Citation: M.F. vs Belair Insurance, 2019 ONLAT 18-003847/AABS

Date: November 29, 2019

In the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.

Between:

[M.F.]

Applicant

and

Belair Insurance

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Kate Grieves

Appearances:

For the Applicant:

Sophia Dales, Counsel

Frank McNally, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Tara Lemke, Counsel

Heard In Person:

December 11, 12, 13, 2018 and January 15, 16, 17, 18, 2019

OVERVIEW

1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on October 22, 2015, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the ''Schedule''). The applicant was denied certain benefits by the respondent and applied to the Licence Application Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”) for dispute resolution.

ISSUES

2The issues in dispute to be decided by the Tribunal are:

i. Is the applicant entitled to receive a weekly income replacement benefit (“IRB”) after 104 weeks of disability in the amount of $185.00 per week, from July 8, 2018 to date and ongoing?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to the costs of examinations in the amount of $1,689.84 for an in-home occupational therapy assessment recommended by Functionability Rehabilitation Services in a treatment plan submitted on August 24, 2017 and denied on September 19, 2017?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to a medical benefit in the amount of $3,116.86 for occupational therapy services recommended by Functionability Rehabilitation Services in a treatment plan submitted on October 12, 2017 and denied on November 21, 2017?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to a medical benefit in the amount of $2,922.39 for personal training services recommended by Fleming Fitness in a treatment plan submitted on February 20, 2018 and denied on March 5, 2018?

v. Is the applicant entitled to the costs of examinations in the amount of $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment recommended by Ricci & Associates in a treatment plan submitted on December 19, 2017 and denied on December 20, 2017?

vi. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

vii. Is the applicant entitled to an award under Regulation 664 on the basis that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?

RESULT

3I find that the applicant has not proven his entitlement to income replacement benefits.

4The applicant is not entitled to the medical benefits or costs of examinations because they are not reasonable or necessary.

5No interest is payable. The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to Regulation 664 because no benefits were unreasonably withheld.

6The appeal is dismissed.

THE LAW

Post-104 Income Replacement Benefits

7It is well established that to be entitled to income replacement benefits more than 104 weeks after the accident, the applicant must satisfy the post-104 week disability test by establishing on a balance of probabilities that he suffers a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he is reasonably suited by education, training and experience as a result of the accident.

8The applicant must establish that the treatment plans in dispute are reasonable and necessary as a result of injuries sustained in the accident pursuant to ss. 14, 15 and 25 of the Schedule.

ANALYSIS

9The applicant submits that he suffers from physical and psychological impairments and therefore cannot work in any capacity.

10The respondent’s submissions largely deal with causation, arguing that neither his current physical pain or his psychological conditions were caused by the accident. Both parties submitted that the test for causation is “but for” as set out by the Supreme Court in Clements v Clements¹. Both parties relied on the Divisional Court’s decision in Sabdash v State Farm, which confirmed that the proper test for causation in accident benefits claims is “but for”.

11For reasons outlined below, I accept that the applicant suffered physical impairments as a result of the accident. Despite these impairments, however, I find that the applicant is not entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits as he does not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he is reasonably suited by way of education, training and experience. I also find that the applicant is not entitled to the medical benefits or costs of examinations because he has failed to establish that they are reasonable or necessary.

Pre-Accident Background

12The applicant was 19 years old at the time of the accident. As a teen, he was diagnosed with scoliosis (in his case both a curved and rotated spine) as well as central core myopathy – a disorder that causes weakness in his muscles. In November 2013, he had a spinal fusion surgery with Harrington rods placed on either side of his spine from L3-T5. His recovery took about ten months, and the surgery was successful. He graduated high school. Around September 2014, he resumed his regular physical activities, including basketball and mixed martial arts (“MMA”). The applicant also enrolled in electrical engineering at [College] in September 2014. He testified that he did not have any plans when he entered the program, but believed that education was good. He testified that his grades were good, but a review of the transcripts shows mostly C’s and D’s, which then dropped further.²

13In the summer of 2015, the applicant worked as a landscaper. He also met his girlfriend, A.H., that summer. In the fall of 2015, the applicant returned to college, but changed to the business accounting program. He obtained similar grades to the previous year in the fall semester, and his grades again dropped further in the winter term.³ The applicant testified that he withdrew from school in the fall of 2016. While attending school, he also worked part-time as a delivery driver for [a pizza restaurant]. At the time of the accident, he was working about 10 hours a week. His shifts were two to three hours each and he earned about $8.00 per hour plus tips. Each driving trip took only about 5 to 10 minutes because the delivery area is limited to a 3 km radius from the store. He was therefore not in any one position for a significant period. There was no heavy lifting for this job, and the time spent sitting and standing was limited.

