PART C-Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (ministry) reconsideration decision dated April 8, 2014 denying the appellant continuing qualification as a Person with Persistent Multiple Barriers (PPMB) to employment upon the renewal of his application. The ministry was not satisfied that two of the criteria set out in section 2 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) had been met: 1. The appellant has a medical condition, that is not an addiction, that has continued for at least one year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years as required by paragraph 2(4)(a); and 2. in the opinion of the minister, the medical condition is a barrier that precludes the appellant from searching for, accepting, or continuing in employment as required by paragraph 2(4)(b). The ministry specifically found that the appellant's medical information indicated his primary medical condition, Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) had not continued for at least 1 year (date of onset July 2013) and was expected to last for less than 2 years; that no date of onset or expected duration was provided for his secondary condition, Hepatitis C; and no date of onset was provided for another secondary condition, Mood Disorder Not Yet Specified (Mood Disorder NOS). The ministry was also not of the opinion that the information provided indicated the appellant's medical conditions present barriers that preclude employment. PART D -Leqislation Employment and Assistance Regulation, section 2 EAAT003(10I06/01)
PART E -Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration consisted of: 1. Information from the ministry's records indicating the appellant was previously approved for PPMB assistance in February 2012 on the basis of two medical conditions, basal cell carcinoma and anxiety; that the approval of the PPMB category would be reviewed within 2 years; and that the appellant had been on income assistance for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months. 2. Medical Report-Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers dated January 9, 2012 (2012 medical report) signed by the appellant's previous physician indicating the appellant had basal cell carcinoma and anxiety since 2007, that these conditions were expected to last for 2 years or more, and that the appellant was unable to work due to surgery. Attached to this report are 2 prescriptions for post operative supplies. 3. Medical Report-Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers dated January 6, 2014 (2014 medical report) signed by the appellant's current physician indicating the following: • Primary medical condition: PMR, with date of onset July 2013; • Secondary medical condition: Hepatitis C, with date of onset left blank; • Treatment: Prednisone for PMR; • Outcome: left blank; • The PMR has existed for 8 months; • Prognosis: "should last less than 2 years"; • Additional comments: the physician check marked that the condition is not episodic in nature; • Restrictions: "extreme weakness and fatigue"; sees a Rheumatologist. 4. Appellant's undated Employability Screen indicating a total score of 11. 5. Request for Reconsideration, si i ned by the appellant on March 25, 2014 and referencing a letter from the appellant dated March 25 and addressed to whom it may concern in which the appellant stated: • Other than PMR he has also been struggling with drug misuse since age 14, and this has caused him many complications including difficulty with maintaining relationships, work and housing. He stated that despite his efforts he expects his struggle to last for more than 2 years. • He also suffers from a mood disorder that has negatively affected his social relationships and working potential. He stated that he is quick to anger, sometimes for no apparent reason in the form of unexplainable rage. • His conditions have contributed to an "unstable precarious life that is hard for me to find and maintain work and a real home." He added that he has been approached by many professionals to apply for disability and he has the full support of his doctor for his PPMB application. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
6. A note from the appellant's current physician, dated March 24, 2014 (March 2014 doctor's note) and recorded in Section 3 of the appellant's Request for Reconsideration. In this note the physician stated: • The appellant "has multiple barriers precluding ability to work." • The appellant has the following diagnoses: Substance Abuse history (started at age 14); Ongoing active PMR; Mood Disorder NOS; and Anger Issues. • The substance abuse, mood disorder, and anger diagnoses are expected to last for more than 2 years, and "The PMR also may last more than 2 years (usually not)". New evidence At the hearing the appellant's advocate introduced a note from the appellant's current physician dated May 9, 2014 (May 2014 doctor's note) in which the physician stated that the appellant has an Anxiety Disorder "for at least 3 years and I do not see this condition improving in the near future." The physician stated that the appellant has also been diagnosed with PMR which causes him significant joint pain and he sees a specialist for that condition. The ministry had no objections to admitting the May 2014 doctor's note into evidence. The panel finds that the note elaborates on the appellant's medical conditions and includes