of the five jobs which interested Mr. Gagnon would require some type of formal education before he would be considered a qualified employment candidate. He concluded that Mr. Gagnon would benefit from further educational training to improve his employment opportunities and provide him with the ability to best approximate his previous income level.

Mr. Gagnon testified that following the vocational evaluation, his preferred occupation was that of electronics engineering technician, which requires two years of college training.

Mr. Gagnon's physician, Dr. Fortuna, wrote to Ms. Beasley-Tapak on January 31, 1994, expressing his general agreement with the CBI and Career Probe findings, although from his perspective the evaluators had paid insufficient attention to the forearm/wrist movements of supination and pronation. It appears that he ruled out the choices offered by the vocational assessment — other than electronics engineering technician — because of the repetitive twisting of the wrist and continual fine motor skills required by the other jobs, activities which caused Mr. Gagnon to experience pain and weakness."^vi

Dr. Fortuna was not called to explain whether he rejected the other choices because the pain or weakness would be so great as to prevent Mr. Gagnon from performing those jobs. It has been held in a number of decisions that the injuries must prevent the applicant from performing the alternative job, not just make it more painful.^v (I return to the subject of the choice of locksmith — rejected by Dr. Fortuna — below, since I heard some evidence regarding that occupation at the hearing, which was not the case with the other rejected choices.)

In any event, Ms. Beasley-Tapak apparently accepted Dr. Fortuna's opinion, since she gave approval for Mr. Gagnon to take the electronics technician program.

Mr. Gagnon was to take an upgrading program in September 1994 prior to starting the program the following January. Ms. Beasley-Tapak told him to make the arrangements for the upgrading and the program at St. Clair College, but in August 1994 Jevco sent him to Medex for a functional capacities assessment and a transferable skills assessment.

Mr. Gagnon had no further contact with Ms. Beasley-Tapak. He did not take the upgrading or the program.

Barbara Mills carried out the Medex functional capacities assessment. For each activity, Ms. Mills commented on his ability to do it and whether or not it matched the requirements of the electronics technician program.

Ms. Mills essentially confirmed the previous medical evidence, finding that Mr. Gagnon had the following limitations: sustained or repetitive full effort gripping in both hands; and repetitious, manual manipulations in both hands and, specifically, resisted pronation and supination (forearm rotation). He reported bilateral wrist and forearm discomfort associated with repetitive or resisted handling. Ms. Mills suggested that these discomfort levels could potentially be difficult to deal with over time, if Mr. Gagnon was required to work in occupations with heavy, resisted or repetitive handling demands. She concluded that he met a very reasonable level of function for a number of occupations including electronics engineering technician, subject to possible modification of any tools, such as by increasing their grip diameter.

Colleen O'Brien carried out the transferable skills analysis using the computerized Choices Occupational Data Base (the "Choices" program). She found nine alternative occupations to which she said Mr. Gagnon could transfer his skills immediately. Because Ms. O'Brien testified at the hearing, I will deal with her report and evidence in more detail below.

As a result of Ms. O'Brien's report, Jevco told Mr. Gagnon that he did not require job retraining.

The last medical report is from Dr. George Koppert, who saw Mr. Gagnon in December 1994. Dr. Koppert essentially confirmed the earlier diagnoses of problems with the forearm fractures. He found Mr. Gagnon could not do heavy or repetitive upper extremity work of any nature, including factory or assembly line work [my emphasis], adding: "However, by no means is this man totally disabled from gainful employment. "

I note the differences among the medical opinions about Mr. Gagnon's exact limitations. On balance, considering the findings of Ms. Mills and Dr. Koppert, I find Mr. Gagnon's limitations extend beyond Dr. Bartol's exclusion of the repetitious use of power tools, so that assembly line work involving heavy, resisted or repetitive handling demands would be unsuitable as well.

The Experts

Ms. O'Brien testified for Jevco. Mr. Gagnon called Robert Ancell, who sets out the results of his transferable skills analysis in his report dated November 1, 1995.

Each side objected to the other expert's testifying. I allowed their evidence, subject to weight.

