Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2007 ONFSCDRS 31
FSCO A05-002794 and A05-002795
BETWEEN:
PREMALATHA SATPUTHIRAN and THANGARAJAH SATPUTHIRAN
Applicants
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: William J. Renahan
Heard: October 2, 3 and 4, 2006, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.
Appearances: Richard Gordon for Mrs. Premalatha Satputhiran and for Mr. Thangarajah Satputhiran Marlett Dobson for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Issues:
The Applicants, Premalatha Satputhiran and her husband Thangarajah Satputhiran, were injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 27, 2004. They applied for and received statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, payable under the Schedule.1 State Farm refused to pay for chiropractic and massage treatment the Satputhirans underwent more than a year after the accident and it also refused to pay for more than three months of housekeeping expenses. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.
The issues in this hearing are:
With respect to Mrs. Sathputhiran:
Is Mrs. Sathputhiran entitled, pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule, to treatment provided by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre (Mackenzie Rehab) described in three treatment plans for $1,444, $1,315 and $1,266?
Is Mrs. Sathputhiran entitled, pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule, to housekeeping expenses from June 4, 2004 to October 1, 2004, and if so, in what amount?
Is Mrs. Sathputhiran entitled, pursuant to section 24 of the Schedule, to $1,747 for a report by Dr. John Baird?
Is Mrs. Satputhiran entitled to interest, pursuant to section 46 of the Schedule, on overdue payments?
Is Mrs. Satputhiran entitled to a special award pursuant to section 282(10) of the Insurance Act?
Is either Mrs. Satputhiran or State Farm entitled to expenses of the arbitration proceeding?
With respect to Mr. Satputhiran:
Is Mr. Satputhiran entitled, pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule, to treatment provided by Mackenzie Rehab described in three treatment plans for $1,444, $1,315 and $1,266?
Is Mr. Satputhiran entitled, pursuant to section 24 of the Schedule, to $1,747 for a report by Dr. John Baird?
Is Mr. Satputhiran entitled to interest, pursuant to section 46 of the Schedule, on overdue payments?
Is Mr. Satputhiran entitled to a special award pursuant to section 282(10) of the Insurance Act?
Is either Mr. Satputhiran or State Farm entitled to expenses of the arbitration proceeding?
Result:
With respect to Mrs. Satputhiran:
Mrs. Satputhiran is entitled, pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule, to treatment provided by Mackenzie Rehab in the amount of $1,315.
Mrs. Satputhiran is not entitled, pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule, to housekeeping expenses from June 4, 2004 to October 1, 2004.
Mrs. Satputhiran is permitted to withdraw her claim for payment of $1,747 for a report by Dr. John Baird.
Mrs. Satputhiran is entitled to interest pursuant to section 46 of the Schedule on $1,315.
Mrs. Satputhiran is entitled to a special award of $500 pursuant to section 282(10) of the Insurance Act.
Each party shall bear their own expenses of the arbitration proceeding.
With respect to Mr. Satputhiran:
Mr. Satputhiran is entitled, pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule, to treatment provided by Mackenzie Rehab in the amount of $1,315.
Mr. Satputhiran is permitted to withdraw his claim for $1,747 for a report by Dr. John Baird.
Mr. Satputhiran is entitled to interest, pursuant to section 46 of the Schedule on $1,315.
Mr. Satputhiran is entitled to a special award of $500 pursuant to section 282(10) of the Insurance Act.
Each party shall bear their own expenses of the arbitration proceeding.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
The accident occurred around 7 a.m. on the morning of February 27, 2004, while Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran were travelling to work. Their vehicle was struck on the passenger side at an intersection while Mr. Satputhiran was attempting to make a left turn. Mr. Satputhiran called the police on his cell phone. He could not open his door and he and Mrs. Satputhiran remained in the vehicle for about ten minutes until it was struck by another vehicle in the rear end. Mr. Satputhiran was ejected from the vehicle. Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran were transported by ambulance to hospital where they were x-rayed and given medications. They left at 2 p.m.
