I APPEAL# PART C Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated April 2, 2013 which found that the appellant did not meet three of the five statutory requirements of Section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act for designation as a person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry found that the appellant met the age requirement and that his impairment is likely to continue for at least two years. However, the ministry was not satisfied that the evidence establishes that: • the appellant has a severe physical or mental impairment; • the appellant's daily living activities (DLA) are, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and, • as a result of these restrictions, the appellant requires the significant help or supervision of another person, the use of an assistive device, or the services of an assistance animal to perform DLA. · PART D Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), Section 2 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), Section 2
I APPEAL# PART E Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration decision included the following: 1) Person With Disabilities (PWD) Application comprised of the applicant information dated December 16, 2012, a physician report and assessor report both dated January 25, 2013 and completed by the appellant's family physician of approximately 15 years; and, 2) Request for Reconsideration-Reasons dated March 19, 2013. Diagnoses The appellant has been diagnosed by his general practitioner with COPD/ chronic bronchitis, GERO with positive H Pylori status . . Physical Impairment • In the physician report, the general practitioner indicated in the health history that the appellant's lung condition has gradually progressed until recently where significant deterioration has occurred. "He is now severely affected by exertional dyspnea and frequent expectoration of phlegm associated with bouts of coughing spasms. He is rapidly becoming disabled and deconditioned due to inability to exert himself. Normal activities are now limited with shortness of breath. Stomach complaints are responding to treatment. Patient's condition causes him to take excessive time to complete simple tasks." • Regarding the degree and course of the impairment, the general practitioner wrote that the condition is progressive and " ... may be modified by medications but will not be halted. Condition is under further investigation." • Functional skills reported in the physician report indicated that the appellant can walk less than 1 block unaided, he can climb 2 to 5 steps unaided, has no limitation with lifting or with remaining seated. • The general practitioner reported that the appellant has not been prescribed any medications or treatments that interfere with his ability to perform his daily living activities (DLA) and he does not require a prosthesis or aid for his impairment. • In the assessor report, the general practitioner described the appellant's condition as " ... severe restriction of lung function with bronchospasm, coughing spasm, rest and exertional dyspnea." • The appellant is assessed as independent with all mobility and physical ability tasks, including with walking indoors and outdoors, climbing stairs, standing and lifting and carrying and holding. The general practitioner commented that the appellant " ... does these activities much slower than normal person." • The general practitioner did not indicate any assistive devices used by the appellant, and wrote "N/A" or not applicable in this section of the assessor report. • In his self-report included with the PWD application, the appellant wrote that the main problem of living with a breathing disease is that it turns the simple daily tasks into exhausting situations and he has "zero" stamina. The weather and air quality can send him into a violent coughing attack. It is very frustrating not being able to perform simple tasks without stopping and relaxing, doing breathing exercises, then finishing the task. Everything takes so long to accomplish. • In his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant wrote that his doctor has described his condition as severe, chronic and progressive and does not so much restrict, but makes all activities significantly slower as stated in the reports. The appellant wrote that "significantly slower" is a rate that no one is willing to pay (an employee) for, as it is a slow speed or frequent breaks and sometimes a nap. Mental Impairment • The oeneral practitioner did not diaonose a mental disorder.
