Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2007 ONFSCDRS 97

FSCO A05-001999

BETWEEN:

RUZI CHOWDHURY

Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: William J. Renahan

Heard: December 3, 4, 5 and 6, 2006, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances:

Dev Misir and Naresh Misir for Mrs. Chowdhury

Ian D. Kirby for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Ruzi Chowdhury, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 17, 2003. She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, payable under the Schedule.¹ State Farm terminated weekly caregiver benefits and weekly housekeeping benefits effective June 10, 2004. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mrs. Chowdhury 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:

Is Mrs. Chowdhury entitled to weekly caregiver benefits pursuant to section 13 of the Schedule from October 17, 2005, and if so, in what amount?
Is Mrs. Chowdhury entitled to housekeeping expenses pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule from October 17, 2005, and if so, in what amount?
Is Mrs. Chowdhury entitled to a special award pursuant to section 282(10) of the Insurance Act?
Is either party entitled to expenses of the arbitration proceeding pursuant to section 282(11) of the Insurance Act?

Result:

Mrs. Chowdhury is not entitled to further weekly caregiver benefits.
Mrs. Chowdhury is not entitled to further housekeeping expenses.
Mrs. Chowdhury is not entitled to a special award.
State Farm is entitled to its expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

On October 17, 2003, Mrs. Chowdhury was returning home after taking her four year old daughter to school. She was pushing a stroller containing her 18 month old son across an intersection when a turning vehicle struck or brushed against her right foot and leg. The force of the collision overturned the stroller and threw Mrs. Chowdhury to the ground. The initial radiological report taken at the emergency department of the hospital indicated no fractures. Subsequently, a rheumatologist thought she saw a line in the x-ray indicating a healed fracture of a bone in the right foot. Mrs. Chowdhury's most serious complaints concerned pain and weakness in the right foot.

Mrs. Chowdhury's husband retained Stanley Pasternak, a lawyer, to represent his wife. On the advice of Mr. Pasternak, Mrs. Chowdhury submitted various expenses to State Farm including less than $600 in caregiving expenses for babysitting expenses paid to her sister Ruvi Chowdhury and two friends, Satara Begum and Roshnara Begum, for the six months from the date of the accident to April 2004.

In January 2004, State Farm first advised Mrs. Chowdhury that it would not pay further caregiving benefits on the basis of an in-home assessment it had arranged. It also advised her that it would consider housekeeping expenses based on the opinion of the assessor that she was substantially disabled from performing housekeeping activities. I heard no evidence to explain why State Farm continued to pay the babysitting expenses that Mrs. Chowdhury submitted after January 2004.

In May 2004, State Farm again advised Mrs. Chowdhury that it would not pay further caregiver benefits based on an independent medical examination performed by Dr. W. Potashner, a rheumatologist. Dr. Potashner also expressed the opinion that Mrs. Chowdhury did not require housekeeping assistance. I heard no evidence to explain why State Farm required two notices to terminate caregiver benefits.

State Farm did not hear from Mrs. Chowdhury again until February 21, 2005, when it received a letter from Mrs. Chowdhury's new counsel, Misir & Company, together with expense claims for $6,080 for housekeeping expenses and $20,145 for caregiving expenses for the 16-month period from the date of the accident to February 6, 2005. That letter sets out one of the positions Mrs. Chowdhury has taken at this hearing.

. . . We want to bring to your notice the partial claim with regard to the Caregiver and Housekeeping expenses made by the client in accordance with the advise [sic] of the previous legal representative.

Our client was entitled for $300.00/week for caregiver expenses and $100.00/week for housekeeping expenses from the date of loss to present and ongoing but claimed the amounts lesser than these, being ignorant of the actual claim. . . .

Although Mrs. Chowdhury had not submitted housekeeping expenses to this point, State Farm paid Mrs. Chowdhury 34 weeks of housekeeping expenses at $100 per week to June 10, 2004, the date of termination, as what it described as a show of "good faith." State Farm refused to pay further housekeeping or caregiving expenses.

Mrs. Chowdhury submitted further housekeeping expenses of $3,500 and further caregiving expenses of $10,500 which represented the balance of the maximum potential benefit to October 17, 2005, the 104 week mark, at which time the test for entitlement changes to a more difficult test.

