Neutral Citation: 1996 ONICDRG 8

File No. A-004989

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

GERHARD M. SCHNEIDER

Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Gerhard M. Schneider, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 5, 1992. He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), payable under Ontario Regulation 672.¹ He did not receive weekly income benefits, but State Farm paid some chiropractic and travel expenses pursuant to the Schedule. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation and Mr. Schneider 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. Schneider entitled to recover the supplementary medical rehabilitation expenses he has claimed?

2. Is Mr. Schneider entitled to receive weekly income benefits pursuant to section 12 of the Schedule?

3. Is Mr. Schneider entitled to a special award pursuant to section 282(10) of the Insurance Act?

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

Result:

1. Mr. Schneider is entitled to certain medical rehabilitation expenses as set out below.

2. Mr. Schneider is not entitled to receive weekly income benefits.

3. Mr. Schneider is not entitled to a special award.

Mr. Schneider is entitled to interest on the outstanding payments.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in Windsor, Ontario, on August 28 and 29, 1995, before me, David Evans, Arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant: Gerhard M. Schneider

Applicant's Representative: Rodney M. Godard Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's Representative: Lawrence R. McRae Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's Officer: John Courtney

Witnesses: Gerhard M. Schneider Caroline Meyer

Other persons present: Dominic Miess

The exhibits are set out in the Appendix to this decision.

Evidence and Findings:

Mr. Schneider worked for his own closely-held corporation as a certified general accountant with his former wife Caroline Meyer and two or three additional employees.

On March 5, 1992, a car struck the van Mr. Schneider was driving. He testified that on impact the trunk of his body hit the back of the seat, and his head hit the doorpost and headrest of the van, causing pain in his temple.

Mr. Schneider thought he was in shock and had had a concussion. He realized he was not bleeding, but on exiting the van he testified he could barely stand and walked very slowly. He drove the van home about two hours later, after answering police questions. Within a day, he was increasingly sore, sweaty and feverish, and his heart was beating quickly. At first, he ascribed his symptoms to a cold or a kidney stone. He lost feeling in his leg, and said it felt like a sunburn on his thighs.

He testified that his neck was sore the next day, although he anticipated that happening, as he had been in an accident 30 years before.

Mr. Schneider denied he had had any problems with his neck, shoulder or back prior to the accident, or had missed any time from work during that period. He considered himself in excellent health. In the three years before the accident he saw Dr. St. Louis, a chiropractor, on two occasions, once when he hurt his hand, and six or seven times when he sprained his neck.

Caroline Meyer, Mr. Schneider's wife at the time of the accident, testified that she only found out a week afterwards that Mr. Schneider had been involved in an accident.

Mr. Schneider went to see Dr. St. Louis, a chiropractor, on March 12, 1992. He testified he went to a chiropractor first because he did not think a medical doctor could help him. Dr. St. Louis adjusted his neck and back to realign the bones. Mr. Schneider saw him every day for the first week, and then every second day. He testified that the treatment relieved the pain.

Dr. St. Louis, in his reports, indicates that Mr. Schneider's initial complaints were mainly of neck and left shoulder pain, with secondary complaints of lower back and left elbow pain. Dr. St. Louis continued to treat Mr. Schneider over the next six months, confirming in his reports his diagnosis of cervical whiplash and lumbar strain, and Mr. Schneider's good response to conservative care.

On March 16, 1992, Mr. Schneider saw Dr. Wan, his family physician. He complained to Dr. Wan of the pain in his back and of going to the bathroom every 10 to 15 minutes. Dr. Wan indicates that Mr. Schneider stated he had experienced a stiff neck a few days after the accident, but the neck felt better at the time of this visit. X-rays taken the same date show some degenerative changes in the lumbar and cervical spines. Mr. Schneider saw Dr. Wan again on March 25, 1992. In his report, Dr. Wan notes that during that visit Mr. Schneider was able to move his neck freely and bend his back, and he stated he wanted no medication.

Mr. Schneider testified that from March to December 1992 he had headaches that would fluctuate in severity depending on how much he moved his arm. He also claimed the accident turned his life "upside down," that the pain made him depressed, angry and agitated.

Both witnesses — Mr. Schneider and Ms. Meyer — testified that the accident happened at the beginning of the busy tax season. Mr. Schneider continued working, although he claims he took many days off. Ms. Meyer testified that she noticed Mr. Schneider was not doing as much work as usual, but she could not say how many days he missed during the tax season. She testified that Mr. Schneider was most absent during the summer of 1992, and when he was there, he was unfocussed. She also claimed that she had to review everything he did.

