Citation: Jones-Whyte v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-014867/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-014867/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:

Jennifer Jones-Whyte

Applicant

and

Intact Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Mary Henein Thorn

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

John Philp, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Sven Mascarenhas, Counsel

Meena Rishihesan, Counsel

Court Reporter:

Prashanth Thambipillai and Guido Riccioni

HEARD by Videoconference:

October 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Jennifer Jones-Whyte, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on June 23, 2017, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, Intact Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

2The parties agreed at the start of the hearing that, should the applicant be found catastrophically impaired, the treatment plans will be approved and paid. Issues numbered 2,3 and 4 as listed in the application and the Case Conference Report and Order dated May 21, 2024 have been withdrawn.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

i. Has the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment (criterion 8) as defined by the Schedule?

ii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?

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

RESULT

4The applicant is not catastrophically impaired under criterion 8.

5The applicant is not entitled to an award.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

6The respondent served the applicant with surveillance it intended to rely on at the hearing on September 24, 2024, which the applicant submits is in breach of the 75-day exchange deadline included in the Case Conference Report and Order (dated May 21, 2024). She submits the surveillance was dated July 29, 2024 and was not served until September 4, 2024 which meant neither party had an opportunity to properly present it to their experts for their opinion on criterion 8 prior to the hearing. The experts will be seeing and opining about the surveillance evidence for the first time at the hearing and it may change their position on the applicant’s impairment as it relates to criterion 8. The applicant submits it is procedurally unfair to allow the surveillance to be entered into evidence and it should be excluded from the hearing.

7The respondent takes the position that the surveillance was served 33 days ahead of the hearing and that the surveillance material was ten pages long. Thirty-three days is more than enough time for the applicant to have reviewed the file with the occupational therapist and present it to the experts to see if it changed their opinion. In the respondent’s opinion, the applicant has not suffered any prejudice. It further submits that there is a credibility issue in this matter, therefore, by excluding the surveillance material, the respondent will be prejudiced. It notes the surveillance has not been presented to the experts on the respondent’s side for their opinion prior to the hearing.

8I ordered surveillance to be introduced into evidence and presented to the expert witnesses for their opinion as it is relative to the issue of a catastrophic impairment in dispute. I disagree with the applicant’s submissions; I find the respondent is not in breach of the Case Conference Report and Order. Given the respondent did not have the surveillance file in its possession before the timelines outlined in the Case Conference Report and Order, it could not have been provided. The surveillance file, according to the applicant, was dated July 29, 2024, which is after the final timeline in the order. The applicant did have 33 days in advance of the hearing to review the surveillance file and to present to her expert witnesses. At this time, both parties’ experts will be pointed to the surveillance evidence for the first time at the hearing, one party does not have an advantage over the other. I find there is no prejudice to the applicant.

ANALYSIS

9The applicant applied to the respondent for a determination that her accident-related impairments met the definition of a CAT impairment under the Schedule. The current dispute involves whether she sustained a CAT impairment pursuant to s.3.1(1)(8) of the Schedule (known as Criterion 8) which is assessed in accordance with Chapter 14 of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th edition, 1993 (“Guides”).

10I find that the applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that she is catastrophically impaired under criterion 8. Specifically, the applicant has not established that she has at least three marked impairments or one extreme impairment in the four areas of functioning.

11These impairments are assessed under Chapter 14 of the Guides. Mental and behavioural impairments are rated according to how seriously they affect a person’s useful daily functioning. The Guides set out the four spheres of functioning and the levels of impairment represented in the chart below.

Area or Aspect of Functioning

Class 1:

No Impairment

Class 2: Mild Impairment

Class 3:

Moderate Impairment

Class 4:

Marked Impairment

Class 5:

Extreme Impairment

Activities of Daily Living

No impairment is noted

Impairment levels are compatible with most useful functioning

Impairment levels are compatible with some, but not all useful functioning

Impairment levels significantly impede useful functioning

Impairment levels preclude useful functioning

Social Functioning

Concentration, Persistence and Pace

Adaptation (Deterioration in a work-like setting)

12An insured person is catastrophically impaired under criterion 8 when an accident causes them to sustain three marked impairments or one extreme impairment in the areas of functioning due to mental or behavioural disorders.