Although they each had family doctors, a friend persuaded them to see a family doctor, Dr. Nhan Tong, who referred them to therapy at a clinic next door to his office called Four Winds Physiotherapy & Chiropractic Center (Four Winds). They attended therapy there for about one year. State Farm paid for most of that therapy. Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran then attended therapy with Dr. Jennifer Violante, a chiropractor, at a clinic named Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre (Mackenzie Rehab), owned and operated by Dr. Violante's brothers. Dr. Violante provided treatment to Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran from February 2005 to June 2005 under three treatment plans for each patient which State Farm rejected. Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran claim payment of the services provided by Mackenzie Rehab.
Mrs. Satputhiran did not return to her manual work in a book bindery. That work is no longer available. Nor did she return to doing the housework she did before the accident. Her sister, Bathmalatha Premkumai, lives a few doors away, and Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran claim that since the accident Ms. Premkumai has done Mrs. Satputhiran's housework. State Farm paid housekeeping expenses until June 4, 2004, when Dr. Chow, a physiatrist, reported his opinion to State Farm that Mrs. Satputhiran did not suffer a substantial inability to perform housekeeping activities. Mrs. Satputhiran claims housekeeping from June 4, 2004 to October 1, 2004. Mrs. Satputhiran said that she suffered back, neck and arm pain and that in the one and a half years she worked for the book bindery, she did not take one day of leave. Dr. Chow and assessors at a Designated Assessment Centre reported that Mrs. Satputhiran's main complaint was right elbow pain. Dr. John Baird is a chiropractor who assessed Mrs. Satputhiran after the treatment at Mackenzie Rehab. He reported that Mrs. Satputhiran suffered loss of motion segment integrity at C3, C4 and C5. Dr. Violante testified that this is a serious condition in which torn ligaments in the cervical spine allow excessive movement of one vertebra over another. In his report, Dr. Baird wrote in bold face: "I note that Loss of Motion Segment Integrity is a contraindication to applied forces to C3, C4 and C5 and caution her caregivers in this regard." Dr. Violante testified that she found this information "kind of scary" because she had manipulated C2-3 and C5-6. She testified that there is no cure for this condition other than fusion of the vertebrae. She would have referred Mrs. Satputhiran to an orthopaedic surgeon if she thought she had this condition.
Three weeks after the accident, Mr. Satputhiran returned to his work as a machine operator. He operated a machine which turned plastic into parts for office dividers and cubicles. He testified that he continues to have a person help him at work lift heavier pieces of plastic.
Mr. Satputhiran complained of leg, low back and arm pain and headaches. Dr. Chow reported that Mr. Satputhiran's main complaint was low back pain sometimes going down the buttock and right leg. Dr. Baird also found that Mr. Satputhiran suffered loss of motion segment integrity at C3, C4 and C5 and provided the same warning regarding the application of forces to these areas.
State Farm terminated housekeeping benefits on the basis of a medical examination it arranged with Dr. Chow. Its decision that the treatment proposed by Dr. Violante in her first treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary, was supported by assessments of Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran at a Designated Assessment Centre ("DAC").
Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran relied on the opinions of Dr. Baird and Dr. Don Ranney, an orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Baird did not express an opinion on Dr. Violante's treatment or the necessity of housekeeping services. Dr. Ranney assessed Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran and did not express an opinion on the need for housekeeping services. Although he wrote that Mrs. Satputhiran's past treatment was appropriate, he did not express any understanding of what that treatment was. He did not express an opinion on the treatment Mr. Satputhiran underwent. The two opinions Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran rely on do not help them in this arbitration.
Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran, Ms. Premkumai and Dr. Violante testified at this hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran have the burden of proving that the treatment at issue was reasonable and necessary within the meaning of section 14 of the Schedule and that Mrs. Satputhiran was substantially disabled from engaging in the housekeeping activities she normally engaged in before the accident. I therefore consider their evidence first.