Mr. Schneider claimed that the accident affected his memory as well as his ability to answer client's questions and follow tax law. He told his wife to take care of whoever came through the door, but nonetheless she did send some people in to see him, and he claimed this was "a disaster." He testified that his vision was blurred, his speech was slurred, and his clients must have thought he was drunk. He prepared some tax returns, some of which were checked by Ms. Meyer, who told him they were all wrong. A number of returns were not checked, and Mr. Schneider testified that as a result some customers complained.

Mr. Schneider's evidence in support of his claim under section 12 consisted of allegations that his business did not grow as fast as it should have. His own counsel agreed that this claim for loss of business income is difficult to reconcile with the requirements of section 12.

Both witnesses also testified that they had marital problems. They shared their house in Belle River until August 1992, when Ms. Meyer left. Ms. Meyer testified that she and Mr. Schneider had problems before the accident. She made her decision to move out around May 1992. Nonetheless, she continued to support and help Mr. Schneider.

Mr. Schneider claims for housekeeping expenses from August 1, 1992, after Ms. Meyer moved out. Mr. Schneider admitted that his wife had done most of the housekeeping before the accident, but claimed that she did all of it after the accident. He admitted that after the accident he continued doing the yard work with a riding lawnmower, as he had done before.

Ms. Meyer testified that she had done most of the inside housework before the accident, with Mr. Schneider doing more on the outside. After Ms. Meyer moved out — to a house with a smaller yard than what she was used to — Mr. Schneider agreed that she could let her dog run on his property. She helped him with vacuuming the house and cleaning the floors from Saturday morning to mid afternoon. She also did some laundry and cooking. She had hoped to be paid, and understood that Mr. Schneider would pay her eventually, although they never agreed on an exact amount.

In September 1992 Mr. Schneider started travelling to Chatham to be treated by Dr. Steel, a holistic chiropractor. Mr. Schneider testified that Dr. Steel manipulated his spine and neck, like other chiropractors. Dr. Steel also used a pressuring device to go up and down the spine, used acupuncture, and applied some sort of electric current treatment. Mr. Schneider testified that by December 1992 he experienced improvement.

Dr. Steel indicates that Mr. Schneider initially complained of pain in the neck and right shoulder, headaches, pain in the lower back when seated, and occasional attacks of dizziness. He diagnosed vertebrobasilar artery compression on the right that, he states, can affect concentration and clarity of thought. This condition persisted for six months from the initial consultation. Dr. Steel continues to treat Mr. Schneider. He states: "Mr. Schneider will likely require treatment on a more or less continual basis in order to remain functional."²

Dr. Bartol, an orthopaedic surgeon, saw Mr. Schneider on February 8, 1993, at the request of State Farm. He reports³ that Mr. Schneider told him his symptoms started a couple of days after the accident, initially as abdominal cramps, and he had discomfort in his low back. Dr. Bartol reports that Mr. Schneider told him his low back was not a major source of discomfort during the summer of 1992, but rather he was suffering from weight loss, lack of energy, night sweats, memory disturbance, sleep disorder, and headaches — all of which had considerably subsided by the time of this investigation. He did still complain of some mild low back pain, and pain in the right shoulder. Dr. Bartol states that Mr. Schneider felt the onset of the shoulder problem was some time during the summer, when the shoulder started to get stiff and sore until it was treated by the chiropractor. Mr. Schneider noted that it had since improved but remained a little bit stiffer than the other one. Dr. Bartol did not relate any of Mr. Schneider's complaints to the accident itself, partly on the basis that Mr. Schneider had told him the major complaints had started several weeks after the accident. Dr. Bartol suggested that Mr. Schneider was not gaining any significant benefit from the chiropractic treatments at that time.

At his lawyer's request, Mr. Schneider saw Dr. M. Sharma, on January 20, 1994.⁴ Mr. Schneider told him he could not recall pain at the time of the accident, but developed abdominal cramps a few days later after eating cabbage, following which he developed pain in the back, neck and shoulder, particularly the right shoulder. Mr. Schneider reported that the headaches started several weeks after the accident, and that he had memory and concentration problems over the summer. He stated that he had considerably improved by the time of the investigation. Dr. Sharma found Mr. Schneider to be almost perfectly normal physically.