13The test to determine whether the applicant has sustained a catastrophic impairment is a legal one and not a medical one, see: Liu v. 1226071 Ontario Inc. (Canadian Zhorong Trading Ltd.), 2009 ONCA 571, at paras 29-30.

14The applicant testified she sustained the following impairments from the accident. She suffered a concussion and has issues with balance, dizziness/vertigo, concentration, headaches/migraines (especially severe two times a week), neck pain, upper back pain, light and noise sensitivity. She also suffers from anxiety, depression, irritability, impatience, emotionality, and feelings of guilt, because she can no longer resume her role as a strong matriarch in the family and take care of her children. Her symptoms are largely aggravated by reading, using a computer, poor sleep, light, strong scents, and the weather.

15In support of her position, she relies on the catastrophic assessment of Dr. William Gnam, Psychiatrist who prepared a Determination of Catastrophic Impairment Determination Assessment Report (dated June 16, 2022). The assessment takes into consideration the opinion of Ms. Luciana Zazzara, Occupational Therapist; Ms. Tracie Shaw, Occupational Therapist; and Ms. Revital Shuster, Social Worker. Dr. Gnam finds that the applicant has a class 3 impairment in the area of Social Functioning and class 4 marked impairments in the areas of Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, as well as Adaption. Given that he finds the applicant has 3 marked impairments, he finds her catastrophically impaired.

16The respondent relies on the catastrophic assessment from Dr. Todd Levy, General Practitioner dated November 16, 2023. He relies on the opinions of Dr. Joel Eisen, Psychiatrist, two reports dated June 12, 2023 and an addendum report dated November 16, 2023; Occupational Therapist, Mr. Curtis Wong, two reports dated October 19 & 20 2023, and an Occupational Therapy Surveillance Review dated November 1, 2023. Together, they find the applicant has moderate impairments in the areas of Activities of Daily Living, Social Functioning, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and a marked impairment in the area of Adaption. The totality of their finding is that she does not suffer a catastrophic impairment.

17The respondent agrees that the applicant sustained injuries and impairments after the accident, but not to a level of a catastrophic impairment. It submits that the applicant’s chief complaints are migraines, post concussive symptoms and pain, which are not ratable in the Guides.

18In this case, the area of disagreement between the parties is whether the applicant has a marked impairment as a result of the accident in the area of Activities of Daily Living and Concentration, Persistence and Pace. Accordingly, this is the focus of my analysis in this decision. I accept the findings of the that the applicant does not suffer from a marked impairment in the area of Social Functioning, and both agree she has a marked impairment in the area of Adaption.

Activities of Daily Living

19The Guides specify that activities of daily living include self-care, personal hygiene, communication, ambulation, travel, sexual function, sleep, and social and recreational activities. Any limitation in these activities should be related to the person’s mental disorder. The quality of these activities is judged by their independence, appropriateness, effectiveness, and sustainability given the context of the individual’s overall situation. What is assessed is not simply the number of activities that are restricted, but the overall degree of restriction or combination of restrictions.

20The applicant submits that prior to the accident she was living a full life. She worked as an insurance broker, participated in a variety of social groups, volunteered in the community and was on the parent’s council. She took care of her infant son, two older children, and husband. Prior to the accident she cooked, did laundry for everyone in the family, entertained, grocery shopped and had very little reliance on her children to assist her. She maintained a home, inside and out. Now, she is very limited in what she can do, and she must push herself. She denied using any medication prior to the accident and did not have any mental health issues. Post-accident, she submits that she suffers depression, anxiety and has been prescribed medication.

21The respondent takes the position that the applicant has suffered some impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living as a cause of the accident, however, the evidence clearly shows she does not suffer a marked impairment. She may need some assistance with some of the activities of daily living, but she is much more capable than not to manage her activities of daily living. She is able to drive, grocery shop, take care of her son, manage her finances, attend the gym at least five days a week, take care of her personal hygiene, prepare simple meals and maintain her house.

