Alakozai v. Aviva General Insurance, 2021 CanLII 60467

Citation: Alakozai v. Aviva General Insurance, 2021 ONLAT 19-011308 /AABS

Released Date: 07/12/2021

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:

Mohammad Alakozai

Applicant

And

Aviva General Insurance

Respondent

DECISION

VICE CHAIR: Lori Marzinotto, Vice Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Mohammad Alakozai, Applicant Julia Logoutova, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Maggie Morgan, Counsel Raji Kulen, Adjuster

Court Reporter: Jovana Velimirovic

HEARD teleconference: September 18, 2020

HEARD in-writing: October 1, 15, October 29, 2020

OVERVIEW

1The applicant was injured in an accident on October 14, 2017 (the "Accident"), and sought various benefits from the respondent, Aviva General Insurance¹ pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the "Schedule").² The respondent denied the benefits. The applicant disagreed with the denials and submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

2The following issues, as listed in the Case Conference Report and Order from the case conference held on May 22, 2020³, are in dispute:

a. Are the applicant's injuries predominantly minor as defined in s.3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline ("MIG")?⁴

b. Is the applicant entitled to the physiotherapy services recommended by East Sheppard as follows: (i) $2,641.62, which was denied on November 19, 2018;⁵ (ii) $2,111.40, which was denied on May 3, 2019; (iii) $1,603.57, which was denied on September 30, 2019; and (iv) $2,000.00, which was denied on September 30, 2019?

c. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments recommended by NorMed Assessment Center as follows: (i) $1,293.80 for a FAE Assessment, which was denied on September 11, 2018;⁶ (ii) $2,000.00 for an Orthopaedic Assessment, which as denied on July 8, 2019?⁷; and (iii) $2,000.00 for a Neurological Assessment, which as denied on September 30, 2019?

d. Is the applicant entitled to $483.12 for transportation costs?

e. Is the applicant entitled to $200.00 for the cost of obtaining an OCF-3?

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

Preliminary / Procedural Issues: Issues in Dispute, Page Limits, Evidence

Issue in Dispute – [2] b. (iv) $2,000.00 Physiotherapy

3The issues in dispute which I will be deciding upon at this hearing are those listed in paragraph [2] above except for [2] b. (iv) which is a duplicate of issue [2] c. (iii).⁸

Non-Earner Benefit

4In its written submissions, the respondent indicated that the Order inadvertently excluded the issue of a non-earner benefit and proceeded to make submissions on this issue. This could have been raised at the commencement of the videoconference portion of the hearing but was not. Non-earner benefits were also not an issue in dispute in the Order nor has the applicant made submissions on this issue. Whether the applicant is entitled to a non-earner benefit is not an issue before me therefore I will not be addressing the issue.

Issue in Dispute – [2] a. Applicability of the MIG

5Whether the applicant's injuries are predominantly minor and subject to the MIG is an issue listed in the Order.

6At the videoconference portion of the hearing, neither party indicated that this was no longer an issue in dispute.

7In its responding submissions, the respondent indicated that the minor injury determination is not an issue in dispute as the respondent accepted that the applicant's injuries were determined to be outside of the MIG in November 2018. The respondent submitted that this was indicated in a report of Dr. Mark Goldstein dated November 8, 2017.

8The respondent also submitted that treatment had been approved beyond the MIG limit⁹ which was indicated in a Standard Benefits Statement.¹⁰ There is no evidence to suggest that this statement was provided to the applicant.

9I note that the report of Dr. Goldstein is dated incorrectly as November 8, 2017 in the submissions. The report date is November 7, 2018.¹¹

10The respondent does not indicate whether the applicant was advised that his injuries were no longer considered to be in the MIG or when. In his reply submissions, the applicant disputes that the November report of Dr. Goldstein indicates that he was removed from the MIG.