I APPEAL# • The general practitioner reported the appellant does not have difficulties with communication and the appellant has a good ability to communicate in all areas ("adequate for normal function"). • The general practitioner reported significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in the areas of emotional disturbance, motivation, and other ("frustration and anger"). The general practitioner commented that there is "appropriate concern with progression of his condition." • In the assessor report, the general practitioner reported no major impacts to cognitive and emotional functioning, with moderate impacts in the areas of emotion, motivation, and other emotional or mental problems, and no or minimal impacts to the remaining 10 areas offunctioning. The general practitioner noted that the appellant is " ... finding disability very frustrating and difficult to deal with. Psychological effects affect all aspects of his life with reduced sense of health, happiness and fulfillment. Social aspects of disease becoming more prevalent." • The general practitioner did not complete the section of the report addressing restrictions to social functioning, crossing it out and indicting "N/A", or not applicable. • In his self-report included with the PWD application, the appellant wrote that it is very frustrating and annoying realizing this condition will not improve. Daily Living Activities {DLA) • In the physician report, the general practitioner wrote that the appellant's condition causes him to take excessive time to complete simple tasks and that he needs to complete tasks that require exertion in a variety of segments. • In the assessor report, the general practitioner indicated that 2 out of 8 tasks of the DLA personal care are performed independently while 6 out of 8 tasks take significantly longer than typical (dressing, grooming, bathing, transfers in/out of bed and on/off of chair), with no further explanation provided. • The appellant is assessed as taking significantly longer than typical with laundry and basic housekeeping, with no explanation or description provided. • For shopping, the appellant is independent with reading prices and labels, making appropriate choices and paying for purchases, while taking significantly longer than typical with going to and from stores and carrying purchases home. The general practitioner wrote 'takes significantly longer due to SOBOE [shortness of breath on exertion]. Tasks need to be split into segments in order to be completed." • The general practitioner assessed the appellant as being independent with meal planning and safe storage of food, and as taking significantly longer than typical with food preparation and cooking, with the comment "frequent stops and interruptions." • The appellant is assessed as being independent with banking, budgeting and paying rent and bills. • For medications, the appellant is independent with managing his medications, including filling/refilling prescriptions, taking as directed, and safe handling and storage. • The general practitioner assessed the appellant as taking significantly longer than typical with getting in and out of a vehicle and using public transit, and independent with using transit schedules and arranging transportation. The general practitioner added comments that the appellant has " ... lack of vitality, low energy, restriction of activities due to exertional dyspnea." • In his self-report, the appellant wrote that his condition turns simple daily tasks into "exhausting situations." The appellant stated that everything takes "so long to accomplish." Need for Help • The general practitioner reported that the appellant does not require any assistive devices. • The general practitioner indicated in the assessor report that help required for DLA is provided by the appellant's family and friends, " ... required mainly for exertion", and that none of the listed assistive devices are required by the appellant. In his Notice of Anneal, the annellant expressed his disaoreement with the reconsideration decision and wrote
I APPEAL# that he is unable to work. The appellant wrote that it was the ministry that called him and suggested he apply for PWD. Since applying, he has been left in a state of confusion. Prior to the hearing, the appellant provided additional evidence, being a letter dated May 13, 2013 from the physician who completed the reports included with the PWD application. The general practitioner wrote that the appellant has been a patient for the past 15 years and his medical conditions directly and significantly restrict his ability to perform various activities of daily living (AOL's). The general practitioner stated that the letter is provided as clarification to the answers in the application since it was not previously reviewed in detail. For functional skills, the appellant's lifting capacity is limited to 10 lbs. due to severe respiratory difficulties. For mobility and physical ability, the appellant's AOL's take significantly longer, Le. up to 5 times longer to complete than a typical healthy person, due to his severe respiratory difficulties. Lifting, carrying and holding require continuous assistance which is not available to the appellant at this time. The physician also wrote that the AOL's which have been checked off (tasks of personal care, housekeeping, shopping) take the appellant significantly longer to complete due to fatigue and having to rest on a fairly regular basis. For example, whereas washing the floor could take a healthy person approximately 1O minutes to complete, it can take up to 50 minutes for the appellant to complete due to his fatigue and having to take numerous breaks throughout the chore. He also requires assistance in carrying purchases to his home if there are several heavy bags and this occurs a minimum of once a month. Other tasks of DLA, such as food preparation/cooking, banking, filling/refilling prescriptions and getting in and out of a vehicle and using public transit take the appellant a significant amount of time, Le. up to 4 to 5 times longer than a typical, healthy person. Any activities requiring mobility and/or physical exertion can take the appellant up to 4 times longer ihan anyone else. At the hearing, the following evidence was provided on the appellant's behalf: • The appellant stated that this is the first time he has been through the process of submitting a PWD application and he did not realize how detailed it needed to be and how it was focused on his daily living activities. • The appellant stated that he has found it confusing that the ministry suggested that he fill out the forms and apply for PWD designation and then denied his application. The appellant stated he was not told about Persons With Persistent Multiple Barriers to Employment (PPMB) and he was sure the ministry told him to apply for PWD. • The appellant stated that his problem is that he cannot breathe. He painted cars without using a mask and also installed drywall and smoked and now his lungs are "done." There is no repair for the damage to