Neutral Citation: 1996 ONICDRG 72

File No.: A-015565

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

CONSTANTINOS KOUTAKIS

Applicant

and

DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Constantinos Koutakis, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 27, 1991 (the "accident"). He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company ("Dominion"), payable under Ontario Regulation 672.¹ Weekly income benefits were terminated by Dominion on March 25, 1994. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation and Mr. Koutakis applied for arbitration under the Insurance Act, R.S.O.1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issue in this hearing is:

1. Is Mr. Koutakis entitled to weekly income benefits pursuant to section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, after March 25, 1994?

Mr. Koutakis also claims interest on any overdue payments, and his expenses incurred with respect to this arbitration proceeding.

Result:

1. Mr. Koutakis is not entitled to weekly income benefits pursuant to section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, subsequent to March 25, 1994.

2. Mr. Koutakis is not entitled to his expenses incurred with respect to this arbitration proceeding.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in North York, Ontario, on March 5 and 6, 1996, before me, Lawrence Blackman, Arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant:

Constantinos Koutakis

Applicant's

Mr. H.M. Lewin

Representative:

Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's

Mr. William A. McClelland

Representative:

Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's

Ms. Leanne Lagana

Officer:

Witnesses:

Mr. Constantinos Koutakis, Applicant

Mrs. Pilvi Niit

Dr. Basil Soklaridis

Ms. Kerstin Jahn

Mr. Leyland Bascom

Mr. Koutakis' evidence was given through an interpreter of Greek and English, Mr. Peter Skrekis.

Court

Ms. Yomanda Gangadeen (March 5, 1996)

Reporters:

Ms. Marianne Still (March 6, 1996)

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1

Original letter from Neat Display to Mr. Constantin Koutakis, dated January 18, 1996.

Exhibit 2

Copy of letter from Neat Display to Mr. Constantin Koutakis, dated January 18, 1995.

Exhibit 3

Copy of letter from Constantine Koutakis to Neat Woodwork & Display Limited, dated July 5, 1995.

Exhibit 4

Copies of employment records of Neat Display pertaining to Mr. Constantinos Koutakis.

Exhibit 5

Copy of medico-legal report of Dr. Morris D. Charendoff, dated November 13, 1995, re: Constantinos Koutakis.

Exhibit 6

Copies of printouts from Revenue Canada, 1990-1994, re: Constantinos Koutakis.

Exhibit 7

Copies of clinical notes and record of Dr. Basil Soklaridis, re: Constantinos Koutakis.

Exhibit 8

Copy of unsigned consultation note of Dr. R. Damonze, dated May 10, 1995, re: Constantin Koutakis.

Exhibit 9

Videotape from Profile Investigation Inc., re: July 19, 24, and 25, 1995 surveillance.

Exhibit 10

Document Brief.

The Evidence:

(a) Pre-Accident

Mr. Koutakis was born on January 20, 1945, in Greece, where he completed one year of high school. He has received no further formal education or training. At age 13, he began working as a carpenter. In 1968, the Applicant emigrated to Canada, continuing to work at the same occupation. Mr. Koutakis testified that carpentry is the only work which he has done, and the only employment from which he can earn a living. I accept that although Mr. Koutakis may have some knowledge of English, his linguistic skills in this language are limited.

In the late 1980s, Mr. Koutakis sustained neck and back injuries in three motor vehicle accidents. Although it was not disputed that the Applicant returned to work following each of these accidents, his evidence that he fully recovered from these accidents by the time of the 1991 accident was contradicted both by the oral evidence of Dr. Basil Soklaridis (the Applicant's family doctor since February 1986), and by comments attributed to the Applicant by Ms. Janet Kellar of the Canadian Back Institute, and by Dr. M. Ford, in their filed reports.²

Mr. Koutakis began working in 1986 at Neat Woodwork & Display Limited ("Neat"), where he was fairly steadily employed until March 1991. The Applicant testified that in 1990 he reduced his hours of employment in order to reduce his exposure to a matrimonial claim.

Mr. Koutakis' 1986 to 1990 earnings were well documented in Neat's Employee Earnings Records. I find however that there were significant inconsistencies in the evidence concerning Mr. Koutakis' subsequent employment, as set out below.