Comments:

I will make some general comments, based upon the medical reports and the evidence presented. Notwithstanding the evidence of Dr. Steel that Mr. Schneider is still suffering the effects of the accident,⁵ Dr. Sharma — who saw Mr. Schneider at Mr. Schneider's lawyer's request — finds Mr. Schneider almost completely normal by the end of January 1994.

Dr. Sharma's report does cause some confusion regarding the memory and concentration problems, as he refers to the period when Mr. Schneider had these problems as "last summer." Since the report was written in April 1994, that would appear to be the summer of 1993. However, Dr. Bartol notes that Mr. Schneider indicated that the complaints of weight loss, lack of energy, memory disturbance, sleep disorder and headaches had considerably subsided by February 1993. Dr. Steel suggests that the vertebrobasilar artery compression lasted for six months following the initial consultation in September 1992 — that is, until approximately February 1993. Ms. Meyer noticed Mr. Schneider's absence from the office in the summer of 1992, but did not comment on any similar absence in the summer of 1993. Therefore, on balance I infer that the memory and concentration problems occurred mostly during the summer of 1992.

I find it difficult to agree with Dr. Bartol's refusal to relate any of Mr. Schneider's symptoms to the accident on the basis that they appeared too long after the accident. Part of the problem appears to be that Mr. Schneider is a poor historian. Even to his own doctors in the later investigations (such as that by Dr. Sharma), he suggested that his symptoms from the accident first appeared several weeks after the accident. However, he saw Dr. St. Louis one week after the accident, and reported to him that symptoms appeared within a day of the accident. Four days later he saw Dr. Wan, and reported to him that his symptoms started within a few days. It therefore appears there was a reasonably short period between the accident and the onset of Mr. Schneider’s symptoms. I find that at least his neck and lower back symptoms started as a result of the accident.

Dr. Bartol also does not relate the problems of the summer of 1992 to the accident. On the other hand, both Mr. Schneider and Ms. Meyer testified that shortly after the accident Mr. Schneider developed memory and concentration problems, and Dr. Steel diagnosed a vertebrobasilar compression that would explain these problems. I find that there is a connection between these problems and the accident. From what Mr. Schneider told Dr. Bartol, and from Dr. Steel's report, I find that these problems had essentially resolved by the end of 1992.

The shoulder is somewhat more difficult, as initially the problem was with the left shoulder. It is not until Dr. Steel starts treatment in September 1992 that the discussion turns to the right shoulder. I am not prepared to find that the continuing problems with Mr. Schneider's right shoulder are related to the accident.

Individual Claims for Supplementary Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits

1) Claim for housekeeping services under either 6(1)(f) or 7(1)(b) of the Schedule

Mr. Schneider claims approximately $24,000 for housekeeping expenses from 1992 to 1994. Some of these claims include expenses for repairing a skylight and for chiropractic care for one of his housekeepers.

Counsel for Mr. Schneider suggested that these claims could fall under either section 6(1)(f) or 7(1)(b). He provided me with no argument or discussion on the point. Section 7 deals with expenses for personal care, and the cases that have dealt with the distinction between sections 6 and 7 usually consider the differences between personal care in section 7 and the payment for nursing services available under section 6(1)(a).⁶ I heard nothing in the evidence to suggest that Ms. Meyer or anyone else did anything more than housekeeping around the house, and certainly nothing that would approach the kind of personal care suggested by section 7. I find that if any claim can be made for these services, it is under section 6(1)(f).

Claims for housekeeping expenses have been allowed under section 6(1)(f) of the Schedule.⁷

These remarks by Arbitrator Draper in Park⁸ have been followed in a number of decisions:

It is my view that child care and housekeeping benefits are available under section 6(1)(f) if the criteria set out in previous arbitration decisions are met:

(i) The expense must be a reasonable expense resulting from the accident;

(ii) The expense must be required by the applicant because of the accident; and,

(iii) If required by the insurer, a medical practitioner must provide a signed statement that the expense is necessary for the applicant's treatment or rehabilitation.

We are only concerned with the first two criteria here. I do not see how expenses to repair a skylight or for chiropractic care for a housekeeper could be considered expenses resulting from the accident, and those claims are denied.

None of the medical reports document the necessity for housekeeping help. In fact, it appears that Mr. Schneider and his wife continued on after the accident as they had before, with her doing the indoor housework and him working outside the house. The complaints to the doctors relate mostly to problems after long hours at the office, and not to problems when working around the house. Mr. Schneider is claiming for a full-time housekeeper, yet the evidence of Ms. Meyer was that she worked a few hours on Saturdays in return for the use of the property for her dog. In light of the evidence I heard, I find that these expenses were not required by the Applicant because of the accident.