his lungs and they are only getting worse. He does not understand why this is not considered a disability. • He can climb less than 2 to 5 stairs and can only lift less than 10 lbs., but he could sit all day and he can walk but he has to stop to rest. He can do the different daily living activities but it takes him 4 to 5 times longer to get it finished. Anything that takes exertion takes him much longer. • The appellant stated that he is alright at home where he has a dehumidifier and the air quality is controlled but to go outside, if it is hot or raining or too cold, which is much of the time, is really hard on him. • The appellant stated that it used to take him an hour to mow the lawn and now it can take him up to 4 days. • The appellant stated that he has seen his doctor 6 or 7 times since the reports were completed for the PWD application and he has gone through many tests for his lungs. He had his lungs scraped and a piece cut out of his throat. They have found dried blood in his lungs. His doctor then prepared the May 13, 2013 letter. • The appellant stated that he uses 3 different inhalers that he uses in the morning, at lunch and in the evening every day. He also has an inhaler for emergencies. His doctor wants him to have a nebulizer to take his medication but it is too expensive for him. He has used a nebulizer at the respiratory clinic
IA PPEAL# and found it worked better than the inhalers. • The appellant stated that he has tried different medications to help with his condition but he has to rely on "freebies" from his doctor in the way of samples and cannot afford to get a full prescription because the cost of these medications is not covered. • The advocate noted Iha\ the appellant submitted his PWD application on February 4, 2013 and it was denied on February 9, 2013, which was a Saturday. The advocate stated that in her experience it takes the ministry several months to consider a PWD application and it seemed unusual that the appellant's application was considered so quickly. The advocate questioned whether his application was given proper consideration in the first instance. The ministry did not object to the admissibility of the letter dated May 13, 2013. The panel admitted the oral evidence of the appellant and the letter from his physician, pursuant to Section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act, as providing further information about the appellant's current condition and his need for help and being in support of information that was before the ministry on reconsideration. At the hearing, the ministry provided a written argument which supported the reconsideration decision. The ministry acknowledged that the 5-day processing of the appellant's PWD application was unusual, but could offer no explanation.
I APPEAL# PART F Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on the appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision, that the appellant is not eligible for designation as a person with disabilities (PWD), was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry found that the appellant does not have a severe mental or physical impairment ar,d that his daily living activities (DLA) are not, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods and that, as a result of those restrictions, it could not be determined that the appellant requires the significant help or supervision of another person, the use of an assistive device, or the services of an assistance animal to perform DLA. The criteria for being designated as a person with disabilities (PWD) are set out in Section 2 of the EAPWDA as follows: Persons with disabilities 2 (1) In this section: "assistive device" means a device designed to enable a person to perform a daily living activity that, because of a severe mental or physical impairment, the person is unable to perform; "daily living activity" has the prescribed meaning; "prescribed professional" has the prescribed meaning. (2) The minister may designate a person who has reached 18 years of age as a person with disabilities for the purposes of this Act if the minister is satisfied that the person has a severe mental or physical impairment that (a) in the opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years, and (b) in the opinion of a prescribed professional (i) directly and significantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily living activities either (A) continuously, or (B) periodically for extended periods, and (ii) as a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), (a) a person who has a severe mental impairment includes a person with a mental disorder, and (b) a person requires help in relation to a daily living activity if, in order to perform it, the person requires (i) an assistive device, (ii) the significant help or supervision of another person, or (iii) the services of an assistance animal. (4) The minister may rescind a designation under subsection (2). Section 2(1)(a) of the EAPWDR defines DLA for a person who has a severe physical or mental impairment as follows: Definitions for Act 2 (1) For the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "daily living activities" , (a) in relation to a person who has a severe physical impairment or a severe mental impairment, means the following activities: (i) prepare own meals; (ii) manage personal finances; (iii) shop for personal needs;
IA PPEAL# (iv) use public or personal transportation facilities; (v) perform housework to maintain the person's place of residence in acceptable sanitary condition; (vi) move about indoors and outdoors; (vii) perform personal hygiene and self care; (viii) manage personal medication, and (b) in relation to a person who has a severe mental impairment, includes the following activities: (i) make decisions about personal activities, care or finances; (ii) relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively. The panel considered each party's position regarding the reasonableness of the ministry's decision under the applicable PWD criteria at issue in this appeal. Severe Physical Impairment The appellant's position is that a severe physical impairment is established by the evidence of exertional dyspnea and fatigue as a result of his COPD/ chronic bronchitis and the impact to his daily functioning. The advocate argued that the appellant requires an assistive device, being a nebulizer, and he does not currently use one because he cannot afford it, but that does not change his need for it. The ministry's position is that it acknowledges that the appellant has some functional limitations as a result of his physical condition but these are more in keeping with a moderate degree of impairment. The ministry argued that the appellant's general practitioner reported that the appellant is able to walk less than a block unaided and to climb 2 to 5 steps unaided, with no limitations to lifting or sitting. The ministry argued that the general practitioner indicated that the appellant is independently able to do all aspects of mobility and physical abilities albeit slower than a normal