Credibility of Witnesses:
Dr. Violante:
Dr. Violante testified as to the treatment she provided Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran. Although her clinical forms contain spaces for writing in the name of the patient's family doctor, she did not know who the family doctor was for Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran. She completed three treatment plans in the amounts of $1,444, $1,315 and $1,266 for both Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran. Although the plans for each are identical with respect to frequency and amount, she testified that she treated different parts of their bodies.
Although State Farm rejected each treatment plan, and although Dr. Violante testified that she told Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran it was best to go to the DAC and then discuss the results with her, Dr. Violante did not wait for the results of the DAC assessments before starting treatment. She did not explain the urgency of starting treatment after one year of treatment at Four Winds. She simply explained that she continued treatment despite the opinion of the DAC because she had finished treatment before she received the report.
Dr. Violante testified that Four Winds did not give Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran any home exercise programme, but the exercises Mrs. Satputhiran described were the same from Four Winds and Mackenzie Rehab. The only difference Mr. Satputhiran described between the two sets of exercises was that the Mackenzie Rehab exercises made use of a theraband.
Dr. Violante testified that the treatment Mackenzie Rehab provided was better than that provided by Four Winds. Although Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran both testified that they did not receive any significant benefit from Four Winds and left Four Winds for that reason, the only difference in the treatment between Four Winds and Mackenzie Rehab that the witnesses described was the massage at Four Winds was done with a machine and the massage at Mackenzie Rehab was done manually.
Dr. Violante testified that she discharged Mrs. Satputhiran in August 2005 because she had come a long way. She discharged Mr. Satputhiran because he stopped making any improvement and further treatment was not necessary. Mr. Satputhiran testified that Dr. Violante told him that she could not afford to provide further treatment if State Farm would not pay.
A chiropractor at a DAC which was set up to consider the reasonableness of the cost of an examination by Dr. Baird observed that Mrs. Satputhiran's behaviour might indicate a treatment dependency issue, with the provision of goods and services possibly serving to reinforce Mrs. Satputhiran's dependency on treatment. Despite Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran's evidence that they left Four Winds after one year because the treatment was not helpful, Mackenzie Rehab provided similar treatment without concern that it might serve to reinforce a potential treatment dependency issue.
After considering the testimony of these three witnesses, particularly the descriptions of the similarities between the treatment and exercises provided by Four Winds and Mackenzie Rehab and the different versions of why treatment ended, I found Dr. Violante's testimony self-serving and unreliable evidence that the treatment her clinic provided helped Mr. or Mrs. Satputhiran.
Mrs. Satputhiran's evidence regarding treatment:
Mrs. Satputhiran testified that Dr. David Gidden was her family doctor. She has not see him for problems arising from the accident because his office is 30 minutes away from home and because his office was closed when her husband returned from work. Instead, a friend took her to Dr. Tong's office which is 15 to 20 minutes from home and which is next door to the Four Winds clinic. After one year, she and her husband asked their lawyer to refer them to another clinic because Four Winds was not helping. He referred them to Mackenzie Rehab. Mrs. Satputhiran testified that she would not return to Four Winds because the treatment was not helpful and the office was too far from her home.
Mrs. Satputhiran testified that she did not find much difference in the treatment at Four Winds and Mackenzie Rehab, except for the massage at Mackenzie Rehab where oil was manually applied to her body. She said that after a treatment at Mackenzie Rehab she felt better for a short time after returning home, before the pains returned.
Mr. Satputhiran's evidence regarding treatment:
Mr. Satputhiran's family doctor is Dr. Abraham Cohen. Dr. Cohen's records were not in evidence. Mr. Satputhiran sees Dr. Cohen for an annual check up. He did not see him following the accident because Dr. Tong's office is closer. He told Dr. Cohen about leg, low back and arm pain and headaches and Dr. Cohen referred him to a specialist who prescribed a glove for a "pinched nerve" in Mr. Satputhiran's arm. He wears it every night. Mr. Satputhiran asked Dr. Cohen to refer him to therapy for his headaches and Dr. Cohen told him that he didn't need therapy.