2) Prescriptions and other medications

i. Prescriptions

Mr. Schneider made a claim for prescriptions ordered by Dr. Wan totalling $199.64. In cross-examination, Mr. Schneider agreed that these were for a skin condition, and most were ordered after Dr. Wan had stopped treating him for the accident. In submissions, counsel for Mr. Schneider agreed that there was no medical basis to support this claim. It is denied.

ii. Herbal remedies

Mr. Schneider claimed $2,998.00 for Naim-Barley Green. Mr. Schneider called this an "enzyme to boost the immunity system." He testified that he had been taking it before the accident, but quadrupled the dosage after the accident to boost his immune system and his mental ability.

Similarly, the vitamins and herbs ($287.99) were to boost his memory and energy. "Health Vision" ($1,522.23) was another supplement to help with the stress.

In cross-examination, Mr. Schneider agreed that there was no medical evidence to connect these remedies with the accident. In submissions, counsel for Mr. Schneider suggested that there was a "psychological benefit" to taking something that makes you feel better, regardless of whether or not any medical practitioner suggests it. He suggested that the claims are payable under section 6(1)(f).

The only documentation supporting these claims are the invoices showing that Mr. Schneider paid for them.

In light of the complete lack of any medical evidence linking the use of these supplements to the accident, or in fact any evidence other than that given by Mr. Schneider, I am not prepared to find these expenses to be reasonable expenses resulting from the accident. This claim is denied.

3) Costs for travelling to and seeing Dr. Steel

Sections 6(1)(a) and (d) of the Schedule provide as follows:

6.-(1) The insurer will pay with respect to each insured person who sustains physical, psychological or mental injury as a result of an accident all reasonable expenses resulting from the accident within the benefit period set out in subsection (3) for,

(a) medical, psychological, surgical, dental, hospital, chiropractic, nursing and ambulance services and the services of physiotherapists;

(d) transportation for the person to and from treatment, counselling and training sessions, including transportation for an assistant.

Both these items are to be "paid pending dispute," pursuant to section 6(7) of the Schedule.

Mr. Schneider makes a claim of approximately $3,500 for his visits to Dr. Steel. Mr. Schneider testified he is not owed anything for his visits to Dr. St. Louis.

The first question is whether all or any of Dr. Steel's treatments should be paid for. Counsel for Mr. Schneider suggested that the statement by Dr. Steel in his report of August 25, 1995 — that the expenses incurred at his clinic were necessary for the treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident — is sufficient for a finding in favour of Mr. Schneider. I do not agree. It is for the arbitrator to decide whether the benefits sought are reasonable expenses resulting from the accident.

I find that by the end of 1992 the residual effects of the accident were minimal. Aside from the reports of Dr. Steel, the reports of the other practitioners indicate that by the fall of 1992 Mr. Schneider had almost completely recovered from his injuries. Dr. St. Louis found by November 3, 1992, that Mr. Schneider had only slight pain in the end range of motion in the cervical spine, slight pain in the lumbar spine when sitting for long periods of time, and soreness at the end of the day. Dr. Bartol found very little wrong with Mr. Schneider by the beginning of February 1993, and suggested that the ongoing chiropractic treatments were of doubtful benefit. The main problem he observed was the restricted range of motion in the right shoulder, but as I noted above there appears to be a lack of connection between the problems in the right shoulder and the accident.

Mr. Schneider was still being treated by Dr. St. Louis when he started seeing Dr. Steel. Mr. Schneider described to Dr. Bartol how the acupuncture treatments he received from Dr. Steel helped with his lower back. It appears that he was receiving some benefit from Dr. Steel's treatment, but he did admit to Dr. Bartol that the benefit was not lasting.

I find that Mr. Schneider received a benefit from Dr. Steel's treatment through to the end of 1992.

I find the figures claimed for the treatments problematic. Mr. Schneider testified that he obtained the annual figures by looking at the running total on the last invoice of each year. Several invoices for later periods show amounts for homeopathic drops or miscellaneous vitamins and herbal remedies in addition to treatment. The invoice for December 30, 1992, indicates the treatment cost $17.00. At 23 visits in 1992, that would total $391.00, of which it appears OHIP paid $204.75, yet Mr. Schneider's claim is for $804.40.

As a result, the evidence is unclear as to what amounts were paid for chiropractic treatments and what amounts were paid for various drops, vitamins, and herbal remedies. I find that the Insurer is responsible for paying the difference between the cost of 23 treatments in 1992 at $17.00 per treatment ($391.00) and what OHIP paid ($204.75), which totals $186.25.