Mr. Ancell has a Ph.D., Human Services, from Walden University. He testified that he has developed programs for injured workers, for 20 years he has had his own company doing clinical vocational work, and has testified in the Windsor and Chatham courts. His curriculum vitae indicates a number of honours and awards, his affiliations include having been a past president of the Michigan Association of Private Rehabilitation Professionals and a past board member of the Michigan Rehabilitation Association, and his certifications and licensing include Certified Rehabilitation Counsellor ("CRC").

Ms. O'Brien testified that this was the first time she had been called as an expert witness. She received a certificate as a nursing assistant in 1973 and as a life skills coach in 1989. She enrolled as an undergraduate at the University of Western Ontario in 1985, where she has completed most of the first year and one or two of the second year courses. She has had practical experience in assessing skills and running the "Choices" program. She had been informed she could be certified as an "Accredited Rehabilitation Professional," but she was not taking any steps to be so certified.

Ms. O'Brien testified that in preparing her report she relied on the earlier tests and the medical reports. Mr. Ancell carried out his own tests on Mr. Gagnon. Mr. Ancell drew the distinction between aptitudinal tests and tests to show what skills Mr. Gagnon could transfer to another job. He concluded that Mr. Gagnon has the aptitude to do all kinds of things — with training.

Ms. O'Brien testified that she relied on the Choices Occupational Data Base to provide an indication of Mr. Gagnon's vocational abilities. The Choices program indicated that a drywall finisher requires average educational performance, a three year apprenticeship including training and specific courses, and over three years of work experience. The physical demands of a finisher are considered medium. Ms. O'Brien included occupations with medium physical demands in her computerized search on the basis that those jobs of a medium nature were of a different character and less demanding than drywall finishing with respect to Mr. Gagnon's limitations.

Ms. O'Brien testified that, based on Mr. Gagnon's functional limitations as set out in the Medex report, the Choices program produced 64 occupations. She then narrowed the list by manually comparing Mr. Gagnon's temperament, interests, physical activities and career areas to arrive at nine occupations, and added Mr. Gagnon's alternative goal of electronics engineering technician to the list for comparison purposes:

Medium physical demands:

surveyor helper

material handler, general

armoured car guard

electroplater, metal

Light physical demands:

business machine tester

electrical repairer

inspector, small electrical appliances

locksmith

security guard, premises

electronics engineering technician

The report sets out for the listed occupations factors such as the pay ranges, temperament, aptitudes, physical demands, environment, and hours of work. More details are provided in the output from the Choices program attached to her report, including details of the occupation of drywall finisher.

Mr. Ancell excluded occupations with medium physical demands from his own computerized transferable skills analysis. He put drywall finisher into the system by the relevant code: the American Dictionary of Occupational Titles or — what he testified was derivative of the DOT — the Canadian Classification Dictionary of Occupations. Each job title has been analyzed for physical requirements and 12 other factors such as aptitudes, working conditions and temperament. He then modified the program to show that Mr. Gagnon could only do light work (20 pounds maximum lifting, 10 pounds frequently), and made no other changes. The computer then took account of the skills demonstrated and the physical limitations to sort through and find jobs requiring no training (directly related) or some training (generally or closely related). The computer found no jobs which were directly, closely or generally related to Mr. Gagnon's skill sets and limitations. Instead, the system produced a list of 33 unskilled jobs^vi which, since they require no skill sets, Mr. Gagnon could do. Mr. Ancell did not list all these jobs in his report; in his testimony he mentioned some, such as call-out operator, surveillance system monitor, counter clerk, usher, and child attendant. He testified that these were minimum-wage jobs.

Mr. Ancell criticized the list of jobs set out by Ms. O'Brien, testifying that Mr. Gagnon either does not have the skills or does not meet the physical restrictions. He also could not see how Ms. O'Brien's list of occupations could have anything to do with drywall. He noted that although all the occupations in Ms. O'Brien's report required the use of the arms and hands, the report drew no distinction in the extent of their use.