person. The ministry pointed out that no assistive devices are routinely used to help compensate for impairment. The ministry argued that the restrictions to walking and climbing stairs are likely related to a recent exacerbation of symptoms for which the appellant was referred to a respirologist for further assessment and treatment, and the general practitioner mentioned that the appellant's condition may be modified by medication. The ministry pointed out that the effect on employability caused by the appellant's breathing problems, such that he works at a slower rate and takes frequent breaks, is not an eligible criterion for approval of a PWD application. Panel Decision The diagnosis of a medical condition is not itself determinative of a severe impairment. To assess the severity of an impairment one must consider the nature of the impairment and its impact on the appellant's ability to manage his DLA as evidenced by functional skill limitations, the restrictions to DLA, and the degree of independence in performing DLA. The ministry describes this approach well when it defines the word "impairment" in the physician report as being "a loss or abnormality of psychological, anatomical or physiological structure or function causing a restriction in the ability to function independently, effectively, appropriately or for a reasonable duration." This definition is not set out in legislation and is not binding on the panel, but in the panel's view it quite appropriately describes the legislative intent. The legislation clearly provides that the determination of severity of impairment is at the discretion of the minister, taking into account all of the evidence including that of the appellant. However, the legislation is also clear that the fundamental basis for the analysis is the evidence from a prescribed professional respecting the nature of the impairment and its impact on daily functioning. The medical practitioner, the appellant's general practitioner of 15 years, diagnosed the appellant with COPD/ chronic bronchitis, GERO with positive H P lori status. In the ph sician re ort, the eneral practitioner
I APPEAL# indicated that the appellant is " ... now severely affected by exertional dyspnea ... he is rapidly becoming disabled and de-conditioned due to inability to exert himself. Normal activities are now limited with shortness of breath. Stomach complaints are responding to treatment. Patient's condition causes him to take excessive time to complete simple tasks." Regarding the degree and course of the impairment, the general practitioner wrote that the condition is progressive and may be modified by medications but will not be halted and it is under further investigation. At the hearing, the appellant stated that he had seen his doctor 6 or 7 times since the reports for the PWD application were completed and several tests had been conducted of his lung function and his doctor then prepared the May 13, 2013 letter. The panel notes that no lung function or diagnostic reports were referred to or included with the general practitioner's May 13, 2013 letter. The appellant stated that he has tried different medications to help with his condition but he cannot afford to get a full prescription because the cost of these medications is not covered. Functional skills reported in the physician report indicated that the appellant can walk less than 1 block unaided, climb 2 to 5 steps unaided, and has no limitation with lifting or with remaining seated. In his May 13, 2013 letter, the general practitioner clarified that the appellant's lifting capacity is limited to 1 O lbs. due to severe respiratory difficulties. At the hearing, the appellant stated that he can climb less than 2 to 5 stairs and can only lift less than 10 lbs., but he could sit all day and he can walk but he has to stop to rest. The general practitioner did not indicate any assistive devices used by the appellant, and wrote "N/A" or not applicable in this section of the assessor report. Although the advocate argued that the appellant requires a nebulizer which is an assistive device, the panel finds that it does not meet the definition in the legislation, as being " ... a device designed to enable a person to perform a daily living activity that, because of a severe mental or physical impairment, the person is unable to perform", but is, rather, a device used to deliver medication. The appellant is assessed as independent with all mobility and physical ability tasks, including with walking indoors and outdoors, climbing stairs, standing and lifting and carrying and holding. The general practitioner • commented that the appellant " ... does these activities much slower than normal person." In his May 13, 2013 letter, the general practitioner clarified that, for mobility and physical ability, the appellant's AOL's take significantly longer, i.e. up to 5 times longer to complete than a typical healthy person, due to his severe respiratory difficulties. The general practitioner added that lifting, carrying and holding require continuous assistance which is not currently available to the appellant and that he requires assistance in carrying purchases to his home " ... if there are several heavy bags." The panel finds that the appellant requires assistance for heavier loads in excess of 10 lbs. The appellant wrote in his self-report included with the PWD application that it is very frustrating not being able to perform simple tasks without stopping and relaxing, doing breathing exercises, then finishing the task and that everything takes so long to accomplish. At the hearing, the appellant stated that he is alright at home where he has a dehumidifier and the air quality is controlled but to go outside, if it is hot or raining or too cold, which is much of the lime, it is really hard on him. The appellant stated that it used to take him an hour to mow the lawn and now it can take him up to 4 days. In his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant wrote that "significantly slower" is a rate that no one is willing to pay (an employee) for, as it is a slow speed that requires frequent breaks and sometimes a nap. The panel finds that the evidence demonstrates that the appellant's condition is progressive and exacerbated by the weather and air quality, while currently managed by medications. While taking the appellant longer to perform his mobility and physical activities, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant is, nevertheless, able to function independently and effectively for a reasonable duration, managing physically-demanding activities such as mowing the lawn. Although the speed with which the appellant performs his activities may make him unable to work, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that employability is not a criterion set out in the legislation for PWD designation. Therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant's level of independent physical functioning does not establish that the appellant has a severe physical impairment under section 2(2) of the EAPWDA.
