Well, it could very well be this. There has to be a causal relationship to military service, so if that causal relationship can't be established from medical records and military service, it's more difficult to get an approval than if it were clear that you fell off a tank and broke your arm. So the 60% rate may not sound high, but it's higher than for most workers compensation and higher than for most of our colleagues in the U.S. and the U.K., because we have the benefit-of-the-doubt principle, which in law is the most generous principle you can have. The other is balance of probabilities, where you have to have more probabilities for yes than no.
So in terms of analyzing individual ones that have been turned down, it's principally the absence of associative evidence that it was related to military service. And it has to be.