Citation: Sahadeo v. Pafco Insurance Company, 2022 ONLAT 19-006331/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 19-006331/AABS

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:

Richard Sahadeo

Applicant

and

Pafco Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

VICE-CHAIR:

Chloe Lester

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Ashu Ismail and Joe Campisi, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Jonathan Schrieder, Counsel

Court Reporter:

Bruce Porter and Thomas Graeme

Videoconference Hearing:

January 18-20, 25, 26, and March 28-30, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

1Prior to the accident, the applicant, Mr. Richard Sahadeo, was working as a customer service ambassador for a telephone company. He was in a relationship, shared household responsibilities, and was a loving father to his children. Mr. Sahadeo was also pursuing a music career.

2On October 26, 2015, Mr. Sahadeo was involved in an automobile accident and suffered from both physical and psychological impairments. He sought benefits from the respondent, Pafco Insurance Company (“Pafco”), pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”). He received both physical and psychological medical benefits to improve upon his accident-related impairments.

3A few weeks after the accident, Mr. Sahadeo attempted to return to work on modified duties. Mr. Sahadeo claims that the telephone company he worked for said they no longer could accommodate him, and he must return to full-time hours and duties. He claims he was unable to continue working and he was forced to resign.

4The financial constraints, physical, and psychological impairments all played a significant role in the deterioration of Mr. Sahadeo’s common-law relationship. His girlfriend at the time asked Mr. Sahadeo to leave their apartment and he was homeless for approximately 10 days. He has not seen one of his daughters since that time.

5Over the years, Mr. Sahadeo’s physical injuries worsened to the point where Mr. Sahadeo’s family doctor, Dr. Atwal, referred him to a chronic pain clinic. He also attended psychological counselling sessions and saw an improvement in his condition.¹

6Approximately three years after the accident, Pafco found that the requests for physical therapy and assessments were no longer reasonable and necessary. Pafco also denied Mr. Sahadeo’s request to be designated catastrophically impaired. It was at that point that Mr. Sahadeo submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”) to dispute the denied benefits.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

7Prior to the hearing, Vice-Chair Hunter heard a motion on the exclusion of a tort investigation brief and decided that it ought to be excluded from the hearing.²

8At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Sahadeo requested the social media pictures and videos be excluded from the hearing brief. Mr. Sahadeo argues that the social media pictures and videos were received or sought from the tort defence counsel. He argues that Vice-Chair Hunter’s decision includes the exclusion of social media posts.

9Pafco argues that the motion decision is unclear. It agrees the surveillance video and report were excluded as a result of the motion decision, but the social media posts were not included in that order. Pafco argues that it is Mr. Sahadeo himself who posts the pictures and videos publicly on his social media profiles and therefore it is open to anyone to view and use as evidence. Pafco argues that the social media profiles, pictures and videos are highly probative and relevant to the issues in dispute as they portray Mr. Sahadeo in various activities demonstrating functional abilities. It claims the use of the social media posts is to test the credibility of Mr. Sahadeo. Pafco argues that it believes the intention of Vice-Chair Hunter was to exclude the surveillance and report from the tort investigation, the reports from Mitchell and Intrepid investigations. Pafco argues that the order from Vice-Chair Hunter did not concern any additional social media posts recovered through Pafco’s internal investigations.

10Mr. Sahadeo argues that the only reason Pafco was alerted to the social media posts was that it was received as part of the tort investigation reports. He argues that if the investigations are excluded, the social media posts should be as well. Mr. Sahadeo argues that Pafco claims the social media posts are highly prejudicial because they were not used to determine any of the issues in dispute.

11I order that the social media posts may be included in the hearing brief and be admitted into evidence. The social media posts were on public profiles available for all to see. I find that the posts may be relevant in testing the credibility of Mr. Sahadeo. Pafco was cautioned that the social media posts will not be entered into evidence unless Mr. Sahadeo has had an opportunity to be questioned on the posts. Social media posts can be misleading. Pictures/videos taken on a particular day can be posted on social media months or years later and are not necessarily indicative of what is happening at that moment.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

12I have been asked to determine the following:

a. Did Mr. Sahadeo sustain a catastrophic impairment as defined under the Schedule?

b. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to three treatment plans for physical therapy?

c. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to a $2,200.00 treatment plan for an occupational therapy assessment?

d. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to $226.00 for the preparation of a treatment plan?

e. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to a treatment plan for assistive devices?

f. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to payment for an invoice?

g. Is Pafco liable to pay an award under Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to Mr. Sahadeo?

h. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

i. Is Mr. Sahadeo entitled to costs for the hearing?