Post-Accident Background

14On October 22, 2015, the applicant was driving through an intersection when another car made a left turn and collided with the front of his vehicle. His vehicle spun 180 degrees and the airbags deployed. The vehicle was later deemed a total loss by the insurance company. Police and EMS attended, but the applicant declined to go to hospital. He called his girlfriend who came to the scene to pick him up. After collecting a rental car, the applicant drove from Ottawa to Kemptville. Later that night and the next morning the applicant was experiencing pain in his neck, back and left leg and ankle. He attended hospital in the morning, and x-rays confirmed that the hardware in his back was unaffected. He was told to take Tylenol and sent home. The applicant commenced physiotherapy within a few days at Kemptville Physio.

i. Employment

15The applicant returned to work at [a pizza restaurant] shortly after the accident. He testified that he worked as much as possible so he could earn money to visit his grandmother. The applicant travelled to Trinidad to visit her for 5 days at the end of December 2015.

16The applicant and his girlfriend moved in to their own place together in January 2016. The applicant continued to attend school. The applicant also started a new job in January 2016 as a delivery driver for [restaurant 2]. He testified that he changed jobs because it was less busy and would therefore be less work. However, the records from this business indicate that he worked approximately 17.5 hours per week, and earned $11.50 an hour.⁴

17The applicant quit the job at [restaurant 2] in May 2016 because it was also “too hard”, and he started his own car detailing business. He admitted this was impulsive as he did not have a background in cleaning or sales, had never run a business before and did not have a plan. The applicant and A.H. testified that she would do most of the physical work cleaning the cars. The applicant testified that physical work increased his pain. His role was mostly just going to car dealerships to try to get cars to clean. After a few months of operating a mobile business, the applicant chose to rent a store-front location, which drastically increased his costs.

18The business closed its doors in August 2017, around the same time the applicant and A.H. broke up. The applicant testified that the business never made any money, though no records were provided to support this claim.

ii. Treatment

19The applicant attended treatment at Kemptville Physio until the end of November 2015. There was a gap in his treatment until January 20, 2016. The applicant reported at that time that his neck and low back had been relatively alright, but his mid-spine pain was made worse with running and doing push-ups.⁵ The applicant testified that he had also resumed light MMA training around January 2016.

20The applicant first saw his family physician, Dr. Leahy, three months post-accident on January 27, 2016. The applicant reported that he still had back pain after the accident, and had pain in his right upper back caused by push-ups and lifting.⁶

21The applicant returned to see Dr. Leahy a month later with further complaints of right upper back pain. He reported that his other pains were helped by physiotherapy. Dr. Leahy referred the applicant to a physiatrist, Dr. Fox. The applicant had a consultation with Dr. Fox on April 25, 2016 for evaluation of his back pain since the accident.⁷ The applicant reported intermittent right back pain at the thoracolumbar junction. It only occurred with aggravating activities such as push-ups, heavy lifting while bending, and certain exercises at MMA. On examination, Dr. Fox noted that the applicant was quite tight in his hamstrings. He concluded that the applicant’s injuries were soft tissue in nature, but that the healing may be complicated by his central core myopathy. He recommended that the applicant return to physiotherapy and perform core exercises, and avoid activities which provoke his pain, including landscaping work.

22Despite this recommendation, the applicant only attended for two further physiotherapy sessions at Kemptville Physio, in May and June 2016. He testified that he was feeling mostly better, his improvement had plateaued, and treatment was not helping. Six months later, the applicant was assessed at Apollo Physio in January 2017. He attended treatment for a little over a month. The assessor noted that the applicant still had his MMA membership, however the applicant testified that he had not participated in MMA training since Dr. Fox told him to stop.