11I note that the November 7, 2018 report of Dr. Goldstein is not with respect to the MIG but was with respect to the treatment and assessment plan dated August 27, 2018 in the amount of $2,641.02 (issue [2] b. (i) in dispute).

12If the applicant was removed from the MIG in November 2018 and he was advised of this, I question why the MIG determination was listed as an issue in dispute at a case conference that occurred in 2020. Clearly, this is an important determination to know.

13The applicant's submissions refer to a report of Dr. Goldstein dated September 9, 2018 (the "September Report") with respect to another issue in dispute.¹² In the September Report, Dr. Goldstein indicated that he "most recently assessed this claimant on June 20, 2018 to address the applicability of MIG…

14Dr. Goldstein's July 6, 2018 report (the "July Report")¹³ from the assessment on June 20, 2018 was included in the applicant's submissions along with the respondent's letter dated July 19, 2018 denying the treatment plan ("Denial Letter"). The Denial Letter indicated that the July Report was enclosed; however, the Denial Letter did not explain the results of the MIG determination, which may have been unclear from the report.

15The applicant was left with interpreting the MIG determination findings in the July Report. I have excerpted the relevant portions of the report with respect to the MIG determination below:

16While the answer to question 3 indicates that the applicant does not suffer from a predominantly minor injury, question 4 presumes that the applicant suffers a minor injury but then asks whether there is evidence documenting a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent maximum medical recovery within the MIG cap of $3,500.00. Question 4 contradicts question 3 and could lead one to question whether the injuries were actually removed from the MIG and when. The respondent submitted that removal from the MIG occurred in November 2018, yet this report is from July 2018.

17Whether the applicant's injuries were within the MIG is clearly an issue that could have and should have been cleared up at the case conference and if not at the case conference, then at the videoconference portion of the hearing. There were multiple opportunities to clear up any misunderstanding regarding the MIG prior to the hearing including: after the applicant's application to the Tribunal was filed; at the case conference when the issues in dispute were discussed; after receiving the Order which indicated that MIG was an issue in dispute; and at the commencement of the videoconference portion of the hearing.

18The fact that the applicant's injuries had been removed from the MIG was not raised at the videoconference portion of the hearing. I belabour the point to demonstrate that it is not a valuable use of the Tribunal's time to read submissions and comb through evidence and multiple reports to decide an issue that had already been resolved years before the case conference.

19Having read the respondent's submission that indicate the applicant's injuries have been taken out of the MIG and having read the July Report, the applicant's injuries are not predominantly minor as defined by s.3 of the Schedule and therefore are not subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limits of the MIG.

Page Limits of Written Submissions

20The Order stipulates that the responding submissions, not including evidence and case law, were limited to 10 pages. The Order further stipulates that the hearing adjudicator may not consider submissions which exceed the page limits.

21The applicant complied with the page limit stipulation in the Order. The respondent did not and submitted twenty-four (24) pages of submissions and requested the Tribunal's indulgence seeking an increase in the page limits given the number of issues in dispute. The applicant objected to the increase in page limits in his reply submissions.

22The time for requesting an indulgence of more than double the ordered page limits is not in the written submissions. The issues were known at the case conference. The respondent could have brought a motion seeking an increase in the page limits. There is nothing in the Order suggesting that the parties disputed the page limits set at the time of the case conference. In addition, there was a videoconference portion to this hearing months after the case conference where the page limit issue could have been raised but it was not.

23I note that approximately ten (10) pages¹⁴ of the respondent's submissions were with respect to the issue of the non-earner benefit which is not before me. I will be excluding the submissions with respect to the non-earner benefit.¹⁵

Evidence

24The Order stipulated that the parties shall exchange productions, including expert reports by July 17, 2020. In addition, the parties were to disclose any other documents that had not been previously disclosed but that they intended to present as evidence at the hearing by September 10, 2020.

25The applicant relies on two progress reports from East Sheppard Rehabilitation Clinic Inc. ("East Sheppard") in his submissions.¹⁶ The respondent submits that these progress reports should be excluded from evidence because they were not provided in accordance with the Order and only provided to the respondent with the applicant's submissions.