After a year of treatment at Four Winds, Mr. Satputhiran asked his lawyer to refer him to another clinic because he was not getting better. He also said that State Farm investigated Four Winds for charging for acupuncture services it did not provide, and after he heard that, he didn't want to go there.
He said that the main difference in exercise prescribed by Four Winds and Mackenzie Rehab was that Mackenzie Rehab exercises employed a theraband. He said that his wife did the same exercises at both clinics.
He said that he was getting better with treatment at Mackenzie Rehab and he was "so bad" after they stopped treatment.
Housekeeping:
At the time of the accident, Mrs. Satputhiran lived in a two-storey house with her husband, mother-in-law, two children and her brother-in-law.
On October 18, 2004, Mrs. Satputhiran submitted an application for housekeeping expenses to cover the 8-month period from the date of the accident to October 11, 2004. It was supported by weekly checklists signed by Ms. Premkumai for housekeeping services of 8 to 14 hours a week at $10 per hour. Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran and Ms. Premkumai were consistent in saying that Ms. Premkumai continues to provide the same amount of housekeeping services. I heard no evidence to explain why the invoices were submitted in a lump sum, why they were submitted eight months after the accident and why the claim is limited to the period ending October 1, 2004 when Ms. Premkumai continues to this day to provide housekeeping at the same level.
Mr. Satputhiran also submitted on October 18, 2004 his own application for housekeeping expenses to cover the period from the date of the accident to October 11, 2004. It was supported by weekly checklists signed by Ms. Premkumai for housekeeping services rendered to Mr. Satputhiran of 8 to 14 hours a week at $10 per hour.
When the two sets of invoices are put together, the parties claim that Ms. Premkumai was providing Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran housekeeping services of about 25 hours per week. For example, for each of the first six weeks after the accident, Mr. Satputhiran submitted invoices for 12 hours of housekeeping and Mrs. Satputhiran submitted invoices for 13 hours of housekeeping. Except for an occupational therapy report, which stated that Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran shared housekeeping responsibilities, the testimony and documentary evidence, is consistent that Mrs. Satputhiran performed all the housekeeping services before the accident. I heard no evidence to explain the services provided for Mr. Satputhiran nor any submissions as to what I should deduce from this second set of housekeeping documents.
Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran and Ms. Premkumai were consistent in their testimony that since the accident until the present time, Ms. Premkumai has come to the Satputhiran household three times a day for four or five hours a day, seven days a week to do the housekeeping. As well, they were consistent in saying that Ms. Premkumai will get paid when Mr. Satputhiran receives the settlement and that Mr. Satputhiran did not pay Ms. Premkumai any of the $1,400 he and Mrs. Satputhiran received from State Farm for housekeeping.
At the time of the accident, Ms. Premkumai had a child, one-and-a-half years old. On June 23, 2005, she gave birth to a second child. She brings the children with her when she does housekeeping during the day, but leaves them at home with her husband when she comes in the evening to wash dishes.
Mrs. Satputhiran said she did not know whether Ms. Premkumai kept a record of the time she spent doing housekeeping. Ms. Premkumai said she kept a record but she left it at home.
CONCLUSION:
I did not find Mrs. Satputhiran's testimony persuasive evidence that the treatment she received at Mackenzie Rehab was much different from the treatment at Four Winds which she said did not help. Given the nature of her injury and the amount of treatment that Mrs. Satputhiran has received without any significant improvement, I find that Dr. Herman's observation that Mrs. Satputhiran may have developed a dependency on treatment is the only reasonable explanation why Mrs. Satputhiran feels she needs more treatment.
I find that Mr. Satputhiran treats his accident related complaints as something separate from his health. Although he had nine year relationship with Dr. Cohen, his family doctor, he decided to see Dr. Tong after the accident instead of Dr. Cohen, because, Dr. Tong was ten minutes closer. He was able to return to work three weeks after the accident and continues to see his family doctor for non-accident related issues, yet he rejects his doctor's advice that he doesn't need therapy as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Like his wife, Mr. Satputhiran was unable to explain how the one year of treatment at Four Winds, which didn't help him, was any different from the treatment at Mackenzie Rehab. I do not believe Mr. Satputhiran's testimony that the treatment at Mackenzie Rehab helped him.