22The applicant submits that since the accident, her two-year relationship with her common law spouse has terminated, and she is now a single mother who is unable to manage her activities of daily living. She is heavily dependent on her older children to cook and prepare meals, clean, maintain the house, take care of her autistic son, drive, and assist in managing her finances.

23At the time of the accident, the applicant’s one-year-old autistic son was a passenger in the car. He is now approximately seven years old. Prior to the accident, she was able to attend to his needs, and now she needs quite a bit of assistance to take care of him and herself. She submits she is unable to take him to school, cook according to his needs and take care of him. She also struggles to play with her son as she now has a sound sensitivity, and he makes a lot of loud noises which exacerbates her symptoms. The applicant’s inability to do these things post-accident has left her with low self esteem and self confidence.

24Dr. Gnam in his report notes, and the applicant testified, that she suffers ongoing depressed mood, lack of interest and pleasure in daily activities, sleep impairment, lack of motivation and energy, and feelings of guilt which affect her Activities of Daily Living. Dr. Gnam opined the applicant suffers with Somatic Symptom Disorder, Pain Disorder and in-vehicular anxiety with some limitations in her capacity to drive. Dr. Gnam also reports she also has in-vehicle anxiety which creates an avoidance with driving or minimization as a passenger in a vehicle which affects her level of independence.

25Dr. Gnam acknowledges that prior to the accident the applicant experienced some work-related stress and insomnia but that it was not to the point that she was hindered from working, maintaining her house, enjoying leisure activities, and engaging in social functions. He opines that the applicant can complete most of her personal care and hygiene tasks on her own, but, since the accident, she takes less care of her self due to a lack of motivation and interest. The same applies to housekeeping, meal preparation, grocery shopping and laundry. She participates in these things minimally due to pain, anxiety, fatigue, low motivation, and pain behaviors.

26The applicant subjectively reported to her assessors that she remains independent but struggles with daily living tasks that require more cognitive effort, like organization and scheduling. Their testing verified her complaints. In her Functional Standardized Touchscreen Assessment of Cognition (“FSTAC”) she correctly managed a medication sorting task but showed difficulty retaining information necessary to complete more complex tasks which requires more cognitive focus. To assist her with things like taking her medication and paying her bills, she uses external prompts to remind her.

27The applicant also relies on the opinion of Dr. Lolita Abramyan, Psychotherapist. The applicant received counselling (approximately 80-90 sessions) post accident to assist with her low mood and anxiety and to teach her some coping skills.

28Dr. Abramyan testified that the applicant received cognitive behavioral therapy, meditation, guided meditation, panic attack tools and journaling as means to assist with her symptoms. Her main complain to Dr. Abramyan was post concussive symptoms and chronic migraines/headaches. She was taking medication to assist with sleeping and mental health, but the medication was making her feel unwell, so she stopped taking them. She spends quite a bit of time at the gym, attending sometimes twice a day five to six days a week for Pilates, or Yoga classes and exercise as it helps with her overall mental health. Dr. Abramyan also prescribed more self-care measures as she thought these were things the applicant could do, such as taking walks and meditation exercises.

29Dr. Abramyam bases her findings on the applicant’s subjective reporting only as she is not allowed to administer diagnostic, or validity testing given her profession. Her clinical notes and records did not clearly indicate the progress of the work she and the applicant were doing to overcome her symptoms. The information in the notes is vague and templated, therefore I am unable to determine what outcome, if any, came from these sessions. I give this report little weight.

30Occupational Therapist Mr. Wong, and the respondent’s section 44 assessor, conducted an in-home assessment on October 19 and 20, 2023. His report consists of the applicant’s subjective reporting and objective findings obtained by interviewing the applicant, conducting a Non-Standardized Cognitive Screen and Observation of Physical and Cognitive Abilities and psycho-emotional responses during functional tasks. In his report he concluded the following: the applicant appeared appropriately groomed; she independently ambulated throughout her home without issues; she accesses her community mainly as a driver or a passenger but with reported anxiety; and she takes care of her son (although she had concerns the assessment would aggravate her symptoms and affect her ability to do so). While the applicant occasionally needs assistance blow drying her hair, she is able to complete self-care activities.