information regarding the onset and duration of a medical condition; therefore, the panel admits it under section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), as testimony in support of information that was before the ministry at the time the decision being appealed was made. In oral testimony, the appellant stated that he got a new physician 2 years ago after his previous physician passed away and they weren't sure which boxes needed to be filled in on his PPMB application. He stated that his PMR caused him to be homeless and make irrational decisions due to pain and prevents him "from walking out the door and being employed like I was all my life." He added that his Mood Disorder was also made worse by the PMR and he takes Diazapam to help him sleep. The appellant stated that his mood disorder causes him difficulty with focusing on priorities and he was never as disorganized in the past. It takes him "90 minutes to get everything together, never mind getting things done" and sometimes he is so overwhelmed that he can't go out the door. He stated that he is really hyper and if he could work for 3 days he would not be able to continue due to his symptoms. He added that he suffers from "randomness of thought" and has to write down everything he needs to do. He has lost his ID 3 times since January and he lost his wallet again 10 days ago. The appellant stated that he doesn't have HIV, and though his Hepatitis C is a chronic condition he no longer has symptoms from it. He experiences anger including "unexplainable rages" that stem from his frustration at not being able to cope and not function the way he used to. In response to questions from the ministry, the appellant stated that he has had PMR for a couple of years but it was not diagnosed until July 2013 because he doesn't like to ask for help and he put off doing so until the pain got very bad. His PMR "may be able to burn itself out in a couple of years" if he stays on medication. Also, the pain is different from his Mood Disorder and anxiety which started happening in 2008 when he had two bouts of pneumonia and lost weight. He added that he still has difficulty keepinq weiqht on and he has not been the same since he had pneumonia. EMT 003(10/06/01)
In response to further questions from the ministry the appellant stated that he worked in a single profession for 30 years, and then had other jobs until 2008 but has been unable to work since then because of significant barriers including "my hands are too stiff and I can't focus due to anxiety." When asked about his substance abuse, he stated that his forgetfulness and difficulty focusing do not stem from his substance abuse because he "quit heroin 11 years ago" and "quit crystal meth on my own." He added that he attended a treatment program from 1999-2002, is not on a methadone program, has lifelong issues from his substance abuse but only uses "prescribed drugs now": diazepam, another drug for his mood disorder, and prednisone for PMR. He believes that his forgetfulness is secondary to his anxiety from "being wound up so tight and having so many things to do that none get done." In response to questions from the panel the appellant stated that the prednisone added to his mood disorder, that his pain has decreased with the treatment, and that while his mood disorder and anxiety are two separate diagnoses "one feeds the other and they do interrelate." In his Notice of Appeal dated April 23, 2014 the appellant stated that he has had anxiety and a mood disorder for at least 3 years, and these conditions will last more than 2 years and they preclude him from finding and maintaining employment. At the hearing, the ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and did not introduce any new evidence. The panel admits the appellant's statements in his Notice of Appeal and oral testimony under section 22(4)(b) of the EAA, as testimony pertaining to his medical conditions and his barriers to employment in support of information that was before the ministry at the time the decision being appealed was made. The panel makes the following findings of fact: 1. The appellant was approved for PPMB assistance in 2012 and this appeal relates to his renewal application dated January 7, 2014. 2. The appellant has a medical condition (Anxiety Disorder), other than an addiction that is confirmed by a medical practitioner, and in the opinion of the medical practitioner has lasted for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years. 3. The appellant is not currently using illegal drugs. 4 . The appellant's medical condition (Anxiety Disorder) causes him difficulty with concentration, organization and memory and he has not worked since 2008. EAAT003(10/06/01)