Mr. Schneider claims transportation costs to Chatham to see Dr. Steel, even though he had been seeing Dr. St. Louis, who worked considerably closer to Mr. Schneider's home (50 kilometres versus 130 kilometres). Senior Arbitrator Rotter in Williams⁹ stated the following where the applicant did not go to the closest chiropractor:

In my view, the Applicant has the right to attend at and seek treatment from the practitioner of his choice, so long as the resultant travel expenses are not clearly exorbitant or excessive. The Insurer cannot reasonably demand or require that an insured person attend at the treatment facility closest to his or her home.

It should be noted that in Williams the practitioner and the applicant had a long-standing relationship, and the travelling difference between the two practitioners was approximately seven kilometres.

Williams was considered by Arbitrator Draper in De Lellis,¹⁰ where after citing Williams he stated:

There is no precise formula for determining what transportation expenses are reasonable. They must be evaluated based on the applicant's particular circumstances. Many factors may be relevant, including the existence of a doctor-patient relationship, the importance of that relationship to the applicant, the role that the doctor plays in the applicant's overall treatment, the availability of alternative care, and the distance and frequency of the trips to see the doctor.

The round trip to Dr. Steel was some 2.5 times as far as the round trip to Dr. St. Louis, and Mr. Schneider did not start seeing Dr. Steel until some six months after the accident. On the other hand, Dr. Steel took over the management of Mr. Schneider's case over the last months of the period during which I am allowing the claim, and he provided additional services, such as acupuncture. On balance, I allow Mr. Schneider's claim for 20 cents per kilometre for 23 round trips of 130 kilometres per round trip in 1992.

4) The Spa

Mr. Schneider also claims under section 6(1)(f) for the cost of a spa he had installed in his house. He purchased it around December 18, 1992, for approximately $4,000 Canadian, and installed it after that date. He relied on Dr. St. Louis' letter of September 29, 1992, for its purchase. Dr. St. Louis states:

It is my opinion that since Mr. Schneider lives in a rural area, where access to gymnasium/whirlpool/or fitness associated equipment is not readily available. I have agreed that the purchase of a whirlpool tub, along with light weights could be beneficial in the recovery of his soft tissue injuries. There by [sic] decreasing the amount of time for complete recovery, and also decreasing the amount of therapy he will require.

However, in cross-examination, Mr. Schneider admitted that there was a Gold's Gym about a 5 to 10 minute drive away, and that he could have gone to the club on his way to or from work.

I note that the premise in Dr. St. Louis's letter is therefore incorrect, as a gymnasium was readily available. In addition, I find the doctor's letter is not a strong recommendation, as he appears to be agreeing with a suggestion presumably made by Mr. Schneider, and he uses the conditional "could be beneficial."

Dr. Bartol did not see any need whatsoever for whirlpool therapy, suggesting that a hot bath or a hot shower would serve the same function.

Mr. Schneider purchased the spa more than nine months after the accident, close to the period when I have found he was essentially recovered from the accident. I am not convinced that this spa was a reasonable expense arising from the accident, and this claim is denied.

5) Weekly Income Benefit

The weekly income benefit is available under section 12 of the Schedule. It is based on average earnings calculated over either a four or 52-week period preceding the accident. Mr. Schneider did not provide a figure for his income for either period, although he admitted he could have calculated it.

Mr. Schneider's own counsel in final submissions agreed that it is very hard to fit Mr. Schneider’s loss of business income claim within the entitlements under the Schedule. His alternative approach was to suggest that Mr. Schneider should be reimbursed for the extra expenses he incurred because of his inability to work. No case law was provided to support this alternative claim. He suggested that I look at the increased labour expenses from one year to the next to determine the appropriate amount.

It appears that to allow this type of claim I would have to consider subsection 6(1)(f), as presumably the increased labour expenses would be "other goods or services." However, as Arbitrator Makepeace held in Zehr,¹¹ the applicant must establish that a claimed expense has a treatment or rehabilitation nexus. None of the medical evidence refers to Mr. Schneider having taken any time off work. There was no discussion in that evidence of the need to hire additional workers to further Mr. Schneider's treatment or rehabilitation goals. I heard no evidence that these additional workers helped in Mr. Schneider's treatment or rehabilitation. Accordingly, I cannot find a basis for allowing this claim. The claim for weekly income benefits is denied.