Neat's present owner, Mrs. Pilvi Niit, testified that the company's Employee Earnings Records pertaining to Mr. Koutakis after 1990 were not available, as the person maintaining these now computerized records was away on vacation. She therefore submitted into evidence her handwritten note summarizing from the time sheets the Applicant's earnings from the beginning of 1991 until March 16, 1991, which she stated was the last day Mr. Koutakis worked for Neat in 1991. However, Mrs. Niit's summary did not correspond with Revenue Canada's statement of Mr. Koutakis' 1991 T4 earnings. This discrepancy was left unexplained.

Mr. Koutakis testified that his work at Neat required lifting items weighing up to 120 pounds by himself, and items up to 300 pounds with the assistance of one or two other employees. This evidence was contradicted by both the Canadian Back Institute's March 2, 1992 report, which indicated that Mr. Koutakis had related that his work required lifting up to 55 pounds,³ and by his family doctor's testimony that the Applicant's work involved lifting 35 to 40 pounds.

Shortly before the 1991 accident, Mr. Koutakis received an offer of employment from Beaumark Contracting & Store Fixtures Ltd. ("Beaumark"), with a start date of April 1, 1991. This job involved refinishing the wood portions of interior dwellings, including baseboards, stairs and door frames, at various job sites, and required prolonged or frequent standing, walking, bending, squatting, overhead reaching, and twisting of the trunk. Lifting and carrying of up to 100 pounds was required. The position was noted to be "a physically demanding occupation."⁴

(b) Accident and subsequent treatment

On March 27, 1991, the car driven by Mr. Koutakis was struck twice in the rear by another vehicle. Mr. Koutakis saw his family doctor on April 1, 1991. Dr. Soklaridis diagnosed a "whiplash injury of the cervical and lumbar spine."⁵

Due to his injuries sustained in the accident, Mr. Koutakis never began his employment with Beaumark. He applied to Dominion for weekly income benefits, and was paid $600.00 per week, from April 3, 1991 until March 25, 1994.

On cross-examination, Mr. Koutakis admitted that in 1991, he also collected Unemployment Insurance benefits "for a little period of time" in the amount of $11,496. Although the Applicant claimed that he did not remember the period that these benefits covered, he acknowledged that they could not cover the pre-accident period, as he was working for Neat from the commencement of 1991 until less than two weeks before the accident. It was not clarified whether these payments were UIC sick benefits or regular benefits. However, despite some verbal fencing by the Applicant, it was apparent that he did not inform UIC of the accident or the accident benefits which he received.

Dr. Soklaridis opined that Mr. Koutakis' ongoing low back complaints might be due to a facet joint injury, and not injury to the muscles. However, the family doctor agreed that there were no objective signs of injury as a result of the 1991 accident. Accordingly, Dr. Soklaridis acknowledged that it was not possible to confirm the degree of discomfort being experienced by Mr. Koutakis, and therefore to a great extent his diagnosis and prognosis depended on the truthfulness of his patient. When asked whether he believed his patient, Dr. Soklaridis gave a carefully phrased response that some people were more believable than others, and that based on Mr. Koutakis' return to work following his prior accidents, and his endeavours to return to work following the 1991 accident, he was "more of the belief" that Mr. Koutakis was not capable of working.

Other medical practitioners were however more sceptical. Dr. E.P. Urovitz, an orthopaedic surgeon who saw the Applicant on November 20, 1991 at the request of Dominion, notes differences in the Applicant's range of motion between formal testing and when the patient was distracted. He states in his report dated December 5, 1991:⁶

I am willing to accept the fact that this gentleman sustained some degree of myofascial injuries to the neck and back as a result of the motor vehicle accident in question. On the other hand the physical examination today is replete with inorganic signs indicating either major functional overlay or possibly voluntary simulation of symptoms for the purposes of secondary gain. On clinical grounds I am really unable to differentiate between a true chronic pain syndrome and a possible clinical situation of malingering.

In order to ensure that there was no psychological basis to the Applicant's complaints, Dr. Soklaridis referred Mr. Koutakis to a psychiatrist, Dr. R. Damonze, who states in his report dated May 10, 1995,⁷ that on the basis of a March 28, 1995 consultation: "I find no evidence of psychiatric abnormality at this point and the patient himself feels that he has no psychological problems."

Dr. Soklaridis deferred to Dr. Damonze's expertise, and believed that the Applicant's complaints were physical, and not psychological in nature.

