PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) dated 20 January 2014 denying the appellant designation as a person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry determined that the appellant did not meet all of the required criteria for PWD designation set out in the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, section 2. Specifically, the ministry determined that thr3 information provided did not establish that the appellant has a severe mental or physical impairment that in the opinion of a prescribed professional (i) directly and significantly restricts his ability to perform daily living activities (DLA) either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and, (ii) as a result of those restrictions, he requires help to perform those activities. The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other 2 criteria: he has reached 18 years of age and his impairment in the opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years. 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 EAAT003(10/06/01)
PART E -Summar of Facts The evide nc e bef or e the mini s tty at re consideration 1. The appellant's P WD Desi gn a t i on Applicati • A Physician RepoIi (PR ) dated 21 August 2013, compl practitioner (GP) who has know n the appellant for 3 yea times in the past year. Attache d to the PR December 2011 and 2 medical imaging re below). • An Assessor Rep o rt (AR) of the same date completed by t • A S e lf Report (SR) comple t ed by th e a ppel 2 . The appellant's Request fo r Reconside rati on, dated 16 December 2013. In the PR, the G P diagnos es the appel lant's impairment a pul monary d isease), on s e t 2 011 . The p anel wil l fi r s t s ummari ze the e vi d en c e fr om the the app ell ant's impairments a s it rela1es to t h e PWD cri Se ver i ty/ h e alth hi st o ry Physic a l i m p ai rment P R : Under health history, the GP wr ite s: "shortness of b The GP indica t e s that th e appella n t has no t been pre interfer e with his ab i lity to perf orm DLA. T he GP a l pr ost hes e s or a id s fo r his i mpairm ent. As to functional skills, the GP reports t hat t he a p pel step s, with no li m i t ations as to li fti ng or remaining se AR: The GP indicates that the appellant's impairment that impacts his abil sh o rtness of breath on exertion. Pulmonary function analysis: 0 2 s aturation o f 9 4 % on room air. D i agnos t i c i maging report, 1 9 April 2013: The lungs are quite overinflated with an attenuation; there is crowding of busy lower markings but there is no evidence of consolidation or plural effusions; no mass or adenopathy is identified. Impression: COPD. No acute findings or evidence of heart failure. D_ ia g nostic imagi n _g_@[l_() rt, 17 _J uly_2 Q _'3L _:_ __ EAA T003( I 0/0c/0 I ) consisted of the following: o n dated 27 April 2 0 1 3. The A pplication contained : et ed by the app e lla nt's gen er al rs an d has seen him 11 or more are a p u lmonary fun c tion analysis dated 10 ports dated 19 Ma rc h 2 0 1 3 and 17 July 2013 ( see he G P. lant. s severe COPD ( c hro n ic obstru cti ve P R, the AR a nd the med ical reports relat in g to teria at is sue . r eath on ex er ti on , seve re ." scri bed any medi cation a nd/ o r tre a tmen ts t h at so i ndicates t h at the appellan t doe s n ot require any l a nt can wall< 1 to 2 blocks un ai d e d , cli mb 5+ a t ed. ity t o m anage DLA i s his
I m p r e s s i o n : N o e v i d e n c e o f d i v e r t i c u l i t i s . S i g m o i d M e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t P R : T h e G P i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s n o d i f f i c u l t T h e G P a s s e s s e s t h e a p p e l l a n t w i t h n o s i g n i f i c a n t A R : T h e G P a s s e s s e s a s s a t i s f a c t o r y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a N o i m p a c t s o n d a i l y f u n c t i o n i n g a r e r e p o r t e d f o r a n A b i l i t y t o p e rf o r m D L A P R : T h e G P i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s i m p a i r m e n t s D L A , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e A R . A R : T h e G P r e p o r t s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t l i v e s w i t h h i s f a t R e g a r d i n g m o b i l i t y a n d p h y s i c a l a b i l i t y , t h e G P p r o p a r e n t h e s i s ) : • W a l k i n g i n d o o r s , w a l k i n g o u t d o o r s a n d c l i m p e r s o n o r u n a b l e ( + + + s h o r t n e s s o f b r e a t h ) . • S t a n d i n g i n d e p e n d e n t . • L i f t i n g a n d c a r r y i n g a n d h o l d i n g p e r i o d i c a T h e G P c o m m e n t s : " s e v e r e C