Special Award:

Mr. Schneider had raised the issue of a special award in his application for arbitration and at the pre-hearing, although it was not argued before me at the hearing.

Section 282(10) of the Insurance Act provides for an additional payment to an insured person, where an arbitrator finds that an insurer has unreasonably withheld or delayed payments. In this case, I do not find that the Insurer acted unreasonably. It had paid for the treatments by Dr. St. Louis, and as will be seen below, the evidence supporting the payments for the treatment by Dr. Steel was not provided until the Friday afternoon before the start of the hearing.

The claim for a special award is denied.

Expenses:

Mr. Schneider seeks an award of the expenses he has incurred in this arbitration.

Due to the actions of Mr. Schneider, this hearing was longer than it had to be. Mr. Schneider represented himself until shortly before the hearing. At the pre-hearing, he was ordered to provide various materials to the Insurer. In fact, I was advised by counsel for State Farm that it was not until late on the Friday before the hearing that he received two briefs from counsel for Mr. Schneider, including the report of Dr. Sharma dated April 8, 1994. Counsel for the Insurer advised that this was the first time he had seen Dr. Sharma's report. It further appears that this material still did not include the material ordered at the pre-hearing, such as the records of Dr. Steel and Dr. St. Louis. I further note that the only reports from Dr. Steel are dated in August 1995.

Counsel for the Insurer requested that Mr. Schneider's documentary evidence be excluded. I allowed the evidence in, but advised Mr. Schneider that there could be cost consequences.

In addition, Mr. Schneider admitted at the hearing that it was irrelevant to him whether his claims could fit within the policy. He claimed for what he felt was his due, whether or not the issues were properly before the arbitrator.

Accordingly, I exercise my discretion to refuse Mr. Schneider his expenses.

Order:

1. Mr. Schneider is entitled to recover the costs of Dr. Steel's treatments including travelling expenses for 1992.

2. Mr. Schneider is not entitled to receive weekly income benefits.

3. Mr. Schneider is not entitled to a special award.

Mr. Schneider is entitled to interest on the outstanding payments.

January 12, 1996

David Evans Arbitrator

Date

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1 Tab C of Applicant's Arbitration Brief

Exhibit 2 Tab F of Applicant's Arbitration Brief

Exhibit 3 Tab D of Applicant's Arbitration Brief

Exhibit 4 Applicant's Brief of Medical Reports

TAB # DATE REPORT

1 March 16, 1992 Dr. F. McGrath of X-Ray Associates

2 June 2, 1992 Dr. St. Louis of Community Chiropractic Centre

3 September 29, 1992 Dr. St. Louis of Community Chiropractic Centre

4 December 1, 1992 Ontario Automobile Insurance Medical or Psychological Report

5 January 20, 1993 Dr. Wan

6 February 11, 1993 Dr. Bartol

7 April 8, 1994 Dr. Sharma

8 August 10, 1995 Dr. Steel

Exhibit 5 Report of Dr. Steel dated August 25, 1995

Exhibit 6 Photocopies of three cheques to Caroline Meyer

Exhibit 7 Timesheets of Gerhard M. Schneider February 1991-February 1992

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. 2Report of Dr. Steel dated August 10, 1995, at Tab 8, Exhibit 4.
3. 3Report of Dr. Bartol dated February 11, 1993, at Tab 6, Exhibit 4.
4. 4Report of Dr. Sharma dated April 8, 1994, at Tab 7, Exhibit 4.
5. 5See page 7 above.
6. 6Anh Le and Wellington Insurance Company, November 25, 1992, OIC No. A-000920, Santina Malfitano and CAA Insurance Company (Ontario), August 4, 1994, OIC File No. A-007490, Joseph N. Bush and Pilot Insurance Company, April 25, 1994, OIC File No. A-004687.
7. 76.-(1) The insurer will pay with respect to each insured person who sustains physical, psychological or mental injury as a result of an accident all reasonable expenses resulting from the accident within the benefit period set out in subsection (3) for, (f) other goods and services, whether medical or non-medical in nature, which the insured person requires because of the accident.
8. 8Yang Park and The Citadel General Assurance Company, February 21, 1994, OIC File No. A-03410,
9. 9DouglasR.G. Williams and Jevco Insurance Company, May 6, 1992, OIC File No. A-000112
10. 10Aldo De Lellis and Co-Operators General Insurance Company, August 2, 1994, OIC File No. A-004353
11. 11Kevin Zehr and The Guarantee Company of North America, July 30, 1993, OIC File No. A-001963