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry's determinations that the information provided did not establish that the appellant has a medical condition that has continued for at least one year and that the medical condition is a barrier that precludes the appellant from searching for, accepting, or continuing in employment as required by subsection 2(4) of the EAR were reasonably supported by the evidence, or were a reasonable interpretation of the applicable legislation in the circumstances of the ap pe Hant. The sections of the legislation that are relevant to the issue in this appeal are set out as follows: Employment and Assistance Regulation, section 2 Persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment 2(1) To qualify as a person who has persistent multiple barriers to employment, a person must meet the requirements set out in (a) Subsection (2), and (b) Subsection (3) or (4) (2) The person has been a recipient for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months of one or more of the following: (a) income assistance or hardship assistance under the Act, (b) income assistance, hardship assistance or a youth allowance under a former Act. (c) a disability allowance under the Disability Benefits Program Act, or (d) disability assistance or hardship assistance under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. (3) The following requirements apply (a) the minister (i) has determined that the person scores at least 15 on the employability screen set out in Schedule E, and (ii) based on the result of that employability screen, considers that the person has barriers that seriously impede the person's ability to search for, accept or continue in employment, (b) the person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical practitioner and that (i) in the opinion of the medical practitioner, (A) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, or (B) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, and (ii) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that seriously impedes the person's ability to search for, accept or continue in employment, and (c) the person has taken all steps that the minister considers reasonable for the person to overcome the barriers referred to in paragraph (a). (4) The person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical practitioner and that (a) in the opinion of the medical practitioner, (i) has continued for at least 1 year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, or EAA T003(10/06/01)
(ii) has occur red frequently i n the past year an d (b) in t he op inio n o f the mi nister, is a ba r rier t h a t pre o r c ontin uin g i n employm e nt. The pan el not es t h at i n order f or a clie n t t o qualify for the PPM appli c a tion, all of the cr iteria in sect i on 2 o f the EAR appe llant meet s t he require ments i n subsections 2 income a s sistance r eci p ient fo r at least 12 o f t he im mini stry expla ined that b a s e d on the app ella n t ' s e mp remaining f actor s for qua lif ying for PP MB u n der s ubsection 2(4 t h e cr i ter i a set out i n par agra phs 2(4) (a) and 2(4)(b pract itione r ' s opinion that t h e clie nt's me d ical condit t o co n ti nue for at le ast 2 mo r e y ears. Paragr ap h 2(4 t he med i cal co nditio n i s a barrier that pre c l udes the cl in empl o y men t. para g ra p h 2{4)( a ): onset a nd duratio n of m ed i c a Ap pe lla nt 's Positio n T he ap pe llant's p o s itio n is tha t he is not co m pla ining that his physic ian o m i tted t he date of on s et for h i s ( sure wha t information th e ap pell a n t need ed to quali che cked. The a pp e llan t argu ed th at sin c e h e h a s n o wr ite what he thinks " t he May 2 014 doctor's no te confirms f o r P PMB. Specif ic ally , th e phys ician has confirm ed " for a t leas t 3 years" that w ill endu re 2 y ea rs o r mo re Minis try's Position The m in is t ry 's positi o n is that the appella nt is no longer eli m ed ical pra c t itione r has n ot confirmed that the app ellant fo r at least 1 year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years as required by paragr of th e EAR. T he mini stry's arg u ment is summarized a • Pursuant to subsection 2(4 ) of the EAR the ap considered in ass e ss in g eligibility for the PPMB cat • The appellant's PMR does not m eet the onset and because this condition has not lasted for at least one year; • The condition of Mood Disorder NOS could be induced by the appellant's substance abuse or oc c ur concurrently with s u bstanc e abuse or withdrawal from s • The appellant's physician provides no date of onset for the appellant's Mood Disorder NOS; • The appellant's "Anger Issues" is not a medical condition; and • T h e appell ant's phys ician provide s no d ate of onset or ex EAAT 003(10/06/01) and is like l y to cont inue fo r at l east 2 more ye ars, cludes t he per son from s ear ch i ng f or , accepting B quali fication and renew t he ir mu s t be sati sfied . T he mi n ist ry f ound t hat the ( 1) and 2 ( 2 ) of the EAR becaus e he h as be en an med i ately p recedin g 15 c ale n dar m onths . Th e l oya b ility sc reen sc ore of 11, i t assessed th e ) of the EAR. Th i s su b se ct ion requ ire s ) t o be m et. Paragr ap h 2(4 ) ( a) re quires a m edical i on has c o n t inue d fo r a t least 1 ye ar and is l ik e ly )(b) requ ir e s the minist er to h a v e the o pinion that ient from s earch i n g for, a cc e p t in g or c o nti n u ing l condition about his t rea tment b y t he ministry a n d realizes menta l health ) conditio ns . His phy si c ian w as not fy (fo r PPMB) or wha t boxes needed to b e w gone back to h i s phy si c ian a n d a sked him " to t he miss i n g informati on and qua lifies him th at t he appellant has ha d a n Anxiety Disorder into t he f utu r e. g i b le for PPMB qual i f i cation be cause a h as a medic a l condition t h at has continued aph 2(4)(a) s follows: pel lant's s ubstance a buse " cann ot be egory . " d u r at ion requirement i n paragraph 2(4)(a) ubstance d e p e nd e ncy; p e cted duration for Hepatitis C.