O P D . " T h e G P a s s e s s e s t h e a s s i s t a n c e r e q u i r e d f o r m a n a p a r e n t h e s e s ) , n o t i n g t h a t a l l D L A t a k e 3 x l o n g e r : • P e r s o n a l c a r e i n d e p e n d e n t i n a l l a s p e c t s . • B a s i c h o u s e k e e p i n g p e r i o d i c a s s i s t a n c e f r o h o u s e k e e p i n g ( s h o r t n e s s o f b r e a t h l i m i t s f u n • S h o p p i n g c o n t i n u o u s a s s i s t a n c e f r o m a n o t ( s h o r t n e s s o f b r e a t h ) ; i n d e p e n d e n t f o r r e a d i n a n d p a y i n g f o r p u r c h a s e s ; p e r i o d i c a s s i s t a n c p u r c h a s e s h o m e . • M e a l s i n d e p e n d e n t f o r m e a l p l a n n i n g , f o o d a s s i s t a n c e f r o m a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r u n a b l e f o • P a y r e n t a n d b i l l s i n d e p e n d e n t i n a l l a s p e c • M e d i c a t i o n s i n d e p e n d e n t i n a l l a s p e c t s . • T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n d e p e n d e n t i n a l l a s p e c t s W i t h r e s p e c t t o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n i n g t h e G P a s s e s s e s a p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l d e c i s i o n s , d EJ \/ e l o p i n � g a n d m a i n t E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )d i v e r t i c u l o s i s . i e s w i t h c o m m u n i c a t i o n d e f i c i t s w i t h c o g n i t i v e a n d e m o t i o n a l f u n c t i o n . b i l i t y i n s p e a k i n g , r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g a n d h e a r i n g . y m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t . d i r e c t l y r e s t r i c t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m h e r , b u t h e i s a c a r e g i v e r f o r t h e f a t h e r v i d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g a s s e s s m e n t s ( h e r c o m m e n t s i n b i n g s t a i r s c o n t i n u o u s a s s i s t a n c e f r o m a n o t h e r s s i s t a n c e f r o m a n o t h e r p e r s o n . g i n g D L A a s f o l l o w s ( t h e G P ' s c o m m e n t s i n m a n o t h e r p e r s o n r e q u i r e d f o r l a u n d r y a n d b a s i c c t i o n ) . h e r p e r s o n o r u n a b l e f o r g o i n g t o a n d f r o m s t o r e s g p r i c e s a n d l a b e l s , m a k i n g a p p r o p r i a t e c h o i c e s , e f r o m a n o t h e r p e r s o n r e q u i r e d f o r c a r r y i n g p r e p a rn t i o n a n d s a f e s t o r a g e o f f o o d ; c o n t i n u o u s r c o o k i n g ( s h o r t n e s s o f b r e a t h o n e x e r t i o n ) . t s . t h e a p p e l l a n t a s i n d e p e n d e n t f o r m a k i n g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i n t e r a c t i n g � a p p r o p r i a !El l y w i t h
others, ability to deal appropriately with unexpected demands and ability to secure assistance from others. The GP reprnis that the appellant has good functioning with his immediate and extended social networks. Help provided/required PR: The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids for his impairment. AR: The GP does not indicate that the appellant routinely uses any assistive device; nor does he have an assistance animal. The GP states that the appellant will eventually need oxygen therapy. Self report In his SR, the appellant describes his disability as COPD. He writes that it affects him in the following ways: • His shortness of breath comes on so strong doing simple tasks such as taking out the garbage and he has to stop to catch his breath. Just vacuuming some days seems to be a struggle. • Walking up a flight of stairs, he needs to stop for a minute to catch his breath. Nowadays, to do a simple task he needs the help of friends. • His breathing is difficult and near impossible without his inhalers. Sometimes he is very scared that he will not be able to catch his breath back. He also has diverticulitis -this intestinal disease affects him in the following ways: • Most days in the morning it takes him about an hour to two hours just to get the pain under control so he can start his day. • When he has a bowel movement it usually leaves him in a lot of pain, so he needs to lie down for 15 to 20 minutes. 0 The pain can come on at any time without warning, causing him to sweat profusely and be doubled over with waves of pain. • It is veIy unpredictable when or how intense the attack will be. • It always seems that he is in discomfort or excruciating pain. In the Request for Reconsideration the appellant writes: "After rereading my explanation of how my COPD (emphysema) affects me, I realize I didn't go into enough detail. My ability to do any strenuous thing is gone. Just showering I have to stop to catch rny breath. \/1/alking to the front door of the house is hard to do. After 30 to 40 feet I have to stop to catch my bi-eath. Sometimes this can take up to 2 to 3 min. In the cold weather or hot temp it is even worse. I cannot mow the lawn for example. I have to ask friends to l1elp me out with simple tasks such as housecleaning and taking in the garbage." In his Notice of Appeal, dated 28 January 2014, the appellant writes: �-�-�-'.'My abiil ty to walk distEinc,3s & lift.thing_ ,sj� very lin,i1El,<J.jv1y doctor ,½'§D!��to�CJ�()VElf"Wh_at�� EAAT003(10/D6101)