RESULTS

13I find:

a. Mr. Sahadeo is not catastrophically impaired.

b. Mr. Sahadeo is entitled to three treatment plans for chiropractic and massage treatment, up to policy limits. Interest is payable in accordance with the Schedule.

c. Mr. Sahadeo is not entitled to an award.

d. Mr. Sahadeo is entitled to costs in the amount of $500.00.

e. Mr. Sahadeo is not entitled to the remaining claims.

CATASTROPHIC IMPAIRMENT

14At the time of the accident and in accordance with the Schedule, Mr. Sahadeo must demonstrate that he meets one (1) class 4 marked impairment or one (1) class 5 extreme impairment in one or more areas of function due to a mental or behavioural disorder or receive 55% or more whole person impairment.³

15Mr. Sahadeo argues that he is catastrophically impaired because he suffered serious psychological injuries that stem from the accident. He argues that the accident caused him to resign from his job, a job he enjoyed and saw career advancement. Mr. Sahadeo claims the accident caused a constant state of pain and depression. He cannot sustain friendships, he cannot stay focused long enough to complete activities, he feels withdrawn, and has difficulties completing his activities of daily living. All these combined, Mr. Sahadeo’s assessors believed he has major depression disorder, a marked impairment in adaptation and a 55% whole person impairment.

16Pafco notes that in his applications for a determination of catastrophic impairment, Mr. Sahadeo’s assessors deem him catastrophically impaired by the smallest of margins. Many of those assessments relied heavily on Mr. Sahadeo’s self-reporting and, therefore, his credibility is a crucial point of evaluation. Pafco submits that a hallmark of evaluating Mr. Sahadeo’s credibility is whether his self-reports are consistent with the objective medical evidence, other witnesses’ testimony and his social media posts. If Mr. Sahadeo’s evidence is inconsistent with this other evidence, Pafco submits that his assessors’ diagnoses and opinions are accordingly undermined.

Is Mr. Sahadeo catastrophically impaired in adaptation?

17Adaptation refers to a “Deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings refers to repeated failure to adapt to stressful circumstances. In the face of such circumstances the individual may withdraw from the situation or experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms of a mental disorder; that is, decompensate and have difficulty maintaining activities of daily living, continuing social relationships and completing tasks. Stresses common to the work environment include attendance, making decisions, scheduling, completing tasks, and interacting with supervisors and peers...”.⁴

18In order to be rendered catastrophically impaired in adaptation, Mr. Sahadeo must prove that his psychological impairment levels “significantly impede useful functioning” (which is the descriptor for a class 4 marked impairment) in that area of function. For comparison, the AMA Guides describe a class 3 “moderate impairment” as “impairment levels are compatible with some but not all useful functioning.” With these in mind, there are several principles that apply here.

19Applying the above definitions, to succeed in showing a marked impairment, Mr. Sahadeo must show a repeated failure to adapt to stressful circumstances, withdrawals from the situation, or exacerbation of psychological signs and symptoms, hindering a large portion of his life.

20In considering the evidence, I find that Mr. Sahadeo, at most, has a moderate impairment in adaptation and is not catastrophically impaired. I prefer Dr. Lubber’s, psychologist, report because his assessment better represents the results of the occupational therapy (OT) assessments and the testimony of the witnesses.

21Both occupational therapists’ reports support the finding that Mr. Sahadeo has a moderate impairment in adaptation. In both assessments, Mr. Sahadeo was put through a variety of functional testing to mimic the activities that one would see in each of the four areas of functioning. The testing demonstrated that there was some impact in the area of adaptation but not to a level of a marked impairment.