Among other things, Mr. Misir argued on behalf of Mrs. Chowdhury, that Mrs. Chowdhury was not aware of her right to claim incurred expenses and that State Farm failed to advise Mrs. Chowdhury of her rights and failed to assist her in applying for benefits as required by section 32 of the Schedule.

Failure to comply with section 32 of the Schedule:

The relevant portions of section 32 provide as follows:

32(2) The insurer shall promptly provide the person with,

(a) ...

(b) a written explanation of the benefits available under this Regulation;

No one specifically asked Mr. or Mrs. Chowdhury what they understood by the term "incurred expenses." The only evidence I received concerning the Chowdhurys' understanding of what "incurred expenses" meant were the explanation of benefit forms State Farm mailed to Mrs. Chowdhury. On December 2, 2003, State Farm mailed to Mrs. Chowdhury an Explanation of Benefits form which stated:

CAREGIVER – . . .In accordance with Section 13 of the legislation, the maximum benefit payable under this benefit is $250/week for the first child, and $50/week for each additional child. Please submit receipts for any incurred expenses, including the name of the person providing the services, the type of services performed with dates, and the hourly amount charged. You may have coverage for this expense from October 18/03.

HOUSEKEEPING/HOME MAINTENANCE – The receipts must specify the name, address and telephone number of the service provider. They must indicate the duties performed, the dates the services are provided, the number of hours worked each week and the hourly amount paid. Housekeeping/home maintenance benefits are payable to a maximum of $100.00 per week for incurred expenses.

Also on December 2, 2003, State Farm sent a two page letter to Mrs. Chowdhury which explained her entitlement to caregiver benefits as follows:

You may also have the option of claiming Caregiver Benefits which pays for reasonable and necessary expenses over and above those already incurred prior to this accident and resulting from a disability imposed by the impairments suffered in this accident in the caring for a person who is in need of such care, such as your children. To qualify for these benefits you must suffer a substantial inability to engage in the caregiving activities in which you engaged prior to this accident. The Caregiver Benefit provides reimbursement for incurred expenses and should you opt to claim this benefit, you will be required to provide documentation to support your claim with complete details of the name, address and phone number of the service provider as well as a complete breakdown of all services by dates, times, periods of time, and hourly rate charged by the service provider. There is no waiting period for these benefits and you may be eligible to receive up to $250.00 per week for the first person and an additional $50.00 per week for the second person who may be in need of care.

In your particular situation, you declare having two dependents, therefore your maximum entitlement would be $300.00 per week depending on the amount of caregiving required by your daughter who attends school on half-days.

I heard no submissions as to how these notices were deficient or what else State Farm could have said to comply with its duty under section 32. Although the use of the words "hourly amount paid" for housekeeping expenses in the first notice is not an accurate use of the word "incurred", the use of the words "hourly rate charged" and "incurred expenses" is clear and I am satisfied that State Farm complied with its duty under section 32.

Test for entitlement:

Under section 13 of the Schedule, Mrs. Chowdhury is entitled to caregiving expenses if she suffered a substantial inability to engage in her pre-accident caregiving activities as a result of an impairment caused by the motor vehicle accident. The benefit is all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred as a result of the accident in caring for Mrs. Chowdhury's two children to a maximum of $300 per week. Under section 22 of the Schedule, Mrs. Chowdhury is entitled to housekeeping expenses if she suffered a substantial inability to engage in her pre-accident housekeeping services. She is entitled to reasonable and necessary additional housekeeping expenses incurred as a result of the accident to a maximum of $100 per week.

At the time of the accident, Mrs. Chowdhury cared for her two children aged 4 years and 18 months. Mr. and Mrs. Chowdhury testified that Mr. Chowdhury helped a bit, but Mrs. Chowdhury provided all the normal caregiving activities including walking the four year old to school where she attended half days, taking the children to the park, feeding, bathing, dressing, supervising and assisting with religious instruction.

At the time of the accident, the Chowdhurys lived in a three-bedroom apartment. Mr. Chowdhury helped with the grocery shopping on the weekend and lifting heavier objects and occasionally ironed. Otherwise, Mrs. Chowdhury performed all the housekeeping activities including grocery shopping daily, doing laundry twice a week and preparing elaborate meals. Her sister described her apartment as very clean.