31The applicant has demonstrated that she is able to independently toilet and shower transfer and overall maintain her self-care. Immediately post accident, the applicant was less able to complete self-care activities, and occasionally stayed in her pajamas all day. Over time, she got used to dressing more casually and has maintained that routine since. Mr. Wong observed her to be appropriately groomed with no personal neglect.

32Regarding household chores, recreational activities, and work, Mr. Wong found based on the applicant’s subjective reporting that she does participate in household chores and outdoor maintenance with the assistance of her daughters and her neighbor. She testified to the same at the hearing, depending on her ability that day. She also assists with grocery shopping, meal preparation, meal cleanup, laundry, light cleaning, pet care and garbage/recycling removal.

33While conducting the in-home assessment with Mr. Wong, the applicant declined some of the activities noting that she was concerned about worsening her symptoms which would mean she would not be able to take care of her son following the assessment.

34Dr. Eisen, Psychiatrist and the respondent’s section 44 catastrophic assessor, found, based on a review of the applicant’s section 25 assessors’ files, section 44 assessor opinions and other clinical notes and records, that the applicant suffers a moderate impairment for ADLs.

35It is Dr. Eisen’s opinion that while the applicant has some impaired functioning in her ADLs, there is still much that she can do without relying on others. He also opines that the applicant has other life stressors unrelated to the accident that are contributing to her emotional distress. For instance, she has the responsibility of taking care of her approximately seven-year-old son who is autistic.

36The applicant reported to Dr. Eisen that the care of her son is sometimes overwhelming, she describes her son’s needs as requiring supervision 24 hours a day. He cannot do anything for himself, he requires constant direction and re-direction, and the applicant needs to do everything for him. He also has sensory deficits and is often loud and rambunctious. He has a voracious appetite, strong meal preferences, in the course of a day she may need to make 12 different types of bagels to satisfy him. At times he tries to change his own pull-ups, and in doing so he may soil on the floor, she must clean up after him. Overall, he is a high-needs child. There are times when he becomes frustrated and hits himself therefore, he cannot be left alone. She shares with her daughters in taking him to school and takes him to various appointments with health professionals and for therapy appointments.

37She described a typical day as follows (taken from Dr. Eisen’s report):

On a typical day she stays in bed after she awakens and cuddles with the cats. She has a cup of coffee and sits on the couch for a while. She takes a shower and brushes her teeth. She gets dressed. She might have a protein shake. She gets her son with autism ready for his program when he attends. She helps him on with his pull-ups and his clothing. She might need to prepare his lunch and walks him to school. She goes to the gym. She engages in yoga or Pilates. When she returns home, she usually takes another shower. She eats breakfast. Around noon, she eats lunch. Later, she might pick her son up from school and take him to therapy twice a week. Afterward, they might take a walk in the park depending on the weather. She might see a friend. Later in the day or in the evening, she might go to the gym. She engages in meditation. She and her daughters prepare dinner. Afterward, she might play with her son for a while. She helps him with a bath. She might lie down with him on his bed and might doze off. She then awakens. She might check social media. A friend might come over.

38She also reported that she goes out to restaurants with her friends and her sisters regularly.

39Based on the applicant’s description of a typical day to Dr. Eisen, he was able to opine that although she does have some level of impairment, there are still a lot of ADLs she can still do on her own: she can shower, get dressed, prepare her own shake, get her son ready, prepare his lunch, walk him to school, go to the gym, attend appointments, drive and socialize.

40I find Dr. Eisen’s moderate rating comes from the applicant’s reported decreased ability to clean, especially with cleaners that are scented. The applicant also experiences lack of motivation, needs to use reminder aids to pay her bills and remember to take her medication, and has days where her migraines are severe and debilitating which accounts for the moderate impairment.

