Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 232
FSCO A14-001706
BETWEEN:
FARIBA BARADARAN
Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: Rosemary Muzzi
Heard: April 10, 11, 12, 18 and 20, 2017, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.
Appearances: Robert N. Franklin for Mrs. Baradaran
Mari Maimets for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Issues:
The Applicant, Fariba Baradaran, was injured on May 30, 2012 when she fell while running to the aid of her minor daughter, Sama, who had been struck by a motor vehicle. Mrs. Baradaran applied for and received statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), payable under the Schedule.1 State Farm denied other benefits including a non-earner benefit and also some medical benefits. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mrs. Baradaran 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. Baradaran entitled to a non-earner benefit?
Is Mrs. Baradaran entitled to $2456.40 for a physiotherapy treatment plan dated 22 May 2015 proposed by Health Max.
Is Mrs. Baradaran entitled to payments for prescription medication and travel expenses as follows:
$3848.62 - 26 April 2015 to 8 May 2015?
$1446.45 – remainder from $2580.46 claimed – 6 August 2013?
$943.39 – remainder from $1411.63 claimed – 15 February 2014?
Is Mrs. Baradaran entitled to interest for the overdue payment of benefits?
Are the parties entitled to their expenses?
Result:
Mrs. Baradaran is not entitled to a non-earner benefit.
Mrs. Baradaran is entitled to $2456.40 for the physiotherapy treatment plan dated 22 May 2015 proposed by Health Max?
Mrs. Baradaran is not entitled to payments for the claimed prescription medication and travel expenses.
Mrs. Baradaran is entitled to interest in accordance with the Schedule for the overdue payment of benefits.
Neither party is entitled to its expenses.
BACKGROUND:
Since arriving in Canada in 2000, Mrs. Baradaran has performed the duties of a homemaker and mother. Both of her daughters were born in Canada, with the youngest, Sama, having been born in December 2001. Sama was not quite 11 years old when she was struck by a motor vehicle in May 2012.
The parties agree that Mrs. Baradaran was injured as a result of the accident and State Farm has paid some accident benefits. Mrs. Baradaran makes further claims for medical benefits to cover treatment and medication that have been denied by State Farm. Mrs. Baradaran also claims that she qualifies for a non-earner benefit (NEB). State Farm has denied this benefit on the basis that Mrs. Baradaran does not meet the legal test for entitlement.
I deal first with the NEB claim.
NON EARNER BENEFIT
Law
The NEB that Mrs. Baradaran seeks has as its purpose to provide compensation to persons who have suffered a severe diminution in their overall quality of life.2 The legal test that Mrs. Baradaran must meet to be entitled to the benefit is that she suffers a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of and within 104 weeks of the accident.3 The Schedule says that this means that I must be satisfied that Ms. Baradaran was continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which she ordinarily engaged before the accident.4
The jurisprudence of the Courts and the Commission tells arbitrators to compare pre- and post-accident activities5 and assess the degree to which the insured has been prevented from engaging in those activities. Whether the insured is “engaging in” activities is to be interpreted from a qualitative perspective with (i) all activities being considered but important activities given greater weight and, (ii) where pain is the primary factor, examining whether the degree of pain practically prevents the insured from engaging in the activities.
In Mrs. Baradaran’s case, physical pain is a primary complaint in addition to complaints of a psychological nature. However, I find that the medical evidence taken together with Mrs. Baradaran’s evidence is insufficient to show that the activities she normally engaged in before the accident were so limited in the 104 weeks after the accident that she was continuously prevented from engaging in them. I find that Mrs. Baradaran was able to engage in many of her usual activities though to a lesser degree and with pain, and the pain did not practically prevent her from engaging in most of those activities. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on balance to show that Mrs. Baradaran suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of and within 104 weeks after the accident.
Activities Pre-Accident
Mrs. Baradaran’s daily activities in the year before the accident were typical of those of a homemaker and mother.