Mr. Satputhiran was the witness who most forcefully tried to justify the amount of time Ms. Premkumai spent doing housework for his wife. He said such things as we need her to help get the kids ready for school, we need her to make lunch and she has to clean the dishes and do the laundry and she will continue to come until we are better.
I found the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran and Ms. Premkumai implausible. In particular, the large number of hours for housekeeping services provided for Mrs. Satputhiran, a set of invoices for similar work done for Mr. Satputhiran when he did not do housekeeping, the lack of any explanation for that second set of invoices, and the lack of explanation for not submitting invoices beyond October 2004 when Ms. Premkumai has continued to provide those services are implausible. The fact that three witnesses consistently repeat the same implausible story does not make it plausible.
Compliance with DAC procedures:
Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran claimed that they are entitled to payment for treatment provided under the second treatment plans submitted by Mackenzie Rehab because State Farm failed to comply with the procedures in the Schedule for rejection of a treatment plan.
Section 38 of the Schedule sets out the procedures for applying for medical and rehabilitation benefits. The application must include a treatment plan. If the insurer rejects the application and treatment plan, subsection 38(12)(a) provides that the insurer shall require the insured person to be assessed by a designated assessment centre.
Mackenzie Rehab's first treatment plan for Mrs. Satputhiran was referred to a DAC and the DAC report rejecting the plan was dated April 1, 2005 and received by State Farm on April 8, 2005. State Farm sent a copy of the report to Mrs. Satputhiran. Mackenzie Rehab's second treatment plan for Mrs. Satputhiran was dated April 8, 2005 and received by State Farm on April 15, 2005.
State Farm rejected the plan. Since Mrs. Satputhiran had signed the treatment plan authorizing State Farm to release information to the DAC and as required by section 38(12), State Farm asked Mrs. Satputhiran to indicate which of three DACs she wanted to attend. Mrs. Satputhiran did not choose a DAC. By Explanation of Benefits Payable (form OCF -9) dated July 21, 2005, State Farm wrote Mrs. Satputhiran as follows with respect to the second treatment plan:
Although no DAC in regards to this OCF-18 was arranged the review of your file indicates you attended a MED/REHAB DAC on April 1, 2005 for identical treatment, in relation to an OCF-18, dated February 4, 2005, from the same facility, and the DAC determined that the OCF-18 dated February 4, 2005 was not reasonable or necessary and that you should continue with a self-directed exercise program and no further facility based treatment was not [sic] indicated. As this DAC assessment occurred one week before the OCF-18, dated April 8, 2005, was written, we are withdrawing the request for a DAC assessment and simply denying this OCF-18 as not reasonable or necessary based on the April 1, 2005 DAC report.
The adjuster testified that the same sequence of events occurred in the case of Mr. Satputhiran and State Farm did not arrange a DAC assessment for him for the same reason.
The adjuster admitted that the Medical and Rehabilitation DAC Assessment Manual, dated August 2003 (Med/Rehab DAC Manual) provides procedures to address similar or recurring treatment plans. The procedure is to provide an addendum to a previous report.
Under the title "SF4: Recurring, Similar OCF-18s" the Medical/Rehab DAC Manual defines a "recurring OCF-18" as:
a. The OCF-18(s) are similar in:
i. The impairments described;
ii. Treatment goals;
iii. Goods and/or services; and
iv. Other elements described on the OCF-18 in the original dispute.
b. The data gathered and the analyses conducted in the original assessment are still timely and relevant.
c. There are no clinical indicators demonstrating a relevant change in the insured person's clinical status or treatment needs since the review of the previous OCF-18.