41The applicant reviewed surveillance previously taken by the respondent with Mr. Wong on June 15, 2023. The surveillance shows several instances in which the applicant confirmed she was picking up her son from school, going grocery shopping with her son, and returning home driving in her vehicle alone. She was again observed on surveillance independently driving with her son in the vehicle, the applicant confirmed she was leaving her son’s speech therapy appointment. In fact, she commented to Mr. Wong that it is typical on any given day for her to go grocery shopping with her son or her daughter to pick up groceries on her way home.

42The applicant testified that she avoids lights and sounds as much as possible for fear of triggering a migraine. The fact that she attends the grocery store with her daughter(s) and does not avoid the store all together or abstains from going and sends her daughters, shows me that she can manage those activities routinely.

43Further, I am not persuaded that her ability to attend a gym five to six days a week with commercial lights, music, people, and loud noises is in line with a marked impairment.

44I find the applicant as demonstrated that she can drive, is able to take care of her son, can socialize with friends, practice self-care, make small meals, manage her bills, and attend appointments.

45I agree with the findings of Dr. Eisen and find, based on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant suffers a moderate not a marked impairment in the domain of ADLs. Keeping in mind the AMA Guide’s definition of the impairments, I find that she is “compatible with some, but not all, useful functioning”. I agree that this level of impairment is appropriate based on the applicant’s testimony, her subjective reporting to the assessors, the objective findings in evidence before me, and Dr. Abramyam’s testimony that she was increasing the applicant’s self-care prescription because she thought the applicant could do it.

46I find on a balance of probabilities the applicant suffers a moderate impairment in the sphere of ADLs.

Concentration, Persistence, and Pace

47The Guides define this sphere as having the ability to sustain focused attention long enough for the timely completion of tasks commonly found in work settings. Deficiencies in concentration, persistence and pace are best noted from previous work attempts or from observations in work-like settings. The Guides specify that psychological tests are useful in assessing intelligence, memory, and concentration. Factors such as frequency of errors, the time it takes to complete a task and the extent to which assistance is required to complete a task are also considered.

48I am not persuaded the applicant meets the threshold of a marked impairment in Concentration Persistence and Pace.

49Prior to the accident, the applicant submits she was working full time as an insurance broker. Now, she has difficulty with her cognitive ability, she has trouble concentrating, focusing on tasks, forgetfulness, and can’t find her words. She has stopped watching television, reading, and using the computer for the most part because of migraines and difficulty concentrating.

50She submits that her inability to concentrate causes her to have difficulty making decisions, following instructions, completing tasks and communication.

51To overcome her inability to concentrate and to keep organized, she uses apps on her phone to remind her of scheduled appointments and tasks such as banking/paying bills and uses an Apple Watch to remind her to do workouts and to meditate.

52The applicant was assessed by section 25 assessor Dr. Gnam on June 16, 2022, and assessed by section 44 assessor Dr. Eisen on June 23, 2023, a little over one year later.

53Both the applicant’s and the respondent’s assessors find she has suffered an impairment due to the accident. Where they disagree is the applicant’s assessor finds she has a marked impairment in this sphere, and the respondent’s assessor finds she has a moderate impairment.

54Dr. Gnam opines that the applicant would not have developed any of her current mental disorders and related functional mental impairments “but for” the subject accident.

55He opines that she was observed during the assessment to have significant restrictions in attention, sustained concentration, and task persistence, which would interfere substantially with meeting the cognitive demands of work or work like tasks. He also conducted objective testing, several collateral interviews with family, and reviewed several assessors’ files and medical documents that concur with his opinion.

56He attributes her impairment to the combined effects of chronic pain, depression, sleep impairment and anxiety. He further opines that the applicant’s performance significantly improved with queuing and encouragement.

57Ms. Shuster, an assessor for the applicant and a social worker, noted that when she needs to drive somewhere, the applicant will take the 407 and plan less busy routes. Currently she tries to drive within the Milton or Halton region only as much as possible. If she needs to drive further distances, like her mother’s house in Mississauga, she will try to get one of her daughters to join her.

58Occupational Therapist Ms. Shaw noted the applicant demonstrated a range of cognitive inefficiencies when asked to do three basic routine errands. She also demonstrated difficultly with planning, organization and decision making and showed reduced signs of psycho-emotional, cognitive, and functional tolerances.