P a n e l ' s D e c i s i o n T h e p a n e l ' s t a s k , b a s e d o n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , i s t o d e c r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e m i n i s t r y ' s a s t h e r e l e v a n t e n a c t m e n t , s e c t i o n 2 o f t h e E A R . T h e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t b a s e d o n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i t h a d a t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o f o r a t l e a s t 1 y e a r a n d i s l i k e l y t o c o n t i n u e f o r a t l e a o n s e t o f t h e P M R w a s s h y o f o n e y e a r ( J u l y 2 0 1 3 ) o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s t h e p h y s i c i a n l i s t e d e x c e p t f o r t h e w h i c h a s t h e m i n i s t r y n o t e d c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d i s u b s e c t i o n 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E A R . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n c h e a r i n g a n d a d m i t t e d a s b e i n g i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i n f o t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n w a s m a d e . T h e M a y o b j e c t i o n s t o a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e , c l e a r l y s t a t e s a t l e a s t 3 y e a r s a n d t h i s c o n d i t i o n i s n o t e x p e c t e d t t h e 2 0 1 2 m e d i c a l r e p o r t r e l a t e s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s 2 t h a t t h e p h y s i c i a n w h o f i l l e d o u t t h a t r e p o r t i n d i c a t e e x p e c t e d t o c o n t i n u e f o r 2 y e a r s o r m o r e . I n l i g h t o f A n x i e t y D i s o r d e r , t h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y w i n p a r a g r a p h 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) o f t h e E A R i s n o t f u l f i l l e d . p a r a g r a p h 2 ( 4 ) ( b ) : b a r r i e r t h a t p r e c l u d e s e m p l o y A p p e l l a n t ' s P o s i t i o n T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g h i s m e d i c a l c o n d t h a t h e c a n ' t w o r k b e c a u s e o f t h e p a i n a n d s t i f f n e s s f o c u s , c o n c e n t r a t e , o r g a n i z e , a n d r e m e m b e r t h i n g s h i s s u b s t a n c e a b u s e i s s u e s . H e a r g u e d i n h i s R e q u d i s o r d e r s a f f e c t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d l e v e l o f f r u s t r a m a i n t a i n i n g e m p l o y m e n t . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s h a v e a l s m a k e s i t " h a r d f o r m e t o f i n d a n d m a i n t a i n w o r k " . H c a n n o t " w a l k o u t a n d b e e m p l o y e d " o r " l o a d a t r u c k a r g u e d i n t h e 2 0 1 4 m e d i c a l r e p o r t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n a n d f a t i g u e s e e s a r h e u m a t o l o g i s t " a n d i n t h e M a r t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s " m u l t i p l e b a r r i e r s p r e c l u d i n g a b i l i t y M i n i s t ry ' s P o s i t i o n R e g a r d i n g b a r r i e r s t h a t p r e c l u d e e m p l o y m e n t , t h e m d o e s n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t y o u r m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n t h a t i f o r , a c c e p t i n g o r c o n t i n u i n g i n e m p l o y m e n t . " T h e m c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e s t r i c t i o n s , " e x R h e u m a t o l o a i s t " , a n n l v t o t h e a n n e l l a n t ' s P M R w h i c E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )i d e t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e m i n i s t r y ' s s e s s m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p 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 t h e t i m e o f t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e r e w a s n o n t h a t i n t h e o p i n i o n o f h i s p h y s i c i a n h a s c o n t i n u e d s t 2 m o r e y e a r s . T h