Mrs. Baradaran took care of her children, who at the time were pre-teens, and engaged in the following activities in this regard:
Woke up at 6:30-7 am and made breakfast and prepared lunches for the children
Woke up children
Helped children get ready for school
Walked children to school
Would give children lunch at home sometimes
Helped children with homework
Sometimes would go to walk or visit a park with the children
Mrs. Baradaran was responsible for most of the household upkeep and in this regard she:
Cleaned the whole house (a detached, 6 bedroom, 3 bathroom home with den/office, kitchen, living room and dining room)
Cooked and baked
Mr. Baradaran had his own personal activities that he pursued during the day; he is retired. He had motor vehicle accidents in 2004 and 2005 and suffers chronic pain in lower back, legs and hands for which he takes medication. As a result, he did not help with the housework or only with small tasks. Once in a while he would help with shopping. They hired someone to do grass cutting or did it together. Snow shovelling would be done with a machine and he would do it and sometimes Mrs. Baradaran would help.
Socially, Mrs. Baradaran enjoyed:
Reading books and watching TV
Going out with friends for coffee or shopping if she had extra time
Engaging in fitness and exercise every day in the afternoon for 30-40 minutes up to an hour (in the basement where the family had 3-4 pieces of exercise equipment)
Going to church for ceremonies once a month or every two months (sometimes with the children)
Family trips
Going to the library
Before the accident, Mrs. Baradaran drove the car without difficulty.
Activities Post-Accident
Mrs. Baradaran testified that while she reported no physical problems at the hospital where she attended with her daughter after the accident, her pain increased over a few days. She had bruises and scrapes from her head-first fall and when she visited her family doctor, Dr. Pazuki, one week later, he recommended physiotherapy. She attended Health One Physio for a few months, three times per week, and only stopped because State Farm refused to fund further treatment. When the pain did not subside, Mrs. Baradaran began taking medication6 and thereafter also consulted with a neurologist for symptoms like cold tingling hands, heart palpitations, increased headaches, and forgetfulness and decreased concentration.
Mrs. Baradaran testified that her life after the accident was significantly different and in particular she identified the following changes to her care-giving, household and leisure activities.
Pertaining to the care of her children, Mrs. Baradaran:
no longer made lunches and instead gave her children money to buy lunch
did not help with their homework anymore because she said her brain does not work like it used to and besides their homework is now over her level of understanding
With respect to the personal care of Sama in the months following the accident - Sama had suffered a broken shoulder, a leg injury and required a neck brace - I am satisfied that Mrs. Baradaran was her primary care-giver though the family may have also had assistance from another individual. In her testimony, Mrs. Baradaran downplayed her role in her daughter’s post-accident care but all the records show that she provided care such as bathing, hair care, and dressing post-accident.7 For example, in the neuropsychological assessment report both Sama and Mr. Baradaran report that she is more reliant/dependent on her mother for her daily activities.
With respect to her household responsibilities, Mrs. Baradaran testified that:
she had housekeeping assistance for approximately one year after the accident, for 3-4 days per week, 5-6 hours each day which assistance ended when State Farm stopped funding those expenses. After that, Mrs. Baradaran did the light housekeeping because her doctor recommended that she engage in activity and her husband and older daughter also helped out with the heavier tasks, such as vacuuming and laundry
she prepared food much less often and mostly the family ordered out and bought prepared food from grocery stores
she used the dishwasher after the accident whereas she did not before the accident
Mrs. Baradaran testified that her social and leisure life also changed after the accident.
Socializing with her friends was limited due to her depression after the accident so she spent most of the time with her husband.
She no longer exercises.
She goes to church or mosque maybe once a year.
She still is afraid to drive on the highway but does drive short distances, such as to her children’s school or to her therapist’s office.
Mrs. Baradaran has always managed her own personal care such as washing, dressing, teeth, pedicures, etc., but after the accident these tasks are accomplished with some pain and difficulty.8 Even though during an Examination under Oath9 Mrs. Baradaran reported functional deficits with ambulating and personal hygiene, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention and none of the medical reports or clinical notes before me refer to these problems regarding her post-accident personal care activities.
Other leisure activities did not seem to change at all after the accident. For example, Mrs. Baradaran and her family went on two vacations/trips after the accident. Three years after the accident the family travelled to Punta Cana and then about 1-½ years ago they went to San Diego. Mrs. Baradaran testified that she was afraid for her daughter when they were in Punta Cana, though this fear was not explicitly explained. She also testified that the whole family got sick on the trip to San Diego and had to return home. In my view, there is little evidence that these less than satisfactory vacations had anything to do with Mrs. Baradaran’s accident-related problems.