Mr. Koutakis initially denied being involved in any motor vehicle accident subsequent to March 27, 1991. However, when given a precise date of December 6, 1991, he acknowledged being involved in an accident on that day, but stated that this incident only resulted in property damage. Dr. Soklaridis' consultation note of December 16, 1991 stops recording this incident mid-sentence. On cross-examination, the doctor stated that he stopped writing when advised by Mr. Koutakis that he had not suffered any injuries in this accident, but was only documenting the event with the doctor.

Dr. Urovitz's unease concerning the veracity of Mr. Koutakis' complaints was echoed by a second Insurer medical practitioner, Dr. M.Hall, an orthopaedic surgeon, who states in his report dated October 15, 1992:⁸ "I am finding today, a behaviour pattern that strongly suggests voluntary inhibition of function at a conscious level."

Dr. Hall also commented that an examination of Mr. Koutakis' "work stained" and "very heavily callused" hands "very strongly suggest that he is presently involved in coarse manual activity of a heavy nature." Dr. Urovitz, in a further examination of February 4, 1993, also stated:

I did happen to look at Mr. Koutakis' palms which appeared to show evidence of some residual callouses. If in fact this gentleman had not been working for a period of two years, one would not expect any callouses whatsoever. This is not conclusive evidence but it is suggestive that he probably is doing somewhat more manual work that [sic] he would let others know that he is performing.⁹

This evidence was neither challenged nor explained by the Applicant.

Mr. Koutakis attended the Canadian Back Institute in early 1992 for treatment. Some evidence of symptom magnification is noted.¹⁰ Their report dated March 2, 1992¹¹ notes that Mr. Koutakis demonstrated the ability to lift 45 pounds from waist to shoulder level. Mr. Koutakis denied such an ability.

Mr. Koutakis subsequently attended at the Accident Rehabilitation Centre Inc. for a functional restoration programme. Their July 16, 1992 report¹² states:

After Mr. Koutakis had attended the program over a three week period, it became apparent that he was not sufficiently motivated to participate consistently or to give a level of effort that would be required to produce a significant improvement in his physical function.

Previously, Mr. Koutakis had been assigned a vocational rehabilitation caseworker, Mr. Jon Pagonis, of General Rehabilitation Services of Canada, Ltd., who was able to converse with the Applicant in his native Greek. Mr. Pagonis reported that on September 20, 1991 he met with Dr. Soklaridis, who had advised that:

...the client stated that he was unable to return to work at any level due to his medical condition. However, Dr. Soklaridis informed the client that he is medically fit to return to work as a finished carpenter and should do so as soon as possible.¹³

In his report dated April 28, 1992, Mr. Pagonis stated that he again met with Dr. Soklaridis, who indicated that the Applicant could return to some type of work, avoiding heavy lifting and repetitive bending. Although Dr. Soklaridis had no written notation or independent recollection of ever meeting Mr. Pagonis, he strongly denied making the statement attributed to him.

On September 12, 1994, Mr. Koutakis was seen in a further Insurer Medical Examination by Dr. M. Ford. Dr. Ford states in his report¹⁴ that:

I have no doubt that Mr. Koutakis incurred soft tissue injuries and has some back pain but there is obviously a large non-organic component to his ongoing complaints and his level of disability as previously indicated by Dr. Hall and Dr. Urovitz.

Dr. Ford felt that:

Under normal circumstances the prognosis would have been for full recovery some time ago. Many non-organic factors are obviously at play here and have propagated and prolonged this man's duration of disability.

Dr. Ford recommended that Mr. Koutakis attempt resuming fulltime work in the very near future. He indicated in his report that the Applicant was quite willing to return to the work force as long as he has a letter to do so Such al etter was given to the Applicant.

Mr. Koutakis confirmed that Dr. Ford provided him with such a note, but stated that the note, which was not produced, was not understandable, was unsigned, and lacked official status because it was neither typed nor "stamped." When asked if he sought such a note from any other medical practitioner, the Applicant stated that he saw Dr. Soklaridis, who told him that he was not ready to return to work, be it light or heavy. Such comments are not indicated in the family doctor's notes.

Dr. Soklaridis however testified that on many occasions he told Mr. Koutakis to try to return to work. He referred to two entries in his clinical notes confirming such attempts by Mr. Koutakis. A September 16, 1993 record states that Mr. Koutakis "worked for a while, but he couldn't make it." A muscle relaxant/analgesic was prescribed. Dr. Soklaridis' oral recollection was that the Applicant had worked for 10 days. An entry of February 8, 1994 indicates a further unsuccessful attempt to return to work. The family doctor's recollection was that this attempt lasted approximately one hour.