Injury and disability:

The parties devoted little time to the issue of whether Mrs. Chowdhury was substantially disabled from engaging in her normal caregiving and housekeeping activities. State Farm produced its expert opinion that she was not disabled and Mrs. Chowdhury said that she needed caregiving and housekeeping help. Most of the hearing dealt with the validity of the invoices that Mrs. Chowdhury submitted. State Farm took the position that the invoices were fabricated in the office of Misir & Company without any relation to the truth. Mrs. Chowdhury and her witnesses testified that various people performed caregiving services of at least 30 hours per week and housekeeping services of at least 10 hours per week at the rate of $10 per hour from the date of the accident to the two year mark.

The hospital emergency doctor told Mrs. Chowdhury that nothing was broken and released her with a prescription for Tylenol No. 3. A few days after the accident, Mrs. Chowdhury saw her family doctor, Dr. Jolan Keri. Dr. Keri testified that Mrs. Chowdhury complained that her whole body ached, particularly her right knee and foot and right shoulder. At that time, she thought that Mrs. Chowdhury could return to her pre-accident caregiving activities and housekeeping activities within 5 to 8 weeks. She referred Mrs. Chowdhury to Dr. Mary Lee, a rheumatologist.

Dr. Lee had seen Mrs. Chowdhury in the past for pain in both feet. She had diagnosed right plantar fasciitis in 2000 and noted a history of numbness in her left toes in 2002 which she thought was related to gestational diabetes or a local nerve root entrapment. Her main concern relating to the motor vehicle accident was the right foot pain which she thought might be due to an undisplaced fracture in the right foot which would heal in about six weeks.

Madeline Walker is a registered nurse who did an in-home assessment at the request of State Farm two months after the motor vehicle accident. She reported that Mr. Chowdhury was working part-time hours as a taxi driver and that he was performing the caregiving activities that Mrs. Chowdhury performed before the accident. She wrote:

[Mrs. Chowdhury said that] for a period of two weeks following the subject accident, her sister came to her home to perform the tasks associated with food preparation. Mrs. Chowdhury reported that, since that time, her husband has taken over these activities. She added that, over the last little while, she has begun to perform some of the lighter meal preparation activities, although she is limited with respect to prolonged activities.

She wrote that Mrs. Chowdhury said that she was not capable of shopping and that her husband was doing the laundry and cleaning.

She described the caregiving duties for the four year old who attended school half-days and the 22 month old son as including

bathing, dressing, grooming and changing her son’s diaper and walking her daughter to and from school. Cannot do caregiving due to symptoms and decreased physical tolerances. Husband has taken over all of the tasks associated with the care of the children with the exception of taking their daughter to and from school, and they have hired a person to perform this task.

She reported that Mrs. Chowdhury had not attempted any of the activities associated with housekeeping, shopping, laundry, cooking and caregiving due to her concern that participation will result in an increase in her pain.

Mrs. Chowdhury testified that when Ms. Walker came to her apartment, she was completely unable to do anything.

Ms. Walker testified at the hearing. Mr. Misir did not cross-examine her on her report. Ms. Walker's report of what Mrs. Chowdhury told her appears reasonable and was not questioned and I accept it as reliable evidence of what Mrs. Chowdhury told Ms. Walker.

In a note of March 8, 2004, Dr. Keri wrote that Mrs. Chowdhury "was able to do her housework, able to take care of the baby, cooking and some cleaning, but still unable to do laundry and take out the garbage."

Alexandra Smol, C.K., performed a functional abilities evaluation for State Farm on April 1, 2004, five months after the accident. She reported:

She stated that her husband helps her with laundry and grocery shopping. Ms. Chowdhury reported that she is able to cook, clean, and take care of her children with appropriate work pacing techniques.

Mrs. Chowdhury testified that the statement was true. She also testified that she did not mention any help she was receiving with housekeeping because Ms. Smol did not ask her.

Dr. Louis Weisleder, an orthopaedic surgeon, saw Mrs. Chowdhury at State Farm's request in April 2004. He found that she suffered contusions to her feet and a strain to the right knee and that she was not substantially disabled from housekeeping or caregiving activities.

Dr. W. J. Potashner, a rheumatologist and specialist in internal medicine, saw Mrs. Chowdhury at State Farm's request a few weeks later and he came to the same conclusion as Dr. Weisleder.