23A note in Apollo Physio’s records on January 17, 2017 indicates that the applicant suffered a slip and fall on some ice and reported low back pain. The applicant testified that his whole back hurt after this incident, and he stayed in bed for a few days. His pain was aggravated for two weeks.⁸

24Another note in Apollo Physio’s records dated January 31, 2017 refers to back pain from having to push his car when the alternator broke, and because he was not performing his exercises at home. The applicant testified that he had no recollection of the incident.⁹

25The applicant was involved in a third incident which aggravated his back pain around late summer of 2017 when a customer assaulted him – he was pushed and fell, striking his back against a vehicle and was punched in the face several times. His back pain was aggravated for three weeks.

26The applicant did not attend treatment from February 2017 until November 2018 when he resumed treatment at Kemptville Physio. The respondent denied the treatment plans submitted by Apollo Physio in January and June 2017. The applicant paid out of pocket for treatment between January 2017 and March 2018, mostly for massages.

27The applicant began coaching a junior basketball team in Ottawa in 2017. The applicant testified that one of his friends will help to demonstrate plays or techniques on his behalf.

28The applicant did not see his family physician after February 2016 until October 2017. The family doctor completed a disability certificate on behalf of the applicant, dated October 13, 2017. He diagnosed “musculoskeletal upper back pain – soft tissue”, and prescribed the applicant Celexa and Lyrica. The clinical notes and records of the family physician from October 10, 2017 indicate that the applicant was diagnosed with chronic back pain.

Causation

Physical impairments

29The respondent submits that while the applicant was reporting intermittent upper back pain to his treatment providers, there were no references by the family physician to low back pain despite the applicant’s testimony that he has had constant low back pain since the accident. There are some references to lumbar pain in the initial Kemptville Physio records, but there is reference to this pain improving. The applicant reported thoracolumbar junction pain which is higher on his spine. The respondent submits that no explanation has been provided to explain the change in location of the applicant’s pain, but that they could be explained by the other events that occurred (the slip and fall, pushing his car, and the assault).

30I find that the applicant suffered from back pain as a result of this accident. While the exact location of his back pain was sometimes in his low back area and sometimes in more of the mid to upper back area, the applicant’s reports of ongoing back pain are consistent. The day after the accident, he went to hospital for mid-thoracic pain while the physiotherapy records which commence days after the accident document lumbar sprain and strain among other injuries. It is reasonable that some days different areas felt better than others. He reported that there was some improvement of some areas of his pain with therapy while other pains plateaued. A review of the totality of the physiotherapy records indicate that he reported ongoing thoracic and lumbar spine pain.

31While I accept that the three other events may have aggravated the applicant’s back pain, I am satisfied that underlying injury was caused by the subject accident.

Psychological impairments

32I find that the applicant has not suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident. The first mention of any psychological concerns was by the family physician in October 2017 when he was prescribed Lyrica and Celexa. I am not satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, any psychological issues that the applicant may have been experiencing were caused by the accident. The first psychological complaints coincide with other major life stressors, whereas the accident occurred two years prior.

33The applicant relies on the psychological assessment report dated April 17, 2018 prepared by Dr. Ricci in support of his position. She diagnosed the applicant with a somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, and a major depressive disorder with anxious distress. She also noted that the applicant had features of a specific phobia related to driving, but did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis. The applicant submits that he tried to push through his pain by working. His mood was starting to deteriorate more than a year after the accident. He started drinking more frequently. He had limited insight into his emotional problems, and was not aware of the effect that his pain was having on his mood. As explained by Dr. Ricci, he was initially focused on his physical recovery, and as his chronic pain condition developed, the depression and mood symptoms set it.

34By the time the applicant was diagnosed with psychological conditions by Dr. Ricci in April 2018, over 2.5 years had elapsed since the accident. In August 2017, the applicant and A.H. broke up, and he had to close the unsuccessful car detailing business. He was also sued during that time. Dr. Ricci was aware that the applicant was a full-time student at the time of the accident, and that he returned to school and worked part time as a delivery driver. She was not aware that he resumed MMA for a time after the accident. She also did not know that he got another job in 2016 as a delivery driver for several months. Dr. Ricci acknowledged that there are no records referencing psychological concerns until October 2017. She explained that she looks at function and how it impacts his daily activities, such as the report of the massage therapist – however this report was not prepared until March 2018. Dr. Ricci agreed that financial issues, breaking up with a partner, subsequent injuries, being assaulted, being sued and having to close an unsuccessful business are all major life stressors.