However, Mr. Koutakis on cross-examination stated that his only attempt to return to work since the accident was in the summer of 1995. This in turn contradicted Mr. Koutakis' evidence in chief of an attempt to return to work in 1994. Mr. Koutakis specifically denied that he had returned to work for Neat in December 1991, although a Record of Employment dated January 13, 1992 with his correct name and address, was found in his employer's file,¹⁵ indicating that he worked for Neat from December 2 to December 12, 1991. The only explanation provided by the Applicant was that the dates must have been incorrectly noted. The Applicant however did not provide any indication as to the "correct dates."

Surveillance¹⁶ on July 24, 1995 showed the Applicant arriving at Neat at 7:25 a.m. and leaving the company at 4:05 p.m. The investigator was able to confirm the Applicant's presence inside the company premises for most of the day. The following day, Mr. Koutakis was observed inside Neat at 7:30 a.m., and was observed leaving the company at 4:05 p.m.

Mr. Koutakis did not deny that he was at Neat on these dates. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he had tried to work three or four days in the summer of 1995. It was apparently merely coincidental that he had been observed on two of those days. The Applicant stated that these were just trial efforts to see if he could return to his former employment. However, he stated that after only one to two hours, he had to sit down for two to three hours. He nonetheless left the factory at the normal quitting time, but with pain of such intensity that he had to lie down on the floor. This contradicted his evidence in chief that he tried to work for only 10 to 15 minutes, and could not stay the entire day.

Mr. Koutakis is seen on video leaving Neat at the end of the day, in an unhurried manner, inconsistent with someone in great pain. No corroborative evidence was received from anyone at Neat attesting to Mr. Koutakis' limitations, if any, on the surveillance dates. Furthermore, despite the Applicant's complaints of experiencing terrible pain in the summer of 1995, Dr. Soklaridis testified that Mr. Koutakis did not see him between March 25, 1995 and January 2, 1996.

Mr. Koutakis' evidence that he largely "hung around" Neat on the surveillance dates was inconsistent with his evidence that before returning to Neat, he made a point of specifically speaking on a coffee break to a foreman at Neat about a possible trial work period, the indication being that he did not wish to interfere with the business' work activities.

The evidence concerning Mr. Koutakis' return to Neat was interesting. Mrs. Niit testified that in January 1995, the Applicant first contacted her to see if he could try to work. Although she had concerns with potential Workers' Compensation problems, and paying the Applicant when it was uncertain what he could do, she was prepared to give Mr. Koutakis a trial opportunity. However, Mrs. Niit did not hear from the Applicant again until she received "out of the blue," a typed letter from Mr. Koutakis dated July 5, 1995,¹⁷ in which he agreed to do the "try-out without any pay," and not to "hold your company responsible for anything, if anything would happen to me or any accitent." [sic]

Mr. Koutakis however testified that he did not send this typed letter, as he does not have a typewriter. Rather, he stated that Mrs. Niit typed this letter the same day that he spoke to her about returning to work. The letter was then read to him by the foreman, and he signed it. This was consistent with the Applicant's evidence as to his very limited English skills, in that his initial application for accident benefits¹⁸ was filled out by someone at a travel agency. Mr. Koutakis testified that this person misled him by incorrectly omitting in the form mention of the Applicant's employment with Neat, and only referring to Beaumark as an employer (with whom, coincidentally, the Applicant was to receive a higher wage).

To further complicate matters, Neat sent a letter to Mr. Koutakis confirming "our conference on the phone" to give the Applicant "the oppurtunity [sic] to try out your ability to get back to work force [sic] in our shop." The original letter is dated January 18, 1996.¹⁹ The copy retained by Neat is dated January 18, 1995.²⁰Mrs. Niit stated that the copy had been corrected for her files. This is curious as the copy is now dated some six months before Mr. Koutakis says the "conference" took place. The 1996 date however is some six months after Mr. Koutakis worked at Neat, yet the letter implies that the trial work period has not yet begun. I find that the most logical explanation is that the letter was created shortly before this hearing, in a badly orchestrated response to the Insurer's surveillance. I note the long relationship between Mr. Koutakis and Mrs. Niit and her late husband. Mrs. Niit acknowledged on cross-examination that the late Mr. Niit had worked with the Applicant even before hiring him when Neat was started in 1986.