she wrote as well and send me to a specialist so u people can be better informed as to my limitations." At the hearing, the appellant pointed to an error in the AR: he is not his father's caregiver; rather, under circumstances that the panel cormiders not relevant to this appeal, they simply live under the same roof. The appellant expressed his frustration that throughout this process the hearing was the first time he had had the opportunity to actually talk to a human being concerning his disability. He stated that he was not able to do the work he used to do and that his doctor had provided the form to the ministry two years ago confirming that lie was unemployable. He described how he is constantly taking puffers and steroids for his shortness of breath, that he could walk only 30-40 feet before having to stop and take a breath. Anything that a healthy person could do in 5 minutes would take him 15 to 20 minutes. He can drive to the store and can walk to the store entrance as long as he parks close by, but he has to lean on a shopping cart arid take frequent rests. He can cook his own meals, but these tend to be simple ones and he will have to sit down while peeling vegetables, etc. The appellant submitted the following documents: • A note from his GP dated 12 February 2014 which reads: [The appellant] lias friflnds help him with groceries, frequently stops to catch his breath on all tasks. He uses multiple inhalers on claily basis. His Dad is simply his roommate." • A "To whom it may concern" letter dated 16 February 2014 from a friend who has known the appellant for around 1 0 years. She writes that she has watched his health declined due to his emphysema, more so in the past two years. She writes: "I have taken it upon myself to help [the appellant] with keeping his home and yard in relative upkeep, repair and ck=ianliness. I decided I would help my friend after noticing that he struggles to catch his breath just from canying his groceries. .. I will come over after work to make sure he's okay and I usually do the dishes for him and do a quick clean up around the house. I take the garbage out for him as walking and carrying things is difficult for him, as well as laundry because the washer and dIyer is downstairs ... [The appellant] has trouble with stairs. I am scared for my friend and I see him having a hard time breathing just from putting his shoes on ...." • A "To whom it may concern" letter dated 17 February 2014 from another friend, who has known the appellant for 12 years. She describes how his health has gradually changed, and goes on to write: " .... I take it upon myself to assist [the appellant] with as much of his day-to-day living as I can. I do the more intense cleaning around the house, about every two weeks. There is no way [the appellant] could scrub out a bathtub let alone inhale the cleaning products! I also help him run errands like picking up groceries or prescriptions. [The appellant] tires easily because of his breathing and has to use a earl to stabilize himself if we are on a particularly long (longer than·! 0-i 5 mins.) shopping trip ... " The ministry pi-esented a writte11 submission which sum11121rized the 1·econsideration decision. The ministry did not object to the ;:;dmbsibility of tl1e documents submitted by the appellant. The panel finds that the information provided by the appellant in his Notice of Appeal, in his oral testimony and in the documents submitted at the he2 , ring is in support of the evidence before the ministry when iLl]iJdE,_thn dec i5,.iClr��unclexc1[)Qecal, cl,irif)'ing his reference,; to nelp proc vided in his self re ort and EAAT 003(1 0/06/01)
R e q u e s t f o r H e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h e p a n e l t h e r e f o r e u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t '-- ------------� ---· -· · --· -E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 1 0 1 )a d m i t s t h e i n f o n n a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e a p p e l l a n t a n c e A c t . ---' -· ------------