22Ms. Shahla Kara, OT, assessed Mr. Sahadeo on November 30th, 2018. The goal of the testing was to see how Mr. Sahadeo would tolerate tasks in terms of pain, standing/walking, multitasking, problem-solving, attention, concentration, short-term memory, time management and response to stress. He completed a work task in a simulated call centre, and although he felt frustrated, irritated with his pain and had difficulty concentrating, the results were that the one-page document was comprehensive in terms of content, despite the spelling errors. He completed a household management activity and a community outing at the grocery store. Mr. Sahadeo successfully moved the cart around the store and retrieved the grocery items in terms of categories (produce, frozen items, etc.) instead of in the order on the list. The report highlights some complaints of low mood or low motivation but in no way did they have an impact in the area of adaptation. He successfully completed the tasks without any significant emotional impact. Mr. Sahadeo stopped the assessment two hours earlier than scheduled. The reason for ceasing the assessment early was pain and fatigue. Despite finishing early, the assessment was considered complete. During the assessment, Ms. Kara asked very personal questions, and Mr. Sahadeo became emotional. Despite his heightened emotions, Mr. Sahadeo was able to remain focused and provide detailed and comprehensive responses to her questions.⁵

23Ms. Kara also notes that Mr. Sahadeo maintained his composure while the concepts of functional testing were being explained, he participated in the lengthy interview without taking a break, but also pushed himself to work through pain and fatigue. Throughout the report, a significant number of complaints stemmed from his pain and fatigue but not due to a repeated failure to adapt to stressful circumstances. The report does not indicate any exacerbation of his psychological symptoms and he managed to cope emotionally throughout the testing process.

24Mr. Avi Kaplan, OT, assessed Mr. Sahadeo on September 19, 2020. During the assessment, he was tested in a variety of ways simulating many facets of the four areas of function. He had a good performance on a multi-tasking test. He demonstrated good auditory recall, organizational skills, and had no difficulties with procedural memory. In the “organize your day task”, Mr. Sahadeo organized the errands in a sequence that would ensure completion and he demonstrated good attention to detail and task organization. Additional standardized testing was completed by Mr. Sahadeo at a good pace. Mr. Kaplan also notes that Mr. Sahadeo did not present with any emotional regulation issues during the testing process.

25Throughout both OT assessments, Mr. Sahadeo did not appear to have any issues completing the tasks and in no way showed any failures to adapt or decompensate in the face of work-like stressors.

26During the testimony of Mr. Sahadeo, he explained two examples of when he failed to adapt to what would be work-like stressors. The first example was when he went back to work immediately after the accident. Mr. Sahadeo recounts how he would be on the phone with a client and get brain freeze, he states that he would get lost in the call and he even lost his patience with a customer when his job was to calm them down. He then gave me another example of where he cut his performance short at Rastafest (Rastafest was described as a music competition that Mr. Sahadeo participated in) because of feelings of being overwhelmed. Other than these two examples, the majority of Mr. Sahadeo’s complaints and lack of motivation to participate in an activity are due to pain. There was not enough evidence to support that his failure to adapt significantly impedes useful functioning, a marked impairment. Mr. Sahadeo was not consistent in his reporting to assessors about why he stopped working. He expressed to Ms. Kara, OT,⁶ and Mr. Kaplan he ceased working because of pain issues.⁷ Yet, on the other hand he described to Dr. Williams, the psychological catastrophic assessor, that it was because of pain and psychological concerns.

27I find that the majority of Mr. Sahadeo’s inability to do something or his feelings of being overwhelmed are because of his pain issues. Because Mr. Shadeo won the Rastafest competition he was given an opportunity to fly to Jamaica to perform, conduct interviews and participate in conferences. He testified that he wanted his partner Dianna Jerry to go with him so that he would have support. He testified that he was doubting himself and he was in a lot of pain. He did not know if he was going to have a spasm on stage or get a headache. He also testified that every day is a bad day, but that does not stop him from doing what he must do. He still gets up, takes a shower, and gets his son to school. He testified that he tries to make every day the best day but there are always thoughts in the back of his mind, like how he has no money, and that he is in constant discomfort.