e p h y s i c i a n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a n d n o d a t e o f o n s e t w a s p r o v i d e d f o r a n y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s s u b s t a n c e a b u s e ( o n s e t a t a g e 1 4 ) n d e t e r m i n i n g P P M B q u a l i f i c a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o f t h e m i n i s t r y ' 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 p a n e l l u d i n g n e w e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d b y a p a r t y a t t h e r m a t i o n t h a t w a s b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t t h e t i m e 2 0 1 4 d o c t o r ' s n o t e , w h i c h t h e m i n i s t r y h a d n o t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s h a d a n A n x i e t y D i s o r d e r f o r o i m p r o v e i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e . F u r t h e r , e v e n t h o u g h 0 1 2 P P M B a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e p a n e l n o t e s a s a f a c t d t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d a n x i e t y s i n c e 2 0 0 7 a n d i t w a s t h e n e w e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a s n o t r e a s o n a b l e i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t m e n t i t i o n b e i n g a b a r r i e r t h a t p r e c l u d e s e m p l o y m e n t i s f r o m h i s P M R a n d b e c a u s e o f h i s i n a b i l i t y t o w h i c h a r e d u e t o h i s a n x i e t y a n d n o t b e c a u s e o f e s t f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t h i s m o o d a n d a n x i e t y t i o n a n d p r e c l u d e h i m f r o m f i n d i n g a n d o c o n t r i b u t e d t o h i s " u n s t a b l e p r e c a r i o u s l i f e " t h a t e n o t e d t h a t h e h a s n o t w o r k e d s i n c e 2 0 0 8 a n d t o m a k e a b u c k . " T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p h y s i c i a n t ' s b a r r i e r t o e m p l o y m e n t i s " e x t r e m e w e a k n e s s c h 2 0 1 4 d o c t o r ' s n o t e t h e p h y s i c i a n a r g u e d t h a t t o w o r k " . i n i s t r y ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t " t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d s n o t a n a d d i c t i o n p r e c l u d e s y o u f r o m s e a r c h i n g i n i s t r y a r g u e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p h y s i c i a n ' s t r e m e w e a k n e s s a n d f a t i g u e s e e s a h h a s n o t c o n t i n u e d f o r a t l e a s t o n e y e a r . T h e
ministry further argue d that the i nfo rm ation p r o vided doctor's note, "the patient has multiple barriers precluding restric t ions that are specific to the appellant's medic A t th e hea ring the ministry's pos i tion rega rdi n g paragraphs 2( recons i deration deci sion was ba sed on the information it had at the date of the re that time i t did not h a ve i nform ation that the appellant at least one year. T h e mi nistry argu ed that i ts invest t he decis ion based on cre d ib l e s ources" and de s pit Anxi ety D isorder " for a t least 3 years", the issue is th ba sed o n the information prov i ded at the time. The have ma d e a diffe rent decision" if it had had the new evidence and "he can still apply again if the trib u nal does not ch an ge th e decision." P a nel's Decision T h e pan el notes th at paragraph 2( 4)(b ) r el ates to a b referred t o in para gra ph 2(4) ( a); that is, a cond itio n to continue for 2 yea r s or m o re. Wh ile para graph 2(4)(b) whether th e appellant's me d ical c on d ition pres ents m in istry in f o rmi n g i t s op inion, relies o n the m e di c al p PPMB medica l re p ort a sking the pr a ctition er to d e sc c ondi tion . Accordi n gly, the pa nel finds tha t the m i n i st r y was reason med ical condi tion did not present a barr ier to employ ph ys i cian's informat i on in t he 2014 medi cal repor t re weak ness and fatig u e " rel ated to the app ellant's PMR diagno th e ministry's conclusio n that th e