APPEAL# : PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "Ministry") February 5, 2014 reconsideration denying the Appellant's request for Lympha Press Compression therapies because the Ministry determined that this type of therapy is not an eligible health supplement under Schedule C section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation and therefore the Ministry does not have the authority to fund such treatments. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation ("EAPWDR") Section 62 and Schedule C Section 2. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
P A R T E S u m rn a r v o f F a c t s W i t h t h e c o n s e n t o f b o t h p a rt i e s , t h e h e a r i n g w a s c 2 2 ( 3 ) ( b ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t . F o r i t s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n , t h e M i n i s t r y h a d t h 1 . I n f o r m a t i o n f r o m i t s r e c o r d s t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t r e D i s a b i l i t i e s ( " P W D " ) . 2 . N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 l e t t e r f r o m a f a m i l y n u r s e p r f u n d i n g f o r t h e t h e r a p y a n d s t a t i n g t h a t : • T h e A p p e l l a n t n e e d s L y m p h a P r e s s c o m p r e a r m l y m p h e d e m a s e c o n d a r y t o r i g h t r a d i c a l • I n t h e 9 y e a r s s i n c e h e r s u r g e r y , t h e A p p e l l a m u l t i p l e c o u r s e s o f a n t i b i o t i c s , i n c l u d i n g s e v i n t r a v e n o u s a n t i b i o t i c t r e a t m e n t . • T h e A p p e l l a n t ' s s i t u a t i o n w o u l d b e m u c h w o • T h e A p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t h a v e t h e f i n a n c i a l m t r a v e l e x p e n s e s t o a n o t h e r c i t y f o r t r e a t m e n t 3 . A p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n w h i c h s • S h e n e e d s t h i s s e r v i c e w e e k l y t o k e e p t h e s • T h e s w e l l i n g s h e h a s i s s i g n i f i c a n t . • S h e e n c l o s e d t h e l e t t e r f r o m t h e n u r s e p r a c t t h e r a p y . • T h e r e i s c o v e r a g e f o r r e l a t e d t h i n g s l i k e m a s F o r t h i s a p p e a l , t h e A p p e l l a n t p r o v i d e d a w r i t t e n s t a P a r t F o f t h i s d e c i s i o n . T h e M i n i s t r y r e l i e d o n a n d r T h e P a n e l m a k e s t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t : 1 . T h e A p p e l l a n t r e c e i v e s d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e a s a 2 . A n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e r s u p p o r t e d t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s r e c o m p r e s s i o n t h e r a p y t r e a t m e n t . E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L # o n d u c t e d a s a w r i t t e n h e a r i n g p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n e f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e : c e i v e s d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e a s a P e r s o n w i t h a c t i t i o n e r t o s u p p o r t t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r s s i o n t h e r a p y t r e a t m e n t f o r m a n a g e m e n t o f r i g h t m a s t e c t o m y a n d l y m p h n o d e r e s e c t i o n i n 2 0 0 4 . n t h a s h a d r e c u r r e n t r i g h t a r m c e l l u l i t i s r e q u i r i n g e r a l v i s i t s t o t h e e m e r g e n c y d e p a rt m e n t f o r r s e w i t h o u t r o u t i n e L y m p h a P r e s s t h e r a p y . e a n s t o i n d e p e n d e n t l y f u n d h e r t h e r a p y , i n c l u d i n g . h e w r o t e t h a t : w e l l i n g d o w n i n h e r a r m a s a r e s u l t o f c a n c e r . i t i o n e r t o s u p p o rt h e r n e e d f o r c o v e r a g e o f t h i s s a g e . t e m e n t s t a t i n g h e r p o s i t i o n , w h i c h i s s e t o u t i n e a f f i r m e d i t s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n . P W D . q u e s t f o r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r L y m p h a P r e s s I
P A RT F -R e a sons for Pa n el Decision Th e issue in this app e al is whether the Minist r y reasonably denied the Appellant's Press compres sion therapies be c a u se the Minist r y determined that th eligible health suppl eme n t unde r Sched ule C section 2 of the does not have the aut ho rit y to fund s uch tr e atments. T he foll o win g sections of the EAPWDR app ly to this appeal: G eneral healt h suppl e ments 62(1) Subject to subsect ions (1.1) a nd (1.2), the min in section 2 {gene ral h ealth supplements] o r [medical equipment and a fami l y unit if t he health s u pplement is provided to or for a person in the family unit who is ( a) a recipie nt of disability assis tance. S c he dule C 2 ( 1) T he following ar e the h e a lth s upp leme n t s that may fam ily unit tha t is e l i gib l e und e r section 6 2 [ge neral (c ) (i ii) 1 acu punct ur e ; 2 chiropra c tic; 3 mass age ther ph y s io t herapy. The P a r ties' Positio n s The App ell ant submi t ted t hat th e M inist ry cover s o ther weekly to kee p the swe l ling d own in he r arm as a result of ca $30-40 a we ek which is a l ot for her. A nurse practit t h er a py. Th e Minist ry's p os i t ion is that it doe s not h av e the a Lymph a Pres s c ompr es sion thera p y is not a n elig ib s ect ion 2(1 ). The Panel ' s Findings and Conclusion The P an e l n o tes that u n d er s ect ion 62 of the EAPWDR, for a ssistance such as the Appell a n t , the Ministry may provide only those general health supplements that are set specifi cally set out in section 2 of Schedule C. of therapies eligible for coverage, but Lymph Press compressi also f inds t hat there is no information in the record for this appeal that Lymph Press compression therapy is included in one of the covered therapies, such as massage therapy. Therefore, the Panel finds t h at th e M inist ry rea sonably de termined t ha t it doe treatments under section 62 of the EAPWDR. The P EAA T003(10/06/01) APPEAL# � reque st f o r L ympha is type of ther apy is not an EAPWDR and there fore the Minist r y i s te r may provi de a ny h ealt h su p plement set out devices] of Sch edule C to or f or b e p a id for by the m in i ster i f p r ovided to a healt h supplements] of this reg ula ti on: a py; 4 natur opathy; 5 non-sur gic a l podi a t ry;6 types of mas sage . She need s this s ervi ce n cer. T he Ap pella nt stated tha t i t costs i oner supports her need f or c overage of t h is u thor i ty to fu n d the requested t reatments bec ause l e h eal t h su p ple m e n t p rovided for i n Schedu l e C individuals who receive disability Section 2, cited above, lists several types on therapy is not in that list. The Panel s not have the authority to fund t he reques ted a n e l confirms the recon si deration 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.