Mrs. Niit's evidence was also curious in that Neat kept no records of Mr. Koutakis' comings and goings subsequent to the accident. While Mrs. Niit's memory of when the Applicant did work was vague, she did recall that the Applicant came in a number of times, and on one occasion came in for almost a week straight. She further testified that the shop foreman told her a "couple of months ago" that the Applicant was not able to do everything yet, which implied that Mr. Koutakis had worked at Neat subsequent to the summer of 1995, contrary to Mr. Koutakis' testimony. This contradiction was not explained by the Applicant.

The Applicant relied on Dr. Soklaridis' note of February 13, 1995,²¹ in which he stated:

He has not improved at all in the last 18 months, and it is my firm belief now that Mr. Koutakis is unable to return to any occupation for which he is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

Further than that there is no possibility that in the future his condition will improve. To the contrary the aging process will deteriorate his back problems.

Dr. Soklaridis testified that his opinion had remained the same from the date of this note to the present.

Mr. Koutakis also relied on a report of Dr. Morris D. Charendoff, orthopaedic surgeon, who saw the Applicant on referral from his family doctor, on May 8 and November 2, 1995. Dr. Charendoff states in his report²² that the Applicant tried to return to work one month prior to the November appointment, but was only able to stay for a couple of hours because of severe discomfort. This inconsistency with Mr. Koutakis' evidence was not addressed by the Applicant.

Dr. Charendoff essentially accepted the Applicant's subjective complaints as consistent with a soft tissue injury. He stated that as Mr. Koutakis had obtained only a modest level of recovery more than four years post-accident, maximum medical recovery had been achieved. Dr. Charendoff therefore stated:

Accordingly, his only recourse is to attempt to rehabilitate himself as best he can and try to live with his pain and other problems as there is no specific treatment available other than such rehabilitation.

Furthermore, he may very well require re-training into another job situation with which he can cope.

I heard no evidence of attempts by the Applicant to rehabilitate himself into another occupation. I received no evidence of any requests to the Insurer for retraining. A case manager, Mr. Bruno Bonazza, of Work Return Inc., was retained by Dominion, evidently in August 1994, and conducted initial interviews with Mr. Koutakis and his family doctor. He prepared a market labour survey, dated August 22, 1994.²³ Several jobs in the carpentry area are noted from the C.C.D.O. Listings and Classifications, which generally indicate that this type of employment involves "medium" physical labour, defined as lifting 50 lbs. maximum with frequent lifting and/or carrying of objects weighing up to 20 lbs. This work may also involve sitting most of the time with a degree of pushing and pulling of arm and/or leg controls.

Analysis and Findings:

It was agreed by counsel that Mr. Koutakis has been paid 156 weeks of weekly income benefits by Dominion. Pursuant to section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, for Mr. Koutakis to be entitled to any further benefits, he has the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that his injury:

continuously prevents the insured from engaging in any occupation or employment for which he ... is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

This is a stricter test than exists for the first three year period.

I accept the opinion of the medical practitioners who have seen Mr. Koutakis that he sustained soft tissue injuries in the accident, and has some measure of ongoing pain. I also accept Dr. Soklaridis' evidence that Mr. Koutakis has no objective signs of injury from the 1991 accident, and that it is impossible to confirm the degree of discomfort he is experiencing. Therefore a finding of disability in accordance with the Schedule is dependent upon a finding that Mr. Koutakis is a reliable and credible witness.

The issue really comes down to the question, as has been stated by other arbitrators, of how much pain is too much pain for this particular Applicant?²⁴ Has Mr. Koutakis reached that threshold of pain which continuously prevents him from engaging in any occupation for which he is "reasonably suited by education, training or experience?"

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is as elusive at the end of two days of hearings, as it was at the beginning. For reasons best known to Mr. Koutakis, the Applicant chose to be less than forthcoming as to the extent of his post-accident disability.

Dominion portrayed the Applicant as having returned to his former occupation with absolutely no continuing disability, and being motivated solely by greed in bringing this application. The Applicant submitted that pressured by care practitioners and depressed by his disability, he attempted his old job on a trial basis for a very limited duration before experiencing terrible pain which prevented him from continuing, and is therefore disabled from the manual labour which he has performed since age 13.