26At the videoconference portion of the hearing, the respondent requested that an adverse inference be drawn on the basis that the records of East Sheppard had not been provided to the respondent. There were further submissions made at the end of the videoconference portion of the hearing regarding what was required to be submitted by September 10, 2020 in accordance with the Order. During that exchange, respondent's counsel indicated that if the applicant submitted the East Sheppard progress reports et al., that the respondent would oppose their submission into evidence because they had not been served.

27The applicant indicated that there were no new records and the respondent had the records in their files.

28The respondent further submitted that the applicant could not surprise them with new records and that although the respondent had treatment plans in their files, it did not have "any records whatsoever from any of the facilities…" that the applicant attended and that is why it has asked that an adverse inference be drawn.

29In his reply submissions, the applicant requested that the Progress Reports be admitted into evidence or, in the alternative, the documents that were provided with the respondent's submission (except for case law) be excluded because they were not provided separately to the applicant by the deadline.

30I order that the Progress Reports be admitted into evidence. Given the submissions, it appears that they were not served separately on the respondent by the September 10, 2020 deadline in the Order; however, they are not new evidence. The Progress Reports were sent to the respondent on March 6, 2019 and August 13, 2019 by fax and therefore available to the respondent.¹⁷

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN DISPUTE - RESULT

31Having found that the applicant's injuries are outside of the MIG, the analysis turns to whether the treatment plans are reasonable and necessary.

32I find on the evidence that the applicant is entitled to the benefits claimed as issues [2] b. (i) and [2] b. (ii) and any overdue interest on those benefits. The applicant is not entitled to payment of the remaining benefits in dispute.

ANALYSIS

33The MIG establishes a framework available to injured persons who sustain a minor injury as a result of an accident. A "minor injury" is defined in s.3(1) of the Schedule as, "one or more of a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and includes any clinically associated sequelae to such an injury."

34An insured may be removed from the MIG if they can establish that their accident-related injuries fall outside of the MIG or, under s. 18(2), that they have a documented pre-existing injury or condition combined with compelling medical evidence stating that the condition precludes recovery if they are kept within the confines of the MIG. The Tribunal has also determined that chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition may warrant removal from the MIG.

35Given that the applicant has been removed from the MIG, the analysis turns to the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment and assessment plans being claimed.

36In order for the applicant to receive payment for a medical or rehabilitation benefit under the Schedule, the benefit in dispute must be reasonable and necessary, pursuant to ss. 14-17.

37The applicant bears the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plans are reasonable and necessary.

38A review of the July Report indicates that the applicant was removed from the MIG due to his pre-existing recurrent low back pain that he had for over ten (10) years, which was supported by compelling evidence in the form of his family doctor's clinical notes. Dr. Goldstein opined that due to the applicant's pre-existing low back pain, recovery from his accident related injuries would be impacted.¹⁸

Issue [2] b. (i) – OCF-18 $2,641.62

39The OCF-18 was partially approved in the amount of $517.64. I find in the evidence that the applicant is entitled to payment of the balance in the amount of $2,123.98.

40Dr. Goldstein prepared a subsequent report dated November 7, 2018 with respect to the treatment and assessment plan in the amount of $2,641.62.

41The goals of this OCF-18 were pain reduction, increase in strength, and return to activities of normal living. It proposed "carefully structured" water exercise for flexibility and strength. Given that the water exercise was non-weight bearing, the movements could be performed with greater comfort.

42Dr. Goldstein diagnosed the following musculoskeletal accident-related impairments: chronic headaches attributed to whiplash, chronic cervical spine sprain/strain, thoracic spine sprain/strain and chronic lumber spine sprain/strain. He also indicated that the impairments are relevant to the ongoing pain in the region of the paraspinals of the cervical and lumbar spine and also headaches.

