Because of his injuries, he was obviously in no position to open the clinic. The
possibility of a substitute worker, an option under the Act, was offered, but declined. Under
the circumstances, it was an entirely reasonable decision by the Appellant. Income
replacement was provided on the basis of the maximum yearly earnings. The net amount
was slightly under $1,700 every two weeks. The Appellant’s expenses of lease payments at
$1500 a month, however reasonable on an assumption of a much higher actual income,
continued unabated. It is clear that this created a hardship for the Appellant.