One is not to be faulted for trying to return to work, especially as part of a rehabilitation process. Such an endeavour does not automatically disqualify one from benefits, as set out in statute,²⁵ and as interpreted by case law.²⁶ Attempts at reintegration into the workforce are rather an integral part of the rehabilitative process, rehabilitation being one of the guiding principles of the no-fault framework.

In issue in this case however is credibility. I did not find Mr. Koutakis to be a credible witness with respect to his post-accident employment and level of disability. Answers on cross-examination were often vague and non-responsive. His evidence was inconsistent, and on numerous occasions contradicted by the written or oral evidence of both lay and expert witnesses, including those upon whom he was intending to rely.

Important corroborative evidence, such as his 1991 Employee Earning Record, or evidence of fellow workers relating to post-accident work, was not provided. Evidence damaging to the Applicant, such as the comments of Dr. Urovitz and Dr. Hall concerning the callouses on his hands, was not addressed. His explanations concerning other evidence, such as the 1991 separation slip, were implausible. His testimony pertaining to Dr. Ford's "note" was illogical. The letters exchanged between the Applicant and Neat suggested that they were manufactured for this hearing. The inference to me was that Mr. Koutakis believed that candid evidence pertaining to his post-accident employment would not be helpful to his case.

This conclusion, coupled with the negative comments of several medical practitioners as to his motivations, the lack of any objective proof of disability and indeed the discrepancies between subjective complaints and objective evidence such as the video surveillance, lead me to find his evidence neither reliable nor credible. Accordingly Mr. Koutakis has not persuaded me, on the balance of probabilities, that his injuries entitle him to ongoing weekly income benefits subsequent to March 25, 1995, pursuant to section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule.

Expenses:

The Applicant seeks an award of his expenses. Section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended gives an arbitrator discretion to award expenses, in accordance with the regulations.

In the past, arbitrators have generally awarded costs to applicants, even when unsuccessful, in order to facilitate access to arbitration, unless the arbitrator found that the application "was manifestly frivolous or vexatious, or that the applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings."²⁷ I do not find that this practice was meant to facilitate claims being brought by applicants who choose not to be truthful in their evidence. I find that the Applicant's evidence was not credible in respect of important elements of his case. I therefore exercise my discretion to deny Mr. Koutakis his expenses incurred in respect of this arbitration proceeding.

Order:

1. Mr. Koutakis is not entitled to weekly income benefits, pursuant to section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, subsequent to March 25, 1994.

2. Mr. Koutakis is not entitled to his expenses incurred in respect of this arbitration proceeding.

May 3, 1996

Lawrence Blackman

Arbitrator

Date

Footnotes

1. 1Prior 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. 2Exhibit 10, Tab 18 (report dated January 27, 1992), and Tab 15 (report dated September 12, 1994).
3. 3Exhibit 10, Tab 20.
4. 4General Rehabilitation Services Inc., Job Analysis Form prepared July 31, 1991, Exhibit 10, Tab 29.
5. 5Ontario Automobile Insurance Medical Report of Dr. B. Soklaridis, dated April 12, 1990, Exhibit 10, Tab 2.
6. 6Exhibit 10, Tab 11.
7. 7Exhibit 8.
8. 8Exhibit 10, Tab 14.
9. 9Report dated February 25, 1993, Exhibit 10, Tab 12.
10. 10Report dated January 27, 1992, Exhibit 10, Tab 18.
11. 11Exhibit 10, Tab 20.
12. 12Exhibit 10, Tab 22.
13. 13September 23, 1991 report, Exhibit 10, Tab 23.
14. 14September 12, 1994, Exhibit 10, Tab 15.
15. 15Exhibit 4.
16. 16Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10, Tab 35.
17. 17Exhibit 3.
18. 18Exhibit 10, Tab 1.
19. 19Exhibit 1.
20. 20Exhibit 2.
21. 21Exhibit 10, Tab 17.
22. 22November 13, 1995, Exhibit 10, Tab 36.
23. 23Exhibit 10, Tab 33.
24. 24e.g. JodiE. Wiseman and Coachman Insurance Company, June 10, 1994, OIC File No. A-005706.
25. 25See section 16 of the Schedule.
26. 26Rene G. Lafleur and Zurich Insurance Company, May 11, 1995, OIC File No. A-004141.
27. 27Ralph McCormick and Economical Mutual Insurance Company, October 2, 1991, OIC File No. A-000139.