I APPEAL# Severe Mental Impairment The appellant did not advance an argument with respect to a severe mental impairment. The ministry's position is that there was no diagnosis of a mental health condition. The ministry argued that while several deficits to cognitive and emotional functioning were identified, this was further described by the general practitioner as "appropriate concern if progression of condition." The ministry argued that the impacts to daily functioning were mostly moderate with one minimal impact, and this category is intended for applicants with an identified mental impairment or brain injury. The ministry argued that there was no diagnosis by the general practitioner and his narrative describing the appellant's frustration and difficulty dealing with his medical conditions does not support a finding of a severe mental impairment. Panel Decision The general practitioner did not diagnose a mental disorder in the physician report as part of the PWD application. The general practitioner reported the appellant does not have difficulties with communication and the appellant has a good ability to communicate in all areas. The general practitioner reported significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in the areas of emotional disturbance, motivation, and other ("frustration and anger") and commented that there is "appropriate concern with progression of his condition." In his self-report included with the PWD application, the appellant wrote that it is very frustrating and annoying realizing this condition will not improve. In the assessor report, the general practitioner reported no major impacts to cognitive and emotional functioning, with moderate impacts in the areas of emotion, motivation, and other emotional or mental problems, and no or minimal impacts to the remaining 10 areas of functioning. The general practitioner noted that the appellant is " ... finding disability very frustrating and difficult to deal with. Psychological effects affect all aspects of his life with reduced sense of health, happiness and fulfillment. Social aspects of disease becoming more prevalent." However, the general practitioner did not complete the section of the report addressing restrictions to social functioning, crossing it out and indicting "N/A", or not applicable. The panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that a severe mental impairment was not established under section 2(2) of the EAPWDA. I Restrictions in the ability to perform DLA The appellant's position is that his physical impairment directly and significantly restricts his ability to perform DLA on an ongoing basis to the point that he requires the significant assistance of another person with tasks of many of his DLA. The advocate argued that in the assessor report the general practitioner has identified many tasks that takes the appellant significantly longer than typical and this has been clarified, in the May 13, 2013 letter, to mean 4 to 5 times longer. The general practitioner also elaborated that the appellant requires continuous assistance with carrying purchases home when shopping, a minimum of once per month. The advocate argued that the appellant requires an assistive device, being a nebulizer, and he does not currently use one because he cannot afford it, but that does not change his need for it. The ministry's position is that the general practitioner reported that all DLA are performed independently. The ministry argued that while a number of tasks take significantly longer to perform due to shortness of breath on exertion, the appellant manages to complete these tasks by breaking the task into segments. The ministry argued that the general practitioner marked "NIA" to any restriction to social functioning. The ministry argued ttiat as all DLA are performed independently and require no help from another person, the information from the prescribed professional does not establish that impairment significantly restricts the appellant's DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods. · Panel Decision The evidence of the appellant's general practitioner of 15 years is that the appellant is independent with all
I APPEAL# mobility and physical ability tasks, including with walking indoors and outdoors but " ... does these activities much slower than normal person," which has been clarified as 4 to 5 times longer. The general practitioner indicated that the appellant can walk less than 1 block unaided, and the appellant stated at the hearing that he can walk but needs to rest after a short distance. The general practitioner indicated in the assessor report that 2 out of 8 tasks of the DLA personal care are performed independently while 6 out of 8 tasks take significantly longer than typical (dressing, grooming, bathing, transfers in/out of bed and on/off of chair), which has been clarified in the May 13, 2013 letter as being 4 times longer than typical. The general practitioner reported that the appellant takes significantly longer than typical with laundry and basic housekeeping, which has been clarified by the general practitioner to be 5 times longer than typical. The general practitioner wrote in his May 13, 2013 letter that these tasks take the appellant significantly longer to complete due to fatigue and having to rest on a fairly regular basis. For example, whereas washing the floor could take a healthy person approximately 10 minutes to complete, it can take up to 50 minutes for the appellant to complete due to his fatigue and having to take numerous breaks throughout the chore. The panel finds that although it takes the appellant longer to complete, he is able to manage physically-demanding