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant is ineligible for PWD designation because he did not meet all the requirements in section 2 of the EAPWDA. Specifically the ministry determined that the information provided did not establish that the appellant has a severe mental or physical impairment that in the opinion of a prescribed professional (i) directly and significantly restricts his ability to perform daily living activities either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and, (ii) as a result of those restrictions he requires help to perform those activities. The ministry determined that he met the 2 other criteria in EAPWDA section 2(2) set out below. The following section of the EAPWOA applies to this appeal: 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 w ith 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 include3 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. The following section of the EAPVVDH applies to this appeal: 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, (iv) use public or personal tmnsportation facilities; (v) perform housework to maintain the person's place of residence in acceptable sanitary condition; (vi) move about indoors and outdoors; vii erform ersonal hygiene and self care;�----� EAA T003(1 0/0G/01 )
(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 interaG! with others effectivel:1-The panel will consider each party's position regarding the reasonableness of the ministry's decision under the applicable PWD criteria at issue in this appeal. Severitv of impairment For PWD designation, the legislcition requires that a severe mental or physical impairment be established. The determination of the severity of impairment is at the discretion of the minister, taking into account all the evidence, including that of the applicant. However, the starting point must be medical evidence, with the legislation requiring that a medical practitioner (in this case, the appellant's GP) identify the impairment nnd confirm that impairment will continue for at least two years. In the discussion below concerning thEJ information provided regarding the severity of the appellant's impairments, the panel hns drawn upon the ministry's definition of "impairment." This definition consists of "cause" and "impact" components: ''impairment is a loss or abnormality of psychological, anatomical or physiological structure or function [the cause] causing a restriction in the ability to function independently, effectively, appropriately or for a reasonable duration [impact]." This definition is not set out in legislation and is not binding on the panel, but in the panel's view it appropriately describes the legislative intent. Tl1e cause is usually set out as a disease, condition, syndrome, injury or even a symptom (e.g. pain or shortness of breath). A severe impairment requires the identified cause to have a significant impact on daily functioning. The panel also notes that the legislation r·equires that for P\ND designation, the minister must be "satisfied" that the person has a severe mental or physical impairment. For the minister to be "satisfied" that the person's impairment is severe, the panel considers it reasonable for the ministry to expect that the information provided presents a clear and complete picture of the nature and extent of the impacts of the person's medical conditions on daily functioning. Physical impairment In the reconsideration decision, the ministry r·eviews the GP's assessment that the appellant requires continuom; assistance with walking indoors and outdoors and climbing stairs due to shortness of breath and periodic assistance with liftin9 and carrying and holding, noting that no information is provided on how often he requires assistance. The ministry finds it difficult to develop a clear and coherent picture regarding the appellant's physical and mobility abilities as the GP indicated that the appellant is able to walk 1-2 blocks unaided, climb 5+ steps unaided and has no limitations in lifting. Based on the information provided the rninistry found that ,here is not enough evidence to establish a severe physical impairment. The position of the appellant is that his COPD and resulting shortness of breath limits his every activity: after just walking 30 --40 feet he rnust stop to catch his breath, taking 2 -4 minutes to do so. And while would take a normal person 5 minutes takes him 15-20 minutes. This is sufficient evidence to establish.a severe physical impairrnent. EAAT003(10/0G/01)