There was also surveillance evidence showing Mrs. Baradaran’s ability to still accomplish light home maintenance tasks after the accident. For example, she is seen hosing off her daughters’ bicycles for 3-4 minutes, bending over to pick up the hose, and moving the bikes into the garage. She is also seen at the grocery store with her husband, bagging vegetables, reaching for items, pushing the shopping cart, easily walking about the store, pointing to items, moving her head freely and looking around, conversing with her husband, pushing the cart though the checkout, helping to pack groceries, lifting the paper towel package, and getting herself into the minivan with no obvious assistance. Later, she is observed dragging out the green bin with her hand on her lower back, dragging branches out to curb and holding her back as she bends. When Mrs. Baradaran was asked to explain her actions, she testified that she would have taken her pain medications and she engaged in these tasks at the recommendation of her doctor who has told her to be active. She testified that she always has pain.
Conclusions Regarding Pre- and Post-Accident Activities Comparison
The changes from pre- to post-accident activities must amount to the insured being continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of the activities, with continuously meaning “uninterrupted”. I find that there is insufficient evidence that after the accident Mrs. Baradaran was continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which she ordinarily engaged before the accident.
In the case at bar, there is insufficient evidence of the kind of profound compromise in activities that is expected to qualify an insured for non-earner benefits. There is evidence of limitation in some activities, decreased activity and also a change in the nature of Mrs. Baradaran’s participation in some of her regular activities. But, a reduction in frequency, less proficiency, and a lesser engagement in some of her activities are not changes that are sufficient to meet the NEB test.
There is also evidence of pain but the evidence was insufficient to show that the pain practically prevents her from carrying out these activities.
While it is clear that she began to experience some decline in the 104 weeks after the accident, Mrs. Baradaran was able to participate both physically and intellectually in many of her previous activities.
Having considered all the evidence, I find that the substance of Mrs. Baradaran’s life did not change significantly enough within the two years after the accident to meet the test for a NEB. Moreover the medical evidence before me does not support the contention that Mrs. Baradaran’s limitations within the two years after the accident were so serious as to constitute a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
Medical Evidence
There is no medical opinion that Mrs. Baradaran suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks after the accident. The preponderance of the medical evidence within 104 weeks of the accident indicates that she suffered some limitations but there is very little medical evidence to suggest that she suffered so severe a diminution in her quality of life as to meet the test for a NEB.
Apart from pre-existing migraine headaches treated with prescription medication, Mrs. Baradaran had no significant physical issues before the accident. Very soon after the accident, some of her treating practitioners and assessors noted deficiencies in Mrs. Baradaran’s function and diagnosed both physical and psychological conditions including: moderate myofascial injury; chronic pain; anxiety; and, major depression. Yet none of these medical opinions reveals functional deficiencies after the accident that amount to Mrs. Baradaran being continuously prevented from carrying on substantially all of her regular pre-accident activities.
Most of the medical assessors who examined Mrs. Baradaran during the two years post-accident found only partial limits to her activities.
On July 4, 2012, Dr. Rod10 found that insufficient functional tolerances for lifting, carrying, sitting, walking and stair climbing substantially affected her ability to perform essential daily tasks and resume her pre-accident status and independence.
No assessor or practitioner has ever found Mrs. Baradaran in need of assistance with personal care. For example, In August 2012, Dr. Tepperman, a GP, describes Mrs. Baradaran as self-sufficient with personal care and requiring only occasional help with dressing. Dr. Tepperman also notes that Mrs. Baradaran does some dusting and light cooking and a friend and her husband help with the remainder.13 On April 28, 2015, almost three years post-accident, Dr. Ko, physiatrist, reports that Mrs. Baradaran stated that she remained independent with her activities of daily living but required assistance for housekeeping.14
Mrs. Baradaran complained of emotional problems after the accident and received counselling from several psychologists, including Dr. Elmpak; Dr. Rockman; Dr. Lopo15 and then Dr. Mona Khateri, who speaks her language. Finally, she went to Mrs. Aghamohseni who treats her for anxiety issues.
The assessors and practitioners who examined Mrs. Baradaran’s psychological health and limitations for the most part did not see a complete inability to lead a normal life. Dr. Rockman, psychologist, opined three months after the accident16 that her prognosis was good due to her motivation to attend treatment.