43Dr. Goldstein further indicated that the applicant's "chronic pain has caused suffering and distress accompanied by functional impairments and disability." Dr. Goldstein indicated that the applicant had not reached maximum medical improvement ("MMI"), and the recommended goods and services along with the "eventual" transition to a self-directed community-based program and/or home based program would likely result in improvements.

44Dr. Goldstein partially approved the treatment plan.

45I find the balance of the treatment plan reasonable and necessary because of the applicant's reports of continuous pain since the accident, Dr. Goldstein's diagnoses, that the applicant had not yet reached MMI and that the recommended goods and services would likely result in improvements.

Issue [2] b. (ii) – OCF-18 $2,111.40

46I find on the evidence that the applicant is entitled to payment of the OCF-18 in the amount of $2,111.40.

47The goals of this OCF-18 were similar to the previous OCF-18 but identifies the applicant's risk factors given his chronic pain. This OCF-18 recommended different forms of treatment such as acupuncture and exercise. It indicated that the treatment is supportive in nature and that the applicant had not yet reached MMI.

48Dr. Goldstein prepared a report dated April 22, 2019 with respect to the treatment and assessment plan in the amount of $2,111.40.

49Dr. Goldstein finds the applicant has chronic headaches attributed to whiplash and chronic cervical and lumbar spine sprain/strain and muscular deconditioning and that the applicant has reached MMI with respect to further facility-based treatment. The applicant had engaged in self-directed exercise and was swimming which was encouraged.

50I find that this OCF-18 was reasonable and necessary. I did give weight to the Progress Report of Dr. Bruni dated March 4, 2019. Dr. Bruni indicated that discontinuation of treatment would result in an exacerbation of symptoms. Importantly though, Dr. Bruni indicated that the applicant was responding positively to treatment and would benefit from "continued conservative care with a focus on physical rehabilitation to resolve his symptoms."¹⁹

Issue [2] b. (iii) – OCF-18 $1,603.57

51I find on the evidence that the applicant is not entitled to payment of the OCF-18 in the amount of $1,603.57.

52The goals of this OCF-18 were similar to the previous OCF-18s; pain reduction, increase in strength, increases range of motion, and return to activities of normal living and lists the same risk factors as in the previous OCF-18.

53I give little weight to Dr. Kruger's report dated September 19, 2019.²⁰ Dr. Kruger indicated that the applicant has no previous history of cervical spine or lumber spine injury pain. This is inconsistent with the multiple reports of Dr. Goldstein which Dr. Kruger indicated were reviewed for his assessment of the applicant. Dr. Kruger also indicates that he did not identify any underlying present or past medical issues that would inhibit or delay his recovery. This is inconsistent with the medical documentation and opinions of Dr. Goldstein.

54Despite giving little weight to Dr. Kruger's report, I find that the applicant is not entitled to payment in the amount of $1,603.57 as he has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it is reasonable and necessary.

55Other than pointing to the progress report of Dr. Bruni and submitting that Dr. Kruger failed to admit the applicant's pre-existing medical condition, the applicant has not explained how or why the OCF-18 is reasonable and necessary.

56I have reviewed the progress report of Dr. Bruni dated August 8, 2019, and I do not find that it supports further facility-based treatment. The report indicates only slight progression (as did the previous progress report) and the applicant is noted as reporting he has worsened since the last progress report.

57The progress report, which is barely legible, does not indicate how additional treatment will benefit the applicant or improve the applicant's impairments.

58Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to payment for the OCF-18 in the amount of $1,603.57 as it is not reasonable and necessary.

Issue [2] c. (i) OCF-18 $1,293.80 (FAE)

59I find on the evidence that the applicant is not entitled to payment of the OCF-18 dated August 20, 2018 in the amount of $1,293.80 for a functional abilities' evaluation ("FAE").