� -------------------·-· �-----Panel fi nd i ng s The evidence is that his GP has diagnosed the a p breath on exertion . The panel notes that the diagnosis of a c dete rm inative of a se v e re i mp airment. The issue is condition restricts his daily functionin g , and specifically his Before p r o ceeding further, t he p anel not es that in the difficulties he has ex peri enced wi t h his flare-ups o f found "No evidence of diverticulitis. Sigmoid diverticulosis." F di vertic ulosis/d iverti cul i tis as an impairment that would conti t h at the ministry was reasonable in not con s idering this cond the appel lant's physical impairme n t. The min i st1 y's reco nsideration decis ion reviewed a assess ment s related to mo bi l ity in the) P R and the AR: a bl e to wal l< 1 to 2 blocks un a ided and cli m b 5+ st eps r eq ui ring c o ntinuo us ass is ta nce f rom another p er s a nd climb i ng stairs, with the commen t" + ++ s hortne only wal k 30-40 fee t be for e he has to stop to c at c l1 li m it ations in th e AR the GP asse ss es the appel lant i DLA re q u irin g phys i c al ef for t , in c lu din g personal ca D LA). Based on the eviden ce p r o vided b y t h e ap pellant pr o v i ded f ro m hi s friends for d a ily w a shing di shes, a he l p wi th occasional erran ds s uch as ta ki ng the ga eviden ce how ever, the pa nel fi n ds that the minist ry w ph ysic a l i mp a irmen t h a d not been estab lisl1 e d. M e n ta l imp airment. T he pos ition of the ministry is that as the GP has not indicat emotional functions and no difficulties with communicat established. At the hearing the appell;;mt indicated that he his impairment was entirely physical, not mental. As the GP has not diaiinosed a mental h0allh condition and for the reas ministry, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable in determining that a severe mental impairment had not been established. Significant restrictions in tlw abilitv.Jg_12.elform DLA. The position of the ministry is that, wh:le acknowledging that the appellant has condition, considering all of tile informc1tion provided by tha GP, ti,e ministry does not have enough evidence to confirm that tile appellrn1t's imp8irrnerits directly and significantly restrict his ability to pe1iorm DLA either con t in u ously or p eriodically for m conc lusion after reviewing__tt1E,_~Af, wb_er_e th,J GP indicates that the� EMT 003(1 0/06/01) -----------------� pell a n t with COPD, res ulting in sever e sh or t ness o f hronic conditio n is in itself not t he degre e to wh i c h the appellant's medic al ability to perform DLA. S R the c1ppellant desc ribed at some lengt h the diverticulitis. One o f the m edic al imagin g reports urther, as the GP did no t diagn o se nue fo r at l e a st 2 y ea rs, the pa nel finds it i o n i n its de t ermination of the seve ri ty of bove note d the i ncons i ste n cies bet ween the i n the PR the GP rep o rts t ha t the appell a n t is una i ded, w h il e i n the AR he is a ssessed as on or u n a ble f o r walking in door s, w a l king outd oors s s o f breath." The a ppell a n t ex p l ained that h e c a n his br e ath. The panel notes that despite these ndepe ndent for th e maj ority of a spe c ts of other re and t ran s p o1 iati on . (See a lso bel ow r egardin g at the he a r i ng, he be nefits from as sis tance major cleanup of his horne e v e ry t wo weeks and rbage out or w hi l e shopping. B ase d on al l this a s reasonable in dete rm ini ng that a sever e ed any impa cts with cognitive and ion, a sev e re m ental i m pairment h as no t been o ns given by the a serious medical dended periods. Th e ministry came to thi s ellant needs continuous
assistance with going to/from stores and cooking due to shortness of breath, and that he requires periodic assistance with laundry, basic housel<eepin9 and carrying purchases home. The ministry notes, however, that no information is provided on how often he requires this assistance. The remainder of his DLA are independent and theI·e was no indication that they tal<e significantly longer to pe1iorm. In addition the GP indicates that the appellanI is independent in all aspects of his social functioning. The appellant's position is that his COPD and resulting shortness of breath significantly restrict his ability to manage his DLA on an ongoing basis, to the point where he needs the help of friends to do his dishes, clean his house, run errands and assist him with grocery shopping. He submits that the evidence clearly shows that this criterion has been met. Panel fincflhgs The panel notes that, according to the legislation, the direct and significant restriction in the ability to perform DLA must be a result of a severe