I find it difficult to conceive that Mr. Gagnon's previous occupation of drywall finisher reasonably fitted him for the jobs listed by Ms. O'Brien. First of all, I am not convinced that Mr. Gagnon is even physically capable of doing the jobs with medium physical demands. Secondly, I find that these and the other jobs fall short having regard to the relevant factors of suitability.

The occupation of surveyor helper would probably be a suitable occupation — if not for Mr. Gagnon's limitations: the Choices output indicates that environmental factors include extreme cold, and Mr. Gagnon is sensitive to cold. The output also says the job involves lifting and carrying materials, tools and equipment. Similar objections apply to material handler and armoured car guard. An electroplater faces extreme heat, damp or wet, and risk of injury, as well as dust, fumes, odours, and poor ventilation, and works rotating shifts and weekends. I find these occupations are either unsuitable in the context of Mr. Gagnon's employment background or exceed Mr. Gagnon's physical limitations.

Several occupations — business machine tester, electrical repairer, and small electrical appliances inspector — require experience that Mr. Gagnon does not have. According to the Choices output, business machine testers always require relevant experience, and small electrical appliances inspectors may require experience as assemblers in the same company. Thus, even to gain the experience necessary for this work, Mr. Gagnon would have to perform the kind of factory or assembly line work rejected by Dr. Koppert. Frankly, I simply do not see how Mr. Gagnon, a drywall finisher with a Grade 9 education, could reasonably be expected to start making electrical repairs or inspecting electrical appliances.

According to Mr. Ancell, the job of premises security guard is unskilled. The evidence also suggests that security guards are paid less than drywall finishers. The hours of work — rotating shifts and weekends — are considerably different from those of a drywall finisher. I would think it is self-evident that the nature of the work is different from that of a drywall finisher. On balance, I find that this job is of a sufficiently different nature and remuneration not to be considered suitable.

In the absence of testimony at the hearing by Dr. Fortuna, I am not convinced that the job of locksmith exceeds Mr. Gagnon's physical limitations. Mr. Ancell stated he had no particular problem with the physical demands of locksmith; his concern was with Mr. Gagnon's lack of experience or qualifications for that job. He added that locksmiths do need two years of apprenticeship to get $17,000-32,000, because during the apprenticeship the apprentice does not make that income. I accept his testimony that Mr. Gagnon cannot simply step into this job and would require at least a period of apprenticeship. I find that Mr. Gagnon does not have the education, training or experience to make this job suitable for him at this time.

I find that, in the course of Mr. Ancell's and Mr. Gagnon's testimony, Mr. Gagnon fulfilled his obligation to describe a suitable job he cannot do because of his physical limitations. Mr. Gagnon in particular rejected the job of material handler, since — having done it in the past — he was familiar with that job, and he testified he could not meet its physical demands. He was supported in this by Mr. Ancell. The testimony of both also addressed the occupation of surveyor helper, which again would be suitable except for the physical and environmental demands.

Since I find that Mr. Gagnon has answered the burden of proof, and since I am not satisfied that Jevco has shown there is a suitable occupation that Mr. Gagnon can perform, I find he is entitled to the reinstatement of the weekly income benefit.

Rehabilitation and Retraining

I agree with the comments of Arbitrator Draper at page 15 of his decision Pedro Correal and Jevco Insurance Company,^vii that retraining for a new occupation is reasonable only if it is unreasonable to expect the insured person to return to his or her pre-accident occupation. Since all parties agree that Mr. Gagnon cannot return to his former occupation, it seems reasonable that he should have been given retraining for a new occupation.

Mr. Ancell testified, as noted above, that Mr. Gagnon can do any number of jobs with appropriate training. He suggested that Mr. Gagnon could be a computer-assisted draftsperson and need not be relegated to a $7 per hour job. He also assumed that Mr. Gagnon could be a locksmith after training.

Mr. Gagnon asks that I order he be provided retraining to become an electronics engineering technician. He did not provide any information or plans other than what could be discerned from Ms. Beasley-Tapak's correspondence. Significantly, Mr. Ancell did not agree that the occupation of electronics engineering technician is necessarily the best job for Mr. Gagnon.