59Dr. Eisen assessed the applicant on June 12, 2023, and reviewed the applicant’s medical file. He bases his findings on his own assessment and that of Mr. Wong. Together they determined the applicant suffers from a moderate impairment.

60In a two-day, in-home assessment with Mr. Wong, the applicant conducted a 1 hour and 45-minute interview without breaks on the first day. She was able to answer all the questions asked appropriately and in a timely manner. Mr. Wong reports she was able to recall dates and events and was a good historian. She was able to grasp instructions and follow simple and multi-step instructions. She was given four chores, she completed three of the four chores at a good pace, and declined to attempt one of the tasks due to concerns of worsening dizziness. She did have some difficulty with the pen and paper task and exhibited anxiety and pain behaviors at times during the assessment. On the second day, she had more difficulty complaining of a migraine and ended the assessment early.

61In her assessment with Dr. Eisen, the applicant described difficulties with her concentration and memory. Dr. Eisen observed in his interview with her that her reported difficulties were not evident. He found she was overinclusive and overly detailed in the history that she provided and often needed redirection. She had an unusually good recollection of dates; she knew the names of her medications and the dosages she was taking, and she was able to provide the names of her healthcare providers.

62Dr. Gnam opines there has not been any improvement in her symptoms. Dr. Eisen assessed the applicant a little over one year later and she reported that her anxiety and depression have improved to some extent over time.

63Also, in the clinical notes and records of St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton on February 8, 2018, Dr. Amadeo Rodriguez saw the applicant for a neuroophthalmological consultation, the applicant reported she feels the symptoms have overall improved, but she is not back to normal yet.

64The respondent raises a point that Dr. Gnam has not accounted for the demand on the applicant to take care of her special needs child. He apportions all her stress, anxiety, and lack of sleep solely to the accident. Her concerns are evidenced in her reporting to Dr. Eisen that her anxiety and depression have improved to some extent over time. She still feels overwhelmed and has irritability, impatience, frustration, and apprehension about the future. She has a diminished self-confidence and self-esteem now.

65In Dr. Eisen’s report he notes that the applicant reports much of her anxiety and apprehension has to do with her son’s special needs, and finances while being a single mother under difficult conditions. Dr. Eisen concludes and I agree based on his objective findings and the applicant’s self reporting that the applicant remains mostly independent in her activities of daily living and that much of her emotional distress stems from non-accident-related psychosocial stressors but is mainly related to being a single mother of a child with severe autism.

66Further, I agree with Dr. Eisen that there is some level of impairment due to the accident. She is not able to have the working memory and concentration she once had, but I do not agree with Dr. Gnam that it rises to a (class 4) level of impairment.

67I find she indicated that she has adapted and now uses apps to create reminders, the ability to learn to use the apps shows useful functioning. By her own admission, she can remember to go to take her son to appointments, although sometimes she does forget but for the most part, she is able. She remembers to go to the gym every day; she can follow the gym’s yoga and other training classes schedule; she is actively on social media which requires a certain level of attention. She can communicate effectively with her son’s teachers and therapists for the purpose of progress, and she can work together with her ex-partner to schedule visits between them. She does grocery shop and mange her day with a significant amount of routine. I find by her admission that she can coordinate the 12 types of bagels a day her son is seeking, and she can drive. Whether she drives short or long distances, driving requires concentration, and ongoing persistence pace and attention.

68I find the objective findings, her testimony, and subjective reporting some level of useful functioning is impeded, it does not rise to a level of a marked impairment. I find on a balance of probabilities the applicant does not suffer a marked impairment in this domain.

69Since the applicant has not met her burden that she suffers three marked impairments in any of the domains, I find she does not suffer a catastrophic impairment.

Interest

70Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. Given my above findings, I conclude that no benefits are overdue and therefore no interest is payable.

Award

71I conclude that there are no benefits were unreasonably denied or delayed. As such, no award is owing.

ORDER

72For the reasons above, I find:

i. The applicant does not suffer a catastrophic impairment.

ii. Interest and an award is not payable.