60Under the Part 8 Activity Limitations section, the OCF-18 indicates that the applicant's "ranges of motion are demonstrated to be restricted…Any ADL that includes these movements would be subsequently impaired". Part 9 Plan Goals are as follows: pain reduction, increase in strength, increase in range of motion, return to activities of normal living and return to pre-accident work activities. This section also indicated barriers to recovery and recommended a "multidisciplinary approach to treatment combined with reassurance and education".²¹ I note that the same multidisciplinary approach to overcome the applicant's barriers to recovery was indicated in an OCF-18 dated May 7, 2018 for a total body assessment recommended by Dr. Bruni which was approved by the respondent.²²

61I agree with the respondent as well as the report of Dr. Goldstein dated September 11, 2018²³ that there is no rationale provided to explain why a FAE is required.

62The applicant has failed to prove why this OCF-18 is reasonable and necessary and therefore is not entitled to payment of the benefit.

Issue [2] c. (ii) OCF-18 $2,000.00 (Orthopaedic Assessment)

63I find on the evidence that the applicant is not entitled to payment of the OCF-18 dated June 25, 2019 in the amount of $2,000.00 for an orthopaedic assessment.

64Recall the IE report of Dr. Kruger dated September 19, 2019 was also with respect to this OCF-18. The same reasons identified above for giving little weight to Dr. Kruger's Report are applicable for this OCF-18.

65There are no contemporaneous clinical notes and records ("CNRs") of the applicant's family doctor in or around the date of the OCF-18 (June 25, 2019). There is a CNR of Dr. Dhawan dated September 21, 2018 indicating chronic back pain and then no further CNRs until May 2019 where there is a notation unrelated to any accident impairments.²⁴

66As of April 22, 2019, Dr. Goldstein had noted that the applicant's subjective complaints were lower back pain, cervical spine pain, headaches and knee pain (although it was unclear whether the knee pain was as a result of the accident because it had recently started). Dr. Goldstein did diagnose the applicant with chronic headaches attributed to whiplash and chronic cervical and lumbar spine sprain/strain. The applicant reported an overall 50% improvement in his accident related symptoms and further indicated that he had resumed the majority of his activities of daily living albeit with some discomfort.

67Although the additional comments in the OCF-18 do list some of the same subjective complaints noted in Dr. Goldstein's April 22, 2019 report, it does not indicate why an orthopaedic assessment is necessary and what the goals of the orthopaedic assessment would be.

68Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the OCF-18 is reasonable and necessary and therefore is not entitled to payment of the benefit.

Issue [2] c. (iii) OCF-18 $2,000.00 (Neurological Assessment)

69I find on the evidence that the applicant is not entitled to payment of the OCF-18 dated August 8, 2019 in the amount of $2,000.00 for a neurological assessment.

70This OCF-18 lists the same barriers to recovery that were listed in the OCF-18 that recommended the orthopaedic assessment.

71Under the additional comments section, the August 8, 2019 OCF-18 lists "upper & lower extremity radicular pain" and "pain radiating down the right & left buttock…" which were also listed in the June 25, 2019 OCF-18 for the orthopaedic assessment. The August 8, 2019 OCF-18 also lists "confusional state, weakness, numbness, tingling, burning, coldness, personality change, behavioural disturbances including anxiety…paranoia…" These conditions were absent from the June 25, 2019 OCF-19.

72Like the previous OCF-18, there are no contemporaneous CNRs of the applicant's family doctor, Dr. Dhawan, in or around the date of the OCF-18 (August 8, 2019). The CNRs of Dr. Dhawan are void of the above noted conditions other than a notation which appears to be from October 19, 2017 (two days after the date of loss) stating the applicant was having flashbacks, some anxiety around driving and starting to get slight headache. Dr. Dhawan counselled the applicant that this is a normal reaction and the fact that he was already driving again is a good sign. The notes indicated to follow up if no improvement in 2-3 weeks or sooner if worsening. The next medical notes are in May and September 2018 which mention back pain but nothing with respect to any neurological concerns. Dr. Goldstein's April 22, 2019 report includes the applicant's subjective complaints which confirmed there is no radiation of pain. With respect to the progress report of Dr. Bruni dated August 8, 2019, I am unable to decipher what is noted under "Neurological examination".