In a report to Mr. Misir dated June 20, 2005, Dr. Keri wrote: "Since October 17/03 she is unable to provide the kind of care for her children and her household that the family was accustomed to before the accident." She did not explain the change from her observations in March 2004.

Credibility of Mrs. Chowdhury and her lay witnesses:

Although the invoices submitted by Mrs. Chowdhury are directly relevant to the assessment of the amount of any benefit, they are also relevant to her credibility and the credibility of the alleged services providers and to the level of Mrs. Chowdhury's disability.

The services in dispute are evidenced by two sets of forms completed in the office of Misir & Company. The first set was submitted with an Application for Expenses dated February 7, 2005, shortly after the Chowdhurys retained Misir & Company. They cover the period from the date of the accident to February 6, 2005. The second set of expense forms were submitted with an Application for Expenses dated October 23, 2005 and cover the period from February 7, 2005 to October 16, 2005, the two-year mark.

Mrs. Chowdhury used one form with the title "Housekeeping Expenses" and another form with the title "Caregiver Expenses."

For the two-year period, she submitted five pages of "Housekeeping Expenses" forms and another five pages of "Caregiver Expenses" forms.

Each of the five pages of "Housekeeping Expenses" are identical with respect to duties performed, hours per day and days per week. The handwriting is that of someone from the office of Misir & Company. As well, each service is provided at $10 per hour.

I reproduce the duties performed and time below:

HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES

Duties Performed on a Daily Basis	Hrs. Per day	Days Per Week
Cooking, clean, kitchen, dishes	1.3	7
Garbage Removal, change bags	15 min	7
Sweeping, dusting, vacuuming	30 min	7
Laundry, put away clothes	45 min	1
Change sheets, organize closets	30 min	1
Clean refrigerator	20	1
Ironing and folding clothes	15	7

Mrs. Chowdhury signed each of the five pages as client. Her sister, Ruvi Chowdhury, signed each of the five pages as housekeeper.

Each of the five pages of "Caregiver Expenses" are identical with respect to duties performed, hours per day and days per week. As well, each service is provided at $10 per hour.

I reproduce the duties performed and time below:

CAREGIVER EXPENSES

Duties Performed on a Daily Basis	Hrs. Per Day	Days Per Week
Feeding, serve food	1.3	7
Bathing, change diapers, change clothes	1.0	7
Watch kids play, play with kids, watch TV	45 min	7
Take them for walks	45 min	7
Read books, put them to bed	30 min	7
Hand wash clothes, clean play room, ironing	45 min	7
Put away toys, change sheets	15 min	7

Mrs. Chowdhury signed each of the five pages as client. Except for the page covering the period June 17, 2004 to December 25, 2004, Ruvi Chowdhury signed each of four pages as housekeeper. For the page covering the period June 17, 2004 to December 25, 2004, Jamila Begum signed the page as housekeeper. Ms. Begum lived in the same building as Mrs. Chowdhury. She testified that she was not related to the two Begums referred to in the invoices submitted by Mr. Pasternak's office.

Mrs. Chowdhury testified that, except for heavy work, she resumed her housekeeping and caregiving activities in September or October 2005.

Agreement to pay for services:

Mr. Misir proceeded on the basis that until she retained him, no one explained to Mrs. Chowdhury that she could claim for incurred housekeeping and caregiving expenses without paying money out of pocket. However, Mrs. Chowdhury never spoke with Mr. Pasternak or anyone from his office about her claims. I heard no evidence that Mrs. Chowdhury spoke to anyone from the office of Misir & Company about making claims. Mr. Chowdhury spoke to Mr. Pasternak twice and to people in his office. He also spoke to Mr. Misir and people in his office. I find that Mr. Chowdhury acted on behalf of his wife for her dealings with Mr. Pasternak and Mr. Misir. I heard no clear evidence that anyone from Mr. Pasternak's office or Mr. Misir's office ever explained to him the meaning of the words "incurred expenses."