35I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant’s psychological presentation at the time of Dr. Ricci’s assessment over 2.5 years post-accident was not caused by the subject accident but more likely as a result of the multiple major life stressors that occurred in the interim. There are no documented psychological complaints until October 2017 when these other events had already occurred. Before those other events occurred, the applicant was functioning relatively well – he returned to school, work, exercising, and started a business. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the applicant has suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident.

Entitlement to Post-104 Income Replacement Benefits

36A few days prior to the 104-week mark, the applicant applied for income replacement benefits. I find that the applicant has not suffered a complete inability to perform any employment for which he is reasonably suited as a result of the accident.

37The applicant relied on the conclusions of a physiatrist, Dr. Beseman who prepared a report dated November 14, 2018.¹⁰ He concluded that the applicant did meet the test for post-104 IRBs, noting that although the applicant may have suffered relatively minor soft tissue injuries to his back, it fell on “fertile soil” given the pre-existing spinal fusion and myopathy. He recommended that the applicant should not engage in any heavy lifting, carrying, bending, forward flexion, pushing and pulling, or prolonged sitting or standing. However, Dr. Beseman also opined that the applicant should be encouraged to persevere with his accounting diploma, even if part time. He testified that he should be encouraged to return to any of his activities: such as resuming school with accommodations. Dr. Beseman testified that if the applicant could find a job that allowed him some flexibility, that did not require standing or staying in one position, that he could do it. He confirmed that the applicant would need a relatively sedentary job that would allow him to change positions and incorporate breaks.

38The respondent’s assessor, Dr. Maser, concluded in his report that the applicant had sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries. Dr. Maser concluded that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to complete his pre-accident landscaping employment, but he was physically capable of resuming his delivery driver position on a full-time basis, with breaks.¹¹ The applicant raised some concerns regarding suggested edits made by the assessment clinic to Dr. Maser’s report. However, Dr. Maser confirmed he had the final say on any edits and total control over the opinions in his reports. I am satisfied that he approved the additions, and that the wording is substantially similar to his previous reports.¹²

39The applicant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation, which showed that he demonstrated maximal effort, and revealed the following tolerances: constant forward reaching and handling; frequent standing, sitting, fingering, walking, overhead reaching and cervical mobility; occasional waist to shoulder lifting of up to 5 lbs, carrying up to 44 lbs, and pulling up to 36 lbs. He demonstrated limitations with respect to stooping and crouching.¹³

40The applicant underwent vocational assessment on behalf of the respondent with Mr. Egarhos, and retained his own assessor, Ms. Genereux. While Mr. Egarhos identified six vocations, Ms. Genereux concluded that there were no suitable jobs that the applicant could complete. I preferred the evidence of Mr. Egarhos for several reasons.

41Both assessors administered the Canadian Work Preference Inventory and Wide Range Achievement Test. Mr. Egarhos also administered the Canadian Adult Achievement Test, which Ms. Genereux did not. He also administered the Valpar, while Ms. Genereux administered the General Aptitude Test Battery (“GATB”). The Valpar method is computerised verbal aptitude testing which has four subtests which evaluate spelling, editing, reading comprehension and vocabulary. It takes approximately 40 minutes to complete. The GATB is a 6-minute paper and pencil test which compares the meaning of words. Mr. Egarhos testified that while both are fine methodologically, the GATB is not as comprehensive and does not reflect a modern labour market to use paper and pencil. GATB was last updated in 1984, but it is still used for clients with zero computer skills. I accept that while both are methodologically appropriate, the Valpar method is more comprehensive and updated than the GATB method.