impairment, a criterion which has not been established in this appeal. This DLA criterion must also be considered in terms of the preceding legislative language of section 2 of the EAPWDA, which provides that the minister may designate a person as a person with disabilities "if the minister is satisfied that" the criteria are met, including this one. In exercising the discretion conferred by the legislation, it is reasonable that the minister would expect that the opinion of a prescribed professional be substantiated by information from the prescribed professional that would satisfy the minister that there are direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA, either continuously or periodically for extended periods, by presenting a clear and complete picture of the nature and extent of thHs13 restrictions, The appellant's prescribed professional -his t3P •has assessed the appellant as requiring continuous assistance from another person or· un&ble for moving about indoors and outdoors, while reporting that he can walk ·1-2 blocks unaided. He is also s,ssessed as requiring continuous assistance for cool<ing, but at the hearing the appellant stated that he is able to do his own cooking. The GP also assessed the appellant as requiring continuous assistance from another person for going to/from stores, while at the liearing the appellant stated that tie can drive his vehicle to stores, but sometimes needs help from a friend in the store, while leaning on a shopping cart while shopping. In the letters submitted on appeal, the GP st:,tos that the appellant has friends help him with groceries, and that he frequently stops to catch his breath on all tasks, albeit slowly. The letters from his friends indicate that he benefits from their help for daily washing dishes, a major cleanup of his home every two weel<s and with occasional errands such as taking tl1e garbage out or while shopping. Considering the inconsistencies in the e'✓idence, the modest level of help provided by his friends and the absence of any detailed narrative from the GP as to how, how often, in what way and under what circumstances the appdlant's shortness of breath restricts his ability to perform DLA, the panel finds that the ministry, while acknowl<,idging thc1t tile appellant has a serious medical condition, reasonably deiermined that there was not nave enough evidenei" to confirm that his DLA are directly and significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods. Help wiefl DL4 The mini:,try's position is that as it has not been eGtablishecl that DLA are significantly restricted, it cann CJ t _i)."l determined tl1a t § i g nlfi c c117t i1e! J .l is r c:!gu ir ()_ d fr () rn other perso rl_ S ::.:. '· ____ _ __ _ _ _J_ EAAT 003(10l06i01)
T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t t t w l e t t e r s f r o m h i s a r o u n d h i s h o m e a n d f o r e r r a n d s o u t s i d e t h e h o m e P a n e l f i n d i n g s T h e p a n e l n o t e s t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t i n f o r h e l p m u s t a r i s e f r o m d i r e c t a n d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s t r c o n t i n u o u s o r p e r i o d i c f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s . T h e p t h a t s i n c e i t h a s n o t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t D L A a r e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t h e l p i s r e q u i r e d a r , p r o v i d e d u n d e r C o n c l u s i o n H a v i n g r e v i e w e d a n d c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e a p p e l l -=1 r 1 t w a s n o t e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . T h e p a n e l t h e m f o rn c o --------------· · · · · --· -E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 I )f r i e n d s d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e r e q u i r e s t h e i r h e l p . t h e o p i n i o n o f a p r e s c r i b e d p r o f e s s i o n a l t h e n e e d i c t i o n s i n t h e a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m D L A t h a t a r e e i t h e r a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m i n e d d i r e c t l y a n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e s t r i c t e d , i t c a n n o t b e s e c t i o n 2 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( i i ) o f t h e E A P W D A . e a n d t h e r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t l i g i b l e f o r P V I/ D d e B i g n a t i o n w a s r e a s o n a b l y n f i r m s t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i B i o n . --------------�
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.