Dr. Elmpak treated Mrs. Baradaran for a period of time, issuing three treatment plans in 2013, but even taken together, these plans do not describe a person who is continuously prevented from carrying on substantially all of her regular pre-accident activities. The January plan17 states that she is unable to attend to her caregiving tasks at the same pre-accident levels due to pain interference, emotional and psychological factors and that she has decreased her social and leisure activities. The June plan18 is similar in that it notes significant affective interference, fatigue, attention problems which do not allow Mrs. Baradaran to be as effective in her caregiving, and housework and home maintenance. The treatment plan of October 201319 in my view speaks mostly to her driving phobia as a result of the accident and her dependence on her husband to get around. She is unable to drive to various destinations, and unable to take TTC or move independently onto the street due to intense anxiety. She prefers to stay at home.
Even the assessment conducted by Dr. Elmpak in July 2013, while finding that Mrs. Baradaran was progressing slowly in respect of her psychological symptoms, did not indicate the kinds of functional limitations normally associated with a complete inability to carry on a normal life. For example, the psychological symptoms20 include being scattered, prone to mistakes, often “spaced out” during the day and difficulty in concentration and focus on the tasks at hand. The physical symptoms include an inability to sit extensively, lift, and engage in heavier activities due to pain.21 Even the treatment considerations include a recommended increase in her functional activities, her daily household and caregiving duties and her social interactions.22
When Mrs. Baradaran was assessed in March 2014 by Dr. A. Zielinsky, psychiatrist, Dr. Zielinsky opined that she is able to complete activities of daily living with some pacing but she has significant issues with emotional regulation, socialization, concentration, and focus.23 This opinion was based in part on Mrs. Baradaran’s reports that she cannot do most of her housekeeping activities, needs pacing and has to do them slowly, and cannot sit or stand for too long because of pain. However, she can take care of the house and the children who provide some purpose and meaning in life. She is not able to socialize or see friends as she did prior to the accident.24
Later, in November 2014, Dr. Lopo finds25 that Mrs. Baradaran’s ability to engage in daily activities is hindered by her diminished energy, sleep, concentration and memory difficulties, and anxiety and that she is unable to engage in previously enjoyed activities to the same extent as pre-accident.
The only practitioner who expresses the opinion that Mrs. Baradaran is not able to engage in a substantial number of activities that she ordinarily engaged in prior to the accident is her family doctor, Dr. Pazuki. In July 201626 Dr. Pazuki reports that Mrs. Baradaran is suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder with worsening depression, a loss of memory and concentration, and chronic headaches which have worsened in frequency and intensity since the accident with an increase in medication as a result. She also suffers neck, back, and shoulder pain and stiffness in her shoulders due to the multiple soft tissue injuries she suffered in the accident. As a result, she requires physical therapy, such as physio and massage therapy as well as chiropractic adjustments. Dr. Pazuki also encourages her to stay active as much as she can.
I find that Dr. Pazuki’s conclusion that Mrs. Baradaran is not able to engage in a substantial number of activities that she previously engaged in does not conform to most of the other medical evidence and therefore I assign it less weight. Moreover, Dr. Pazuki’s opinion does not align with the symptoms or recommended treatment described in the report. Physiotherapy, massage and chiropractic therapy are fairly standard treatments for typical soft tissue injuries. The absence of other recommendations to deal with Mrs. Baradaran’s apparent inability to do a substantial number of her activities leads me to conclude that Dr. Pazuki has overstated her limitations.
Finally, I also find that the evidence of Mrs. Baradaran’s current therapist, Mrs. Aghamohseni, who testified at the hearing about Mrs. Baradaran’s current psychological state, was less relevant and less reliable in respect of Mrs. Baradaran’s pre- and post-accident function than the other medical evidence before me for the following reasons and therefore I assign it less weight as well.