42Ms. Genereux’s report includes the assumption that the applicant would become a self-employed accountant, based on his self report that he intended to complete a combined program with a university program in accounting.¹⁴ This was inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence. Further, she did not review the applicant’s transcripts from high school or college to determine if this was a realistic plan. This led her to screen out all occupations that fell within his Level 4 General Learning aptitude, because they “would not serve to maximize his anticipated pre-accident earning potential given his career aspirations”. Mr. Egarhos actually eliminated accounting from consideration because the applicant did not finish his training, and his scores were not strong enough on testing. Ms. Genereux eliminated all driving occupations based on her incorrect interpretation of the psychological diagnoses that resulted in the assumption that the applicant was incapable of driving. She was not aware that he had gotten a second job as a delivery driver post-accident. It does not appear that she was aware that the applicant drove over 40 minutes each way between Kemptville and Ottawa for classes, work, therapy, and to see his girlfriend. As a result of the foregoing, I prefer Mr. Egarhos’ evidence.

43The applicant’s scores on some testing performed by both assessors were lower than expected for a high-school graduate with two years of college. When reporting his work history, the applicant neglected to tell Mr. Egarhos about his post-accident employment owning and operating his car detailing business, but Mr. Egarhos obtained the information from other reports in the file. Ms. Genereux and Mr. Egarhos found the applicant to have the mostly the same aptitude scores, except the verbal score. Relying on his many years of experience in job placement, Mr. Egarhos opined that the aptitude levels for alternative jobs could have minor discrepancies and still result in successful job placement. The occupations identified must match transferable skills from a functional perspective. In this case, the applicant was limited to “light” level jobs.

44Mr. Egarhos reviewed the functional tolerances identified in the Functional Capacity Evaluation and identified the following six potential occupations for the applicant: (1) delivery driver (pizza or food orders); (2) cleaning supervisor (i.e. vehicle cleaning supervisor); (3) courtesy bus or shuttle bus driver; (4) telephone sales agent; (5) accounting clerk; and (6) data entry clerk. Most of these jobs are entry level and the training required is minimal. I am satisfied that renumeration is comparable, the positions fall within the applicant’s physical tolerances, and would require minimal training. The labour market survey confirms that these jobs are available in the Ottawa area.¹⁵ I accept that applicant’s previous job as a delivery driver was still a viable occupation, and he had worked in that capacity post-accident. The requirements for the other occupations identified were marginally higher than the applicant’s tested aptitude levels. Mr. Egarhos concluded that the differences would not preclude him from success in these roles given that none of them were highly complex, and given his demonstrated ability to meet the demands of college. I find that the applicant does not suffer a complete inability to perform any employment for which he is suited by way of education, experience or training. I accept that at least the vocation of food delivery driver remains open to the applicant, consistent with the applicant’s skills and functional abilities and his work post-accident. It is also consistent with the restrictions identified by the applicant’s physiatrist, Dr. Beseman.

45I find that the applicant has not suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident. His physical injuries do not result in a complete inability to perform any employment as a result of the accident.

Entitlement to the Treatment Plans in Dispute

i. $1,689.84 for an in-home occupational therapy assessment

46Ms. Beshay submitted an OCF 18 dated August 24, 2017 proposing an in-home occupational therapy assessment.¹⁶ The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the applicant’s safety and function, provide the applicant with strategies to improve his participation in self-care, productivity and leisure.

47Upon receipt of this treatment plan, the respondent arranged an insurer’s examination. Dr. Maser’s report, dated November 2, 2017, noted that the applicant continued to experience pain in his left lower back and right upper back.¹⁷ He had recently been prescribed Lyrica and Celexa, but had not filled the prescription yet. The applicant reported that he continued to attend massage therapy once a week, and had been taught exercises which he performed independently at home. The applicant reported that he had started a volunteer job coaching a junior basketball team, but had to sit down after 25 minutes because his back hurts. Dr. Maser noted that the applicant’s spinal ranges of motion were limited given the rods in his back. He concluded that the applicant sustained minor soft tissue injuries to his back, and the applicant’s reported limitations were inconsistent with the injury. Dr. Maser opined that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not require further assessment.