Mr. Chowdhury testified that Mr. Pasternak's secretary told him to keep a record of how much they paid for housekeeping and caregiving expenses. As a result of this advice, Mr. Chowdhury prepared in his handwriting, several pages of paper which set out dates and amounts paid to various people for "babycare." I received 5 pages in evidence which covered babysitting expenses from October 25, 2003 to August 16, 2004. The pages were signed by Mrs. Chowdhury and various service providers including Ruvi Chowdhury. The daily amounts varied from $10 to $25 per day. Mr. Pasternak's office submitted the pages under covering letters which explained the purpose for each expense. The purposes were explained as taking the child to and from school and babysitting while Mrs. Chowdhury attended medical appointments. The total childcare expenses submitted were less than $600 and State Farm paid those expenses until it gave notice of termination in May 2004.

Mr. and Mrs. Chowdhury, Ruvi Chowdhury and Jamila Begum all testified that Mrs. Chowdhury agreed with both Ruvi and Jamila that she would pay them for their services once she received payment from State Farm. Mrs. Chowdhury's testimony was that she first discussed paying the service providers for their services in March 2005 when she received the $3,400 from State Farm. This is the month after she retained Misir & Company. Jamila Begum testified that she first talked to the Chowdhurys about payment about half way through the six-month period in which she rendered caregiver services. This is about September 2004, which is before the time the Chowdhurys learned that they were entitled to incurred expenses. Ruvi Chowdhury testified that she started helping her sister the day of the accident and that they discussed compensation on many occasions but Ruvi said she was not working for compensation. Mr. Chowdhury testified that he discussed paying Ruvi after he received the $3,400 in housekeeping.

The explanation of why Mrs. Chowdhury did not give her sister or Jamila any of the $3,400 she received from State Farm for housekeeping was that Mrs. Chowdhury needed the money more than the service providers.

Further, I heard no evidence to explain why the Chowdhurys, when represented by Mr. Pasternak, submitted Ruvi Chowdhury's invoices for babysitting on July 19, 2004, August 12, 2004 and August 16, 2004 in the total amount of $50, when Mr. and Mrs. Chowdhury and Ruvi Chowdhury now claim that for the ten months from the time of the accident to August 16, 2004, Ruvi Chowdhury had supplied caregiving and housekeeping services of 40 hours a week at $10 per hour. The new claim for this period is approximately $16,000, not $50. It is hard to believe that the Chowdhurys would overlook a potential claim of $16,000 and settle for $50 on the basis that they did not know that they could recover for incurred services without some evidence that Mr. Chowdhury raised the discrepancy with Mr. Pasternak.

Mrs. Chowdhury testified that after Ms. Begum stopped providing caregiving, which was December 25, 2004, her husband and sister took care of the children, but most of the time it was her husband.

Despite this evidence of Mr. Chowdhury's caregiving and housekeeping services, Mrs. Chowdhury did not submit any claims for these expenses.

The evidence concerning agreements to pay for caregiving and housekeeping services is not clear. What little evidence I heard was contradictory. I do not find any reliable evidence of an agreement to pay for incurred expenses.

Evidence of services provided:

Ruvi Chowdhury's services

Mrs. Chowdhury claimed that her sister Ruvi provided housekeeping and caregiving services for two years, except for the six months Jamila Begum provided caregiving services. Mrs. Chowdhury testified that Ruvi came at about 9:30 a.m. and left at 1:00 p.m. She returned at 4:00 p.m. and left at 5 or 6:00 p.m. This is approximately 24.5 to 31.5 hours per week, which falls short of the 40 hours per week that the expense forms consistently show. Ruvi testified that she arrived between 9:30 and 10:00 and left at 2:30. She came back between 4 and 4:30 and left between 7 and 7:30 p.m. This is closer to the 40 hours per week on the expense forms. Ruvi Chowdhury also testified that for the first year she went twice a day and after the second year, after the birth of Mrs. Chowdhury's third child, she went once a day. Mr. Chowdhury testified that most of the time he did not see Ruvi because he was at work. He testified that in the first year if he came home late at 6 or 7:00 p.m. he might see her two or three times a week. Even if I ignored the contradictory testimony and accept only that which was most favourable to Mrs. Chowdhury, I am left with expense forms which demonstrate a precise record of expenses incurred which is not reflected by the imprecise testimony.