The evidence of Mrs. Aghamohseni is less relevant than much of the other medical evidence because she first consulted with Mrs. Baradaran on January 13, 2015, more than two years after the accident and therefore outside of the relevant period according to the Schedule. Furthermore, she examined Mrs. Baradaran primarily in relation to her driving anxiety27and therefore failed to engage in a comprehensive assessment of Mrs. Baradaran’s activities. Most of Mrs. Aghamohseni’s initial treatment is geared towards the driving issue. For example, she recommended a driving anxiety assessment28 and then a treatment plan29 to deal with this problem. She recommended more such treatment in May 201530 because Mrs. Baradaran was extremely distressed even after 12 sessions. By her April 15, 2016 progress report,31 Mrs. Aghamohseni reports that Mrs. Baradaran was driving but a further eight sessions were recommended and approved for desensitization. Mrs. Aghamohseni describes her as still nervous, anxious and uncomfortable but states that she is able to do small driving tasks, short trips using side streets and that she drives her daughters to school.
Mrs. Baradaran has been attending therapy for some time. According to Mrs. Aghamohseni, her attendance is good though she has missed a few sessions because of headaches. She is on time, motivated and eager to get help but between sessions she regresses. She has heard from Mrs. Baradaran that before the accident she was a happy mom, with an active life, who cared for herself and her family and following the accident her life changed where she could not manage her activities, home was a miserable place and she could not care for herself or her children as before. It was Mrs. Aghamohseni’s opinion that Mr. Baradaran is domineering and that Mrs. Baradaran does what she is told and is extremely dependant because she does not work and does not speak English.32 Mrs. Aghamohseni testified that she believes Mrs. Baradaran will need to see her for much longer and finds that she continues to struggle with stress and nervousness and her progress is very slow. They completed a further eight counselling sessions in January 2017 and she has recommended further treatment.
The preponderance of the evidence related to Mrs. Aghamohseni’s treatment indicates that she is treating some generalized anxiety and personal problems in addition to a specific driving anxiety. As a result I am not persuaded that the purpose of this therapy is to assist Mrs. Baradaran with any significant limitations to her daily activities. As a result, I given this evidence little weight.
Conclusions Regarding Medical Evidence
On balance, I find that the relevant medical evidence before me confirms that while Mrs. Baradaran suffered some physical and psychological effects as a result of the accident, the limitations to her usual daily activities were not so great as to amount to her being continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which she ordinarily engaged before the accident.
Is Mrs. Baradaran entitled to a non-earner benefit?
Mrs. Baradaran is not entitled to a non-earner benefit as a result of the accident because a comparison of her pre- and post-accident activities, taken together with the preponderance of the medical evidence does not show that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks after the accident.
PHYSIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLAN DATED 22 MAY 2015
- Is Mrs. Baradaran entitled to $2456.40 for a physiotherapy treatment plan dated 22 May 2015 proposed by Health Max? 33
Mrs. Baradaran testified that she continues to need treatment. She only stopped treatment when State Farm stopped paying. She could not remember the last time she went for treatment but for some time she attended three times per week.
There was also evidence before me that Mrs. Baradaran takes prescription medication34 for her symptoms of pain and Mrs. Baradaran testified that she has seen little improvement in her pain symptoms. She has pain in her lower back radiating to her legs and has pain in her shoulders that is relieved only temporarily by medications.
In July 2016 Dr. Pazuki, her family doctor, wrote that Mrs. Baradaran suffers neck and back pain and pain and stiffness in her shoulders due to the multiple soft tissue injuries she suffered in the accident. Dr. Pazuki reported that she continues to require physical therapy, such as physiotherapy and massage therapy as well as chiropractic adjustments. She has been encouraged to stay active as much as she can.
The Commission has found in the past that pain relief is a valid basis for finding that treatment is reasonable and necessary as contemplated by the Schedule. Given that Mrs. Baradaran’s pain medications provide only temporary relief and that her doctor has recommended a more active lifestyle to improve her symptoms, I find that the treatment plan proposed by Health Max is reasonable and necessary. Such palliative treatment can assist with further management of the pain which may encourage Mrs. Baradaran to be more active in general.
I find that Mrs. Baradaran is entitled to $2456.40 for a physiotherapy treatment plan dated 22 May 2015 proposed by Health Max.
MEDICATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES
- Is Mrs. Baradaran entitled to the following payments for prescription medications and travel expenses?
The preponderance of the evidence in this regard shows that the prescription medication expenses claimed by Mrs. Baradaran are covered and were reimbursed through another plan. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that the prescription medication expenses claimed were never paid out-of-pocket by Mrs. Baradaran. She receives ODSP and the program includes coverage for prescription medications. Mrs. Baradaran admitted as much during cross-examination while asserting that it was her husband who purchased her medication and was responsible for submitting these prescription claims.