73The OCF-18 does not indicate why a neurological assessment is necessary or what the goals of the neurological assessment would be.

74Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the OCF-18 is reasonable and necessary and therefore is not entitled to payment of the benefit.

Issues [2] d. - Transportation Costs

75The applicant claims transportation costs in the amount of $483.12.

76The applicant submits that the transportation costs to and from treatment sessions were necessary because his chronic pain prevented him from driving to treatment. The applicant relies on the transcript of his cross-examination during the hearing as support for this position. The transcript portion relied upon does not support this submission and is unrelated to transportation costs or the requirement for transportation to and from treatment. At page 9 of the transcript, the applicant indicated that he took the bus to his job at the time which he started in October 2019. There is no evidence to suggest why he took the bus to work.²⁵

77The transportation invoice indicates transportation to treatment on 12 occasions between May 7, 2018 and September 13, 2018.

78In accordance with s.3(1) and s.15 of the Schedule and the Transportation Expense Guideline²⁶, transportation costs are payable if they are reasonable and necessary within the authorized transportation expense.

79Other than indicating that the applicant was unable to drive due to chronic pain, the applicant did not address the respondent's submission that they are not payable or provide particulars as to how they are "authorized transportation expenses" in accordance with the Schedule and the Transportation Expense Guideline.

80The applicant has not, on a balance of probabilities, proven why the transportation costs are reasonable and necessary or an authorized expense and therefore is not entitled to the amount claimed.

Issues [2] e. - $200.00 costs of obtaining an OCF-3

81I find that the applicant is not entitled to payment for the OCF-3 in the amount of $200.00.

82The applicant submits at paragraph 35 of his submissions that the OCF-3 dated May 7, 2018 was necessary to provide the respondent with an update of his current medical condition. This was the only submission made with respect to this issue other than at paragraph 37 where the applicant seeks "costs of preparation of OCF-3 dated May 7, 2020".²⁷

83The respondent indicates at paragraph 48 of its submissions that the applicant was claiming costs of $200.00 for an OCF-3 submitted on January 10, 2019. I do not have any evidence with respect to an OCF-3 submitted on January 10, 2019 and do not know where this information comes from.²⁸

84It is unclear whether the respondent received the OCF-3 dated May 7, 2018.²⁹ I note that s.44 reports after May 2018 do not reference a May 7, 2018 OCF-3.

85The respondent also submits that it did not request an OCF-3 dated January 10, 2018 or May 7, 2020. It is unclear whether it requested the OCF-3 dated May 7, 2018 but it appears unlikely given that it requested an IE to determine the applicability of the MIG and whether an OCF-18 dated May 7, 2018 (the same date as the OCF-3) was reasonable and necessary.

86Sections 36 and 37 of the Schedule provide parameters on when an OCF-3 is appropriate and payable. The submissions on this issue from both parties were lacking. Although the OCF-3 does provide an update on the applicant's medical condition, I do not have evidence to support that it was reasonable and necessary and therefore is not payable by the respondent.

ORDER

87The applicant is entitled to payment for the following treatment plans in dispute:(i) the balance of the OCF-18 date August 27, 2018 in the amount of $2,123.98 and (ii) OCF-18 dated March 4, 2019 in the amount of $2,111.40. Interest is payable on any overdue benefits pursuant to s.51 of the Schedule.³⁰ The applicant is not entitled the remaining disputed claims.