48I find that the treatment plan is not reasonable or necessary to achieve the stated goals. The applicant was independent with his self care. He was coaching basketball and performing home exercises. At the time this assessment was proposed, the applicant had not seen his family physician for any accident-related complaints in over a year and a half. The applicant reported some ongoing back pain symptoms, but has not established that an occupational therapy assessment was reasonably required as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. He has already been provided with compensatory strategies from his physiotherapy at both Kemptville and Apollo Physiotherapy.

ii. $3,116.86 for occupational therapy services

49This OCF 18 dated October 12, 2017 was also prepared by Ms. Beshay, and proposed 8 in-home occupational therapy sessions.¹⁸ A large component of this plan is for travel time for the provider. The goals of the proposed treatment are to improve the applicant’s function, provide strategies for pain management and coping.

50By letter dated December 21, 2017, the respondent advised that the treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary in accordance with the findings of Dr. Maser’s December 13, 2017 assessment.

51For similar reasons as noted above, I find that this treatment plan is not reasonable or necessary as a result of the accident. The applicant had returned to work and school, and opened a business post-accident. He had was independent with his self care, had resumed exercising and was coaching basketball. He has already been provided with compensatory strategies from his physiotherapy at both Kemptville and Apollo Physiotherapy.

iii. $2,922.39 for personal training services and transportation

52This treatment plan was proposed by Patrick Fleming, a kinesiologist, in an OCF 18 completed on February 20, 2018.¹⁹ Mr. Fleming proposed an active rehabilitation program “in his home as he doesn’t like driving too much especially in poor weather days”. Mr. Fleming noted that the applicant had chronic low back pain, was deconditioned and was not doing much in terms of physical activities. I am not satisfied that this treatment plan is reasonable or necessary as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.

53The applicant testified that his understanding was that Mr. Fleming would help him get his fitness level up. By 2018, the applicant had already been participating in physiotherapy for over two years. He has already been provided with a home exercise plan, which he told Dr. Maser he was completing.²⁰ It is not clear how this treatment is different from the physiotherapy that was already provided. The applicant testified that he is already educated in terms of various exercises that he could do to keep his body strong and fit, given his MMA training.²¹ Further, of the $2,922.39 in dispute, only $1,163 is for exercise – the remaining expenses are for travel time and planning services. The fees for in-home services are not reasonable. Any symptoms of driving anxiety have not prevented the applicant from working as a delivery driver post accident, and he frequently drove over 40 minutes between Ottawa and Kemptville everyday to attend school, treatment, to visit his girlfriend and friends. It is not clear what the “planning” fees relate to.

54In light of the foregoing, I find that the treatment plan for personal training services and transportation is not reasonable or necessary.

iv. $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment

55The treatment plan dated December 19, 2017 was proposed by Lindsey MacLeod. Based on a screening interview by telephone, Ms. MacLeod determined that the applicant was presenting with severe depression and anxiety, persistent pain, and features of post-traumatic stress disorder. She opined that a psychological assessment was required to determine the applicant’s current accident related psychological diagnosis and impairments, and to provide treatment recommendations.

56Other than the pre-screening results from the telephone interview, there were no medical records to support the need for a psychological assessment. There were no references to any psychological complaints in the two years since the accident. Further, as noted above, I find that the applicant does not have psychological impairment as a result of the accident. The psychological assessment is not reasonable or necessary.

INTEREST

57The applicant is not entitled to any interest because none of the disputed benefits are payable.

AWARD PURSUANT TO REGULATION 664

58An award may be granted where the payment of benefits is unreasonably withheld or delayed. Given that none of the disputed benefits are payable, the applicant is not entitled to an award.

ORDER

59The applicant is not entitled to any of the disputed benefits, interest, or an award.

Footnotes

1. 12012 SCC 32.
2. 2Exhibit 1.
3. 3Ibid.
4. 4Exhibits 73 and 75.
5. 5Exhibit 4.
6. 6Exhibit 6.
7. 7Exhibit 5.
8. 8Exhibit 7.
9. 9Exhibit 7.
10. 10Exhibit 11.
11. 11Exhibit 15.
12. 12Exhibits 13 and 14.
13. 13Exhibit 42.
14. 14Exhibit 41.
15. 15Exhibit 72.
16. 16Exhibit 65.
17. 17Exhibit 14.
18. 18Exhibit 61.
19. 19Exhibit 66.
20. 20Exhibit 14.
21. 21Transcript page 184.