Jamila Begum's services

Mrs. Chowdhury testified that by the end of December 2004, her ability to take care of her house and children was getting worse because she was pregnant and her feet were getting bigger. This is consistent with Jamila Begum's testimony that Mrs. Chowdhury needed help because she was pregnant. It is also consistent with Ruvi Chowdhury's testimony that Mrs. Chowdhury was doing more before her pregnancy and during her pregnancy she could do nothing. It is also consistent with Mr. Chowdhury's testimony that his wife was worse in the five months before her delivery. It is also consistent with Dr. Keri's evidence that Mrs. Chowdhury suffered from gestational diabetes.

Ms. Begum testified that she took one child to school and the other child to her apartment. She said that she spent more than 30 hours a week providing caregiving services. When cross-examined she testified that she took the youngest child to her apartment when Mrs. Chowdhury was feeling sick, which was every three to four days. She testified that if she took care of the children in her apartment, it was for two to three hours. She also testified that she performed housekeeping services. I heard no evidence why these services were not in the expense forms she signed. She testified that Mrs. Chowdhury paid her about $150 and told her that if she received any money from State Farm she would pay her later.

Again, the testimony does not support a claim for 30 hours of caregiving services per week. And, the precision demonstrated in the expense forms is not reflected in the non-specific testimony.

Conclusion:

It is implausible that Ruvi Chowdhury and Jamila Begum would provide the identical services, without variation, every week of the first 104 weeks after the accident. It is implausible that at the 104 week mark, Mrs. Chowdhury would suddenly resume her caregiving and housekeeping activities. This is particularly so, when the little credible evidence I heard and accept was that Mrs. Chowdhury's condition deteriorated due to gestational diabetes during her pregnancy and she did need some help on account of that pregnancy during the six-month period Jamila Begum helped.

The invoices also contradict Ruvi Chowdhury's evidence that she provided less caregiving and housekeeping in the second year.

The contradictory and imprecise testimony of Mrs. Chowdhury, Ruvi Chowdhury, Jamila Begum and Mr. Chowdhury do not support the specific expense forms that were submitted.

None of the assessors who saw Mrs. Chowdhury commented on the extensive help that Ruvi Chowdhury and Jamila Begum provided. To the contrary, the two assessors who do comment on the help provided were Madeline Walker and Alexandra Smol and they both report that Mr. Chowdhury was providing the caregiving and housekeeping that Mrs. Chowdhury could not provide.

I accept Madeline Walker's report made two months after the accident as reliable evidence that Ruvi Chowdhury performed food preparation tasks for the first two weeks following the accident and that thereafter, Mr. Chowdhury took over those activities. I accept Ms. Walker's evidence that at the time she wrote the report, Mr. Chowdhury was providing the caregiving to the children, except for taking the daughter to school and that they paid someone to do this. I find that Mr. Pasternak's office submitted invoices and State Farm paid for these services.

I find that the expense forms Mrs. Chowdhury submitted are not reliable evidence of the housekeeping and caregiving services provided to her and they further undermine the credibility of Mr. and Mrs. Chowdhury, Jamila Begum and Ruvi Chowdhury.

On April 1, 2004, five months after the accident, Alexandra Smol reported in her functional abilities evaluation for State Farm that Mrs. Chowdhury told her that she was able to cook, clean and take care of her children with appropriate work pacing techniques. Mrs. Chowdhury admitted that the statement was true. I find that she was not substantially disabled from performing the housekeeping and caregiving activities she normally engaged in after April 1, 2004.

I find that Jamila Begum helped Mrs. Chowdhury with housekeeping and caregiving during her third pregnancy but that need was required because of Mrs. Chowdhury's gestational diabetes and was not caused by the accident. Further, I have no reliable evidence that Mrs. Chowdhury was substantially disabled from her normal housekeeping and caregiving activities and if so, how much help Jamila Begum provided.

I find it likely that Ruvi Chowdhury provided some housekeeping and caregiving assistance up to April 1, 2004, but the expenses she submitted are not reliable.

Special Award:

Since State Farm did not unreasonably withhold or delay payment of benefits, Mrs. Chowdhury is not entitled to a special award.

EXPENSES:

Both parties asked for expenses of the arbitration proceeding. Having regard to the criteria set out in the Expense Regulation, State Farm is entitled to its expenses of the arbitration proceeding after agreement or assessment.

May 17, 2007

William J. Renahan Arbitrator

Date

Financial Services Commission of Ontario