The evidence before me also indicates that a technician would be in a higher income bracket than a drywall finisher, especially having regard to the seasonal nature of Mr. Gagnon's former employment. I would not consider this a problem if the only reasonable alternative occupation for Mr. Gagnon incidentally put him in a higher income bracket. However, I am not convinced that electronics engineering technician is the only avenue open to him, especially in light of the testimony of Mr. Ancell, who did not endorse that occupation and suggested the occupation of computer-assisted draftsperson. Alternatively, perhaps an attempt could be made to have Mr. Gagnon apprentice in an occupation he could perform, such as locksmith. Although the evidence shows that the salary range of locksmith is slightly lower than that of drywall finisher (the Career Probe report lists a range of $7 to $13), a steady income of $12 per hour would closely approximate what Mr. Gagnon earned as a drywall finisher on a seasonal basis: $12 per hour x 40 hours/week x 52 weeks = $24,960.00. In that case, it would seem logical for Jevco to make up the difference between an apprentice's salary and the regular salary until the apprenticeship was over.

Accordingly, I do not find that Mr. Gagnon is entitled to retraining as an electronics engineering technician. I find he does need ongoing vocational rehabilitation assistance, and until he receives such assistance, or he experiences a material change of circumstances, he will be entitled to weekly income benefits under section 12(5)(b).

Expenses:

I exercise my discretion to award Mr. Gagnon his expenses as set out in Schedule F of the Dispute Resolution Code —1995. Counsel for Mr. Gagnon specifically requested that the expenses for calling Mr. Ancell be allowed. I found Mr. Ancell's testimony helpful, and I order that his expenses be paid. In the event that the parties cannot agree as to the total amount of expenses, a party may apply for assessment of the expenses through the Office of the Registrar.

Order:

1. Mr. Gagnon is entitled to weekly income benefits after October 29, 1994, under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule.

2. Mr. Gagnon's request for occupational retraining as an electronics engineering technician is denied.

3. Mr. Gagnon is entitled to interest, according to the provisions of section 24(4) of the Schedule, and to his expenses of the arbitration.

May 1, 1996

David Evans Arbitrator

Date

APPENDIX

1. Medical Brief Index of Michael Gagnon (a page from Tab 13, Dr. Ancell's report, was missing and subsequently faxed to the Commission)

2. Schedule of Productions of Jevco Insurance Company

3. Letter from R. Vidamour of Lindsey Morden Claim Services to Associative Rehabilitation Inc. dated October 29, 1993

4. Initial Evaluation Report of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. dated November 30, 1993

5. Letter dated November 30, 1993, of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. to Dr. Fortuna

6. Letter dated March 2, 1994, of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. to E. Crosby, St. Clair College

7. Report dated January 7, 1994, of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. to R. Vidamour, Lindsey Morden Claim Services

8. Letter dated March 2, 1994, of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. to Dr. Fortuna

9. Letter dated June 15, 1994, of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. to M. Zurowski, Jevco Insurance

10. Letter dated November 14, 1994, of S. Beasley-Tapak of Associative Rehabilitation Inc. to R. Vidamour, Lindsey Morden Claim Services

11. Resume of Robert B. Ancell

ENDNOTES

Footnotes

1. iPrior to January 1, 1994, Ontario Regulation 672 was called the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. After that date it became the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule —Accidents Before January 1, 1994. In this decision, the term "Schedule" will be used to refer to Regulation 672.
2. iiMay 8, 1995, OIC File No. A-005714.
3. viAn unskilled job is defined, according to Mr. Ancell, as requiring 30 days or less of training.
4. vJudy Spicer and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, May 24, 1995, OIC File No. A-010158.
5. viiMay 6, 1993, OIC File No. A-001994.
6. iiiJanuary 12, 1996, OIC File No. A-012312.
7. ivExhibit 8: Ms. Beasley-Tapak's confirming letter to Dr. Fortuna dated March 2, 1994.