Footnotes

1. 1Referred to by the respondent as Scottish & York Insurance Company Limited
2. 2O.Reg. 34/10, as amended.
3. 3Case Conference Report and Order Released on July 3, 2020, Hearing Submissions of Respondent, Tab 2 ("Order").
4. 4Minor Injury Guideline, Superintendent's Guideline 01/14, issued pursuant to s. 268.3 (1.1) of the Insurance Act.
5. 5Hearing Submissions of the Respondent, Tab 15 & Tab 16 –$2,641.62 less Partially approved amount of $517.64 leaving a balance of $2,123.98.
6. 6Hearing Submission of the Applicant, Tab 12, Report dated September 11, 2018.
7. 7The denial date of this OCF-18 was July 2, 2019 as per the OCF-18 at Tab 28 of the Hearing Submissions of the Respondent.
8. 8The applicant confirmed in the written submissions that the issue of entitlement to a neurological assessment denied on September 30, 2019 was listed as issue 2.iv and 3.iii in the Case Conference Report and Order dated May 22, 2020 (issues [2]b. (iv) and [2]c. (iii) as listed in the Issues in Dispute in this decision). Hearing Submissions of the Applicant, para. 7. There was no OCF-18 for issue [2]b.(iv). Entitlement to a neurological assessment ([2]c.(iii)) is in dispute.
9. 9Hearing Submissions of the Respondent, para. 4.
10. 10Hearing Submissions of the Respondent, Tab 4, Standard Benefits Statement, dated October 14, 2019.
11. 11Hearing Submissions of the Respondent, Tab 16.
12. 12Hearing Submissions of the Applicant, Tab 12, Report of Dr. Goldstein re OCF-18 dated August 20, 2018 in the amount of $1,293.80 – FAE Assessment (Issue [2] c. (i)).
13. 13Hearing Submissions of the Applicant, Tab 11, Report of Dr. Goldstein re Applicability of MIG and OCF-18 $2,883.27 (this OCF-18 is not an issue in dispute before me for this hearing).
14. 14Paragraphs 2,3,8-16, 50-56 deal with the non-earner benefit issue.
15. 15I have allowed the respondent's remaining submissions that exceed the 10 page limit as they are largely repetitive. I note that the applicant did not use the entirety of the allowable page limit in his submissions or reply.
16. 16Hearing Submission of Applicant, Tab 19, Progress Reports East Sheppard Rehabilitation Clinic Inc.
17. 17Hearing Submissions of the Applicant, Tab 19, March 6, 2019 Fax transmissions p.9 and August 13, 2019 fax transmission p.14., Applicant's Reply Submissions, para. 4.
18. 18Hearing Submissions of Respondent, Tab 19, Dr. Goldstein Report, dated July 6, 2018, p.12 of 14.
19. 19Hearing Submission of Applicant, Tab 19, Progress Reports East Sheppard Rehabilitation Clinic Inc.
20. 20Hearing Submissions of Respondent, Tab 22, Dr. Kruger Report, dated September 19, 2019.
21. 21Hearing Submissions of Applicant, Tab 17.
22. 22Hearing Submissions of the Respondent, Tab 31.
23. 23Hearing Submissions of the Respondent, Tab 25, IE Report of Dr. Goldstein dated September 11, 2018 re: OCF-18 dated August 20, 2018, FAE Assessment $1,293.80.
24. 24Hearing Submissions of Respondent, Tab 7, CRNs of Dr. Dhawan.
25. 25Hearing Submissions of Applicant, Tab 22, pg.9-10.
26. 26Hearing Submissions of Respondent, Tab 32, Superintendent's Guideline No. 04/16: Transportation Expense Guideline, Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).
27. 27Hearings Submissions of Applicant, Tab 10, OCF-18 dated May 7, 2018. The May 7, 2020 date appears to be a typo given the OCF-3 in the amount of $200.00 is dated May 7, 2018.
28. 28An OCF-3 dated October 18, 2017 was previously submitted. Hearing Submissions of Applicant, Tab 4.
29. 29The respondent submitted that it did not request an OCF-3 dated January 10, 2019 or May 7, 2020. It is unclear whether it requested the OCF-3 dated May 7, 2018.
30. 30Issue [2] f. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?