A list of medication claims processed by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care37 shows that some of the medication expenses claimed by Mrs. Baradaran have already been paid in full through a government program. The ledger shows that Mrs. Baradaran has been covered by the program since at least August 2011 and in most cases has paid only a small fee for each prescription filled. A patient medical expense report38 prepared by one of the pharmacies that Mrs. Baradaran has attended shows many of the other medical expenses claimed by Mrs. Baradaran have also been paid through the existing plan.
I heard no persuasive evidence in relation to the travel expenses claimed about the reasonableness and necessity of these expenses and their coverage under the Schedule.
Therefore, I find that Mrs. Baradaran is not entitled to the medical expenses for the prescription medication and travel expenses claimed.
EXPENSES:
With each party having some success at arbitration and no other criteria in the Expense Regulation being relevant, I find that each party shall bear its own expenses of the proceeding.
August 30, 2017
Rosemary Muzzi
Arbitrator
Date
Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 232
FSCO A14-001706
BETWEEN:
FARIBA BARADARAN
Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
NSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
ARBITRATION ORDER
Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8 as it read immediately before being amended by Schedule 3 to the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014, and Regulation 664, as amended, it is ordered that:
State Farm shall pay Mrs. Baradaran $2456.40 for the physiotherapy treatment plan dated 22 May 2015 proposed by Health Max.
State Farm shall pay Mrs. Baradaran interest in accordance with the Schedule for the overdue payment of these benefits.
August 30, 2017
Rosemary Muzzi
Arbitrator
Date
Footnotes
- The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Effective September 1, 2010, Ontario Regulation 34/10, as amended.
- Galdamez v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 ONCA 508 (20120724) and Walker v. Ritchie 2003 CanLII 90084 (ON SC), [2003] OJ No.5596 at paras 41-31 The non-earner benefit, if it is akin to any head of damages in a court action, is akin to non-pecuniary or general damages.
- Section 12(1) of the Schedule provides for a three-part test.
- Section 2(4) of the Schedule
- Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 1877, 2009 ONCA 391, 2009 CarswellOnt 2443 (May 11, 2009)
- Exhibit 5 – Dr. James - injections, September 2013
- See Exhibit 54, Page 536 – Initial Case Management Assessment Interview (20 September 2012) Page 5 and Exhibit 55 , Page 418– Neuropsychological Assessment Report (15 January 2013) Page 6
- Exhibit 34, page 45
- Exhibit 34, Transcript of EUO conducted 24 August 2015
- Exhibit 60, Disability Certificate dated July 4, 2012
- Exhibit 43, page 3
- Exhibit 63, page 3
- Exhibit 11 and 12
- Exhibit 37, Assessment Date August 7, 2012
- Exhibit 8
- Exhibit 9
- Exhibit 10
- Exhibit 57, page 3
- Exhibit 57, page 2
- Exhibit 57, page 4
- Exhibit 38
- Exhibit 38, page 6
- Exhibit 12
- Exhibit 21
- Exhibit 13 – Treatment Plan, approved January 27, 2015
- Exhibit 14 – February 22, 2015
- Exhibit 15
- Exhibit 16
- Exhibit 48
- Mrs. Aghamohseni so opined when confronted with statements about her compromised psychological condition attributed to Mrs. Baradaran and contained in affidavits filed in court relating to various statements of claim filed before the accident. These statements and the related court documentation can be found at Exhibits 35, 1, 39, 41, 44 and 2. They include allegations of a botched hair transplant and the resulting headaches; a failed rental property real estate transaction; a problematic trip to Italy; a psychological assessment done after her refrigerator leaked and caused damage and, personal issues around the litigation over a minivan purchase in 2007. Nevertheless when confronted with this information, Mrs. Aghamohseni did not change her opinion regarding Mrs. Baradaran’s need for counselling after the accident.
- Exhibit 6 – disputed Treatment Plan
- Lyrica and Cybalta
- remainder from $2580.46 claimed
- remainder from $1411.63 claimed
- Exhibit 26
- Exhibit 31
- Exhibit 4
- Exhibit 6