tasks such as washing the floor, with the accommodation of taking breaks. For daily shopping, the general practitioner indicated in the assessor report that the appellant is independent with reading prices and labels, making appropriate choices and paying for purchases, while taking significantly longer than typical with going to and from stores and carrying purchases home due to shortness of breath on exertion. The general practitioner wrote in his letter that the these tasks take the appellant significantly longer tb complete due to fatigue and having to rest on a fairly regular basis. The appellant requires assistance in carrying purchases to his home if there are several heavy bags and this occurs a minimum of once a month. The general practitioner assessed the appellant as being independent with meal planning and safe storage of food, and as taking significantly longer than typical with food preparation and cooking, with the comment "frequent stops and interruptions." The general practitioner clarified in his letter that food preparation/ cooking take the appellant a significant amount of time, i.e. up to 4 to 5 times longer, than a typical, healthy person. The general practitioner indicated in the assessor report that the appellant is independent with all tasks of paying rent and bills and managing medications, but in his May 13, 2013 letter the general practitioner clarified that the tasks of banking and filling/refilling prescriptions take the appellant a significant amount of time, i.e. up to 4 to 5 times longer than a typical, healthy person. The general practitioner assessed the appellant as taking significantly longer than typical with getting in and out of a vehicle and using public transit, and independent with using transit schedules and arranging transportation. The general practitioner added comments that the appellant has " ... lack of vitality, low energy, restriction of activities due to exertional dyspnea" and clarified in his letter that it takes the appellant up to 4 to 5 times longer than typical. The panel finds that the general practitioner did not indicate a need for assistance with any task of managing meals, finances, medications or transportation. For social functioning, the general practitioner has not completed the section of the assessor report for support or supervision needed, marking it as not applicable to the appellant. The evidence from the general practitioner, as a prescribed professional, in the assessor report is that the appellant manages to perform virtually all aspects of DLA without the assistance of another person or the use of an assistive device. The advocate argued that the appellant requires a nebulizer as an assistive device; however, the panel finds that it does not meet the definition in the legislation, as discussed previously. While requiring assistance from another person with carrying purchases home, this need for assistance has been defined as occurring if there are several heavy bags, a minimum of once a month. The panel finds that the appellant requires assistance for heavier loads in excess of 10 lbs. and that the need for assistance, while periodic, is not for extended periods of time. The general practitioner indicated in his letter that any activities requiring mobility and/or physical exertion can take the appellant up to 4 times longer than anyone else; however, the panel finds that the evidence demonstrates that the appellant retains an ability to perform a range of DLA, including heavier tasks of washing the floor and yard maintenance, by performing these tasks in segments. The oanel finds that the ministrv reasonablv concluded that there is not enouah evidence from the
I APPEAL# prescribed professional to establish that the appellant's impairment significantly restricts his ability to manage his DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods, thereby not satisfying the legislative criterion of section 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA. Help to perlorm DLA The appellant's position is that many tasks of DLA take him 4 to 5 times longer than typical and he, therefore, requires the significant assistance of another person to perform DLA. The advocate also argued that the appellant requires an assistive device. The ministry's position is that because it has not been established that DLA are significantly restricted, it cannot be determined that significant help is required. The ministry argued that the no assistive devices are required. Panel Decision Section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA requires that, as a result of direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA, a person requires help to perform those activities. Help is defined in subsection (3) as the requirement for an assistive device, the significant help or supervision of another person, or the services of an assistance animal in order to perform a DLA. The prescribed professional indicated in the assessor report that the appellant requires help from his family and friends "mainly for exertion," and the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that as direct and significant restrictions in the appellant's ability to perform DLA have not been established, it cannot be determined that the appellant requires help to perform DLA as a result of those restrictions, as defined by section 2(3)(b) of the EAPWDA. Conclusion Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the ministry's reconsideration decision which determined that the appellant was not eligible for PWD designation was reasonably supported by the evidence, and therefore confirms the decision.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.