noted r e stri ction is connected to reaso nable f i n di n g because the physi c i an h ad written "s descri ption of th e limitat i on. Regarding the M a rch 2014 doctor's n ote in whic h the barr iers prec lu ding ability to w o rk", t he p anel finds t comment does not establish a barrier that precludes employment as it t hat are specific t o the app ellant's m edi cal conditions. T comment does not relate to a medical condition that has continued for at least 1 year and is expected t o las t for a t least 2 m ore yea rs. Regarding the new evidence th a t t h e ap pellant d oes at least o ne year (hi s A nxiety Diso rder), the panel notes that in describing thi physician, in the M ay 2014 doctor's note , does not write any comments re restriction to employment that the Anxiety Disor der (or any other condition) presents. The appellant described barriers to employment (difficulty focusing, remembering, etc.) that he attributes to his anxiety and mood disorder a n d th er e is no evidence that these ba As well, the ministry stated it "probably would have made a different decision" regarding the appellant's PPMB qualification if it had had the new evidence. However, the panel finds that there is n o clear i n d ication that the A n xiety D isorder is a barrier that orecludes EAA T003(10/06/01) by the appe l la nt's phys i c i an i n t he March 2014 ability to work", doe s no t descr ibe al conditions. 4)(a) a nd 2(4)(b) w as that its c onsidera tio n. At had a medi c a l condition t ha t h ad continued for i g ators " a re not doctors and t hey have to make e new info rma tion tha t the appellant has had an e r e aso na b len es s of the reconsiderati o n d ec i s i o n ministry's pos ition was that it "probab l y wo u l d arri er p r e sented b y the med ica l c ond i tion t ha t h as c ontinue d for at least 1 yea r a nd i s likely giv es the mi n i s tr y di scretion t o de t ermine a barrier to empl oy m e nt, the p anel n ot e s that t he ra c t i t io ne r's inform a tion, with Sec t ion C. 3 o f the ri be any r e stric tio ns s p e cific to the client' s ab le in con cl u ding that the a pp e lla nt's m en t beca u s e the minis t ry n o te d t hat the ga rd in g t h e appellant' s l imitat ion of "extreme sis (on set July 201 3). T h e p anel v iews th e appellan t's PMR t o b e a ees a Rheu m ato logis t " right be side his p hys i c ian wrote "the patien t has multi ple ha t the m ini st r y w as re asona ble in fi n d ing tha t this d oes not d es cribe restrictions he panel fu rt her not es t hat t he physi cian's have a medical condition that ha s continue d for s condition the garding any b arrier or rriers ar e d ue to substance a b u s e. the client from searchina for ,
a c c e p t i n g o r c o n t i n u i n g i n e m p l o y m e n t , e s p e c i a l l y s i l e n t r e g a r d i n g a n y b a r r i e r o r l i m i t a t i o n t h a t t h e A n t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y w a s r e a s o n a b l e i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t o p a r a g r a p h 2 ( 4 ) ( b ) o f t h e E A R . C o n c l u s i o n T h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y ' s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n c o n t i n u i n g P P M B q u a l i f i c a t i o n w a s r e a s o n a b l y s u p i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e e n a c t m e n t i n t h e c i r p a n e l c o n f i r m s t h e m i n i s t r y ' s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e M a y 2 0 1 4 d o c t o r ' s n o t e i s x i e t y D i s o r d e r p r e s e n t s . T h e p a n e l t h e r e f o r e f i n d s b a r r i e r t o e m p l o y m e n t c r i t e r i o n i s n o t m e t p u r s u a n t d e c i s i o n t h a t h e l d t h e a p p e l l a n t i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r a p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e a n d i s a r e a s o n a b l e c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e 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.