If these criteria are satisfied,
A new DAC Assessment Plan is prepared and issued to the insurer and insured person when a Recurring OCF-18(s) is appropriate, implementing Paper Review by a single assessor whenever appropriate.
I see no reason to justify State Farm's failure to comply with section 38(12) of the Schedule and arrange a DAC assessment, particularly when the DAC Manual provides a procedure to deal with similar and recurring treatment plans.
Although I have found that the treatment was not reasonable or necessary, I would sanction State Farm's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 38 if I did not order it to pay for the second treatment plan. I agree with Arbitrator Palmer who said in Pintucci and Jevco Insurance Company2
It is important to the integrity of the operation of the Schedule that the parties comply with its terms. Prompt, continuing access to reasonable and necessary treatment, even while a dispute is underway, is a hallmark of the system. The initial gatekeepers of the treatment system are treating health practitioners, who are regulated health professionals, and the designated assessment centres. As Justice Catzman of the Court of Appeal noted in a recent decision, "Part VI of the Insurance Act represents the expression of a social policy adopted by the Legislature of this province to deal with automobile insurance." Morton v. Rabito, 1998 CanLII 5865 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. no. 5129, December 10, 1998. Insurers cannot flout the terms relating to the provision of and payment for supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits and substitute in their stead adjustment procedures that they find more convenient or suitable to their purpose.
Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran received treatment under these second treatment plans. I cannot tell from the invoices whether the amount incurred exceeded the amount proposed in the treatment plans. The only remedy that was proposed to deal with State Farm's non-compliance with section 38(12) was to order State Farm to pay Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran for treatment incurred under these treatment plans.
Therefore Mr. Satputhiran is entitled to $1,315 and Mrs. Satputhiran is entitled to $1,315.
Special Award:
State Farm had no reason for not complying with section 38(12). It unreasonably withheld these benefits. Although its conduct was not so egregious to justify the maximum award of 50 per cent of the amount unreasonably withheld, the amounts withheld were relatively small and adding a further 50 per cent only adds approximately $650 to each award, a relatively small amount. I therefore award Mr. Satputhiran a special award of $500 and Mrs. Satputhiran a special award of $500.
Interest:
Under section 46 of the Schedule, interest is payable in respect of a benefit which is overdue. If the parties cannot agree on when the benefits were overdue, they may make written submissions to me.
EXPENSES:
I considered the criteria for determining entitlement to expenses of the arbitration proceeding set out in section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664, R.R.O. 1990, as amended. I found the following factors particularly relevant. Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran were successful with their claims for payment of the second treatment plan and special awards for a total award of $1,815 each. State Farm was successful in defending the claims for the other two treatment plans and housekeeping. Other than procedural non-compliance, Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran's claims were so weak that I referred to very little of State Farm's documentary evidence. Dr. Baird's report added unnecessary complexity to the proceeding without shedding any light on the issues in dispute. He identified in each of Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran a spinal condition which Dr. Violante found "scary", yet Mr. and Mrs. Satputhiran appeared unaware of the diagnosis and no one has done anything about Dr. Baird's diagnosis.
Considering all the factors and criteria, I order each party to bear their expenses of the arbitration proceeding.
February 20, 2007
William J. Renahan Arbitrator
Date
Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2007 ONFSCDRS 31
FSCO A05-002794 and A05-002795
BETWEEN:
PREMALATHA SATPUTHIRAN and THANGARAJAH SATPUTHIRAN
Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
ARBITRATION ORDER
Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended, it is ordered that:
State Farm shall pay $1,815 to Premalatha Satputhiran together with interest under section 46 of the Schedule.
State Farm shall pay $1,815 to Thangarajah Satputhiran together with interest under section 46 of the Schedule.
If the parties cannot agree on when the benefits were overdue for the purpose of calculating interest under section 46 of the Schedule, they may make written submissions to me.
Each party shall bear their own expenses of the arbitration proceeding.
February 20, 2007
William J. Renahan Arbitrator
Date
Footnotes
- The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, Ontario Regulation 403/96, as amended.
- (FSCO A97-000755, January 7, 1999)