28I acknowledge that Mr. Sahadeo testified that he tries to pretend that his pain and discomfort do not exist and so therefore that might lead to him not expressing himself fully to assessors. Nevertheless, throughout the testimony and medical evidence, there should be numerous examples of where Mr. Sahadeo decompensated or deteriorated in the face of work-like stressors. The evidence was simply not there. Although Mr. Sahadeo’s daily routine is limited, the majority is because of pain complaints. Pain complaints can factor into psychological symptoms or conditions but meeting the definition of adaption should mean that Mr. Sahadeo’s psychological impairments should exhibit a “withdraw from the situation or experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms of a mental disorder; that is, decompensate and have difficulty maintaining activities of daily living, continuing social relationships and completing tasks”.

29The evidence also shows an improvement in his relationships. He began a new romantic relationship with a partner with whom he had a child.⁸ His partner, Dianna Jerry, describes Mr. Sahadeo’s bad days as days where he is triggered; she avoids him because everything can be stressful for him, and he will begin to shut down. But Ms. Jerry could not quantify the proportion of good days to bad ones, so there is not enough evidence to support that his failure to adapt significantly impedes useful functioning, which is the test that Mr. Sahadeo must meet. He also describes how he has a good relationship with the daughters he is in contact with.

30Individuals who have issues in adaptation will have stressors concerning attendance, scheduling or completing tasks, yet Mr. Sahadeo is relied upon and testified that he takes his younger son to daycare every day and to complete light household chores. He also completed all the tasks in the OT assessments.

31In contrast, I give less weight to Dr. Williams’s, psychologist, report because she factored in physical complaints in conjunction with the psychological ones in rendering her opinion on Mr. Sahadeo’s level of impairment in adaptation and endorsed psychological complaints that were simply not present. She writes “Mr. Sahadeo continues to experience significant difficulty with symptoms including pain, discomfort, reduced motivation, changes in mood and cognitive compromise which has affected his ability to adequately adapt.”⁹ Also, her diagnosis was based upon his psychological complaints including suicidal ideation and possible intent. During cross-examination, she admitted that she never saw anything in his medical records or during her assessment regarding suicidal ideation. Dr. Williams also did not have a complete picture of what Mr. Sahadeo’s life was prior to her assessments. Although he did not participate in a lot of activities, he was still partly pursuing a musical career, which included performing in concerts and competitions. About 6 months prior to the s. 25 assessments, it appears that Mr. Sahadeo ceased his musical pursuits. But since he did not openly express his capabilities and the reasons for the change, I find that Dr. Williams did not have a complete picture of Mr. Sahadeo in rendering her opinion.

32Since the onus is on Mr. Sahadeo to prove entitlements to the benefits, on the balance of probabilities, he is moderately impaired in adaptation and is not catastrophically impaired.

Whole Person Impairment (s. 3(2)(e) of the Schedule)

33Mr. Sahadeo argues that he meets a catastrophic designation under Whole Person Impairment (WPI). The following table represents the various percentage ratings that comprise Mr. Sahadeo’s WPI of 53% (rounded to 55%):

Category

Impairment Rating

Total

Medication Effects

1-2%

Cervicothoracic Spine

5%

Lumbosacral Spine

5%

Sleep and Arousal

1-5%

Headaches

3%

Total Physical: 19%

Psychological GAF 44-48

34-42%

Total Psychiatric: 42%

34In order to be designated as catastrophically impaired under s. 3(2)(e) of the Schedule, Mr. Sahadeo must prove he has a WPI of 55% or greater.

35For the reasons listed above, since I found that Mr. Sahadeo at most has a moderate impairment in adaptation, I find that Dr. Lubber’s WPI rating better suits Mr. Sahadeo’s psychological impairment rating. Dr. Lubber’s gave Mr. Sahadeo a 22% WPI rating for his psychological impairments.

36When the physical and psychological impairment ratings are combined, it totals 37% WPI. Mr. Sahadeo is not catastrophically impaired.

37Mr. Sahadeo claims entitlement to three treatment plans for chiropractic and massage treatment, one treatment plan for assistive devices, one invoice for physical therapy treatment, an occupational therapy assessment and a fee for preparing a treatment plan.

38Pafco confirmed at the hearing that it had only approved $44,002.37 in medical and rehabilitation benefits. In accordance with the Schedule, non-catastrophic medical benefit limits are $50,000.00.

39Mr. Sahadeo claims the treatment plans are reasonable and necessary because it was treatment recommended by his treating practitioners and outlined in the various medical reports.

40Pafco argues that there is no evidence to support that the treatment plans are reasonable and necessary.

41I find the three treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy reasonable and necessary up to policy limits. The three treatment plans are for:

a. $2,723.44 recommended by Dr. Jit on August 8, 2018¹⁰;

b. $2,174.50 recommended by Dr. Porco on January 6, 2020¹¹; and

c. $1,779.60 recommended by Dr. Violante on March 3, 2020¹².

42All three treatment plans recommended chiropractic and massage therapy to improve upon Mr. Sahadeo’s accident-related physical impairments. The goals were to reduce pain, increase strength, return Mr. Sahadeo to complete his activities of daily living and return him to modified work. Mr. Sahadeo’s partner Dianna Jerry testified that she constantly massages Mr. Sahadeo because of the pain he is in. Even if the passive therapy will not improve his condition, pain relief is a legitimate goal and if there is some benefit to receiving treatment, then it should be considered reasonable and necessary. Mr. Sahadeo in many of the reports expressed an enthusiasm to return to work, so any treatment that will help him achieve that goal would also be considered reasonable and necessary.

43Since Mr. Sahadeo has now exhausted his non-catastrophic policy limits, no other treatment plans or invoices will be considered in this decision.

AWARD

44Mr. Sahadeo claims entitlement to an award. He argues that the respondent’s adjuster did not consider all the medical information contained in the file and repeatedly saw Mr. Sahadeo’s injuries as simply “soft tissue injuries” despite information to the contrary. Mr. Sahadeo argues he is entitled to an award because the adjuster did not compare and contrast the catastrophic assessment reports. The adjuster simply relied on its report without giving any consideration to other medical information in the file.

45Pafco argues that Mr. Sahadeo’s submissions contradict the evidence. Pafco argues that it has approved various treatment plans, there is no evidence of improperly delayed or denied benefits, and the claim was handled in good faith.

46Section 10 of Regulation 664 provides that where the Tribunal finds that an insurance company unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits owed to an insured, it “may award a lump sum of up to 50 per cent of the amount to which the person was entitled at the time of the award together with interest on all amounts then owing to the insured (including unpaid interest) at the rate of 2 per cent per month, compounded monthly, from the time the benefits first became payable under the Schedule.”

47To be entitled to an award Mr. Sahadeo must prove that Pafco demonstrated an unyielding or stubborn adjusting of the file, or bad faith conduct which ultimately led to an unreasonable withholding or delay of benefits. I find that Mr. Sahadeo is not entitled to an award for the treatment plans. Pafco is entitled to make mistakes on a file and rely on the reports of its assessors. When a mistake is made, it is incumbent on Mr. Sahadeo or his representatives to point it out so that Pafco has an opportunity to rectify it. If Pafco fails to overturn its mistake, then the conduct may be viewed as unreasonably withholding or delaying owed benefits. In this case, there was no evidence from Mr. Sahadeo that it was abundantly clear that he should be entitled to benefits despite the opinion of Pafco’s assessors. At most, the assessments showed a difference of opinion, which Pafco can rely on to deny a benefit.

48Since Mr. Sahadeo is not catastrophically impaired, I do not find the conduct of Pafco amounts to an award.

COSTS

49Mr. Sahadeo claims entitlement to costs for the hearing because he claims Pafco interfered with witnesses and because Pafco’s defence at the hearing was different than the reasons given in the denials. Mr. Sahadeo argues that costs are warranted because he spent considerable time trying to summons the witnesses Dr. Paitich, a s. 44 doctor, and Avi Kaplan. When Avi Kaplan copied Mr. Schrieder, counsel for the respondent, on email communication with the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Sahadeo claims Mr. Schrieder did nothing to encourage the witness to speak with them. Mr. Sahadeo claims Mr. Schrieder interfered with the summons sent to Avi Kaplan, by giving him advice stating that the summons might not be valid. Mr. Sahadeo also claims that the denials for catastrophic determination are remarkedly different than Pafco’s defence was at the hearing. He claims that Pafco filed numerous social media posts in evidence on his small musical career, which ended before the catastrophic assessments were even conducted. Mr. Sahadeo’s musical career was not considered in the catastrophic assessments, yet Pafco spent 2-3 days in cross-examination on them. Mr. Sahadeo argues that the actions taken by Pafco should not be tolerated by the Tribunal because the hearing process was lengthened and delayed. Mr. Sahadeo claims entitlement to $1,000.00 per hearing day and he claims that the hearing took an additional 3 days because of Pafco’s actions.

50Pafco argues it was not its obligation to assist Mr. Sahadeo or his counsel in encouraging the witnesses’ compliance with the summons. Pafco argues that it did nothing wrong by giving an opinion on the validity of the summons when Mr. Kaplan phoned Mr. Schrieder.

51For costs to be granted, pursuant to Rule 19 a party must have acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith during the proceeding.¹³ This is a high bar to meet. In deciding whether to order costs and the amount of costs to be ordered, the Tribunal shall consider all relevant factors including: the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was in breach of a direction or order issued by the Tribunal, whether or not a party’s behaviour interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to carry out a fair, efficient, and effective process; prejudice to other parties; and the potential impact an order for costs would have on individuals accessing the Tribunal system. The Tribunal may deny or grant the request for costs or award a different amount than requested. The amount of costs shall not exceed $1000 for each full day of attendance at a motion, case conference or hearing.

52Firstly, I elect not to award costs in connection with the cross-examination of the social media posts. Even though it was not the basis for the denial, Pafco is entitled to test the credibility of the statements to the assessors if they find evidence to the contrary of what was said to them. I find the conduct does not meet the high bar necessary to award costs.

53Regarding Mr. Schrieder’s conduct with the witness Avi Kaplan, I elect to award costs. I find Mr. Schrieder’s conduct unreasonable, and it interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to carry out an efficient hearing. Mr. Schrieder admitted to giving an opinion on the validity of the summons when he admitted he should not have. It was on that opinion that Mr. Kaplan failed to show up on the date and time indicated by Mr. Sahadeo’s representatives. On the second last day of the hearing, Mr. Sahadeo’s representatives advised that they were filing a motion seeking an order from the Tribunal stating a case to Divisional Court for a contempt hearing because of Avi Kaplan’s failure to appear before the Tribunal and the conduct of Mr. Schrieder. That evening, Mr. Schrieder spoke to Mr. Kaplan and advised what was happening the next day and the potential repercussions. Mr. Kaplan appeared before the Tribunal on the last day of the hearing indicating that he was willing to participate as a witness.

54It was only because of the threat of having the conduct referred to Divisional Court for a contempt of court hearing that encouraged Mr. Schrieder to rectify his error. I find that the motion for contempt and the testimony of the witness elongated the hearing by a half a day. I elect to award costs of $500.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

55Mr. Sahadeo is not catastrophically impaired.

56As a result of the accident-related injuries, I find three treatment plans are reasonable and necessary in the amount of:

a. $2,723.44 recommended by Dr. Jit on August 8, 2018;

b. $2,174.50 recommended by Dr. Porco on January 6, 2020; and

c. $1,779.60 recommended by Dr. Violante on March 3, 2020.

57These treatment plans are payable (up to policy limits), if incurred and invoiced according to the treatment plan and FSCO rate guidelines. Interest is payable, if the treatment plans have been incurred and are considered overdue.

58Mr. Sahadeo is entitled to costs in the amount of $500.00. I order the costs are payable within 30 days of the release of this decision.

Footnotes

1. 1Applicant’s Medical Brief page 168
2. 2Vice-Chair Hunter Motion decision dated December 15, 2021
3. 3Section 3(2) e and f of the Schedule. I note that section 2(1.1)2. of the post-June 1, 2016, Schedule indicates that the catastrophic impairment definitions found in the pre-June 1, 2016 Schedule apply to this accident.
4. 4Page 294 American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment fourth edition (“AMA Guides”)
5. 5Applicant’s Medical brief Page 348
6. 6Applicant’s Medical brief Page 341
7. 7Respondent’s Medical brief page 1219
8. 8Applicant’s Medical Brief page 342 OT Report by Shahla Kara
9. 9Applicant’s Medical Brief Dr. Williams report page 173
10. 10Applicant’s Document Brief Page 155
11. 11Applicant’s Document Brief Page 171
12. 12Applicant’s Document Brief Page 192
13. 13License Appeal Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure October 2, 2017 Rule 19