P A R T C D e c i s i o n u n d e r A p p e a l T h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r a p p e a l i s 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 I n n o v a t i o n ( " t h e m i n i s t r y ' ' ) d a t e d M a y 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 w h i c h h e l p e r s i s t e n t m u l t i p l e b a r r i e r s ( P P M B ) t o e m p l o y m e n t b e c a 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 R e g u l a t i o n ( E A R ) . I n p a o p i n i o n o f t h e m i n i s t e r , h i s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n o t h e r t h a n a a p p e l l a n t f r o m s e a r c h i n g 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 T h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t m e t S e c t i o n 2 f o r a t l e a s t 1 2 m o n t h s o f t h e p r e c e d i n g 1 5 c a l e n d a r m o n t s c o r e d 1 2 o n t h e e m p l o y a b i l i t y s c r e e n a s s e t o u t i n S c h e 2 ( 3 ) a n d w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y a s s e s s e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 ( 4 ) i t h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n t h e o p i n i o n o f a m e d i c a l p 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 a n d i s l i k e l y t o c o n t i n u e f o P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e R e g u l a t i o n ( E A R ) , S e c E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )A P P E A i 7 n b y t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t q u a l i f y a s a p e r s o n w i t h u s e h e d i d n o t m e e t a l l t h e c r i t e r i a u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 o f r t i c u l a r S e c t i o n 2 ( 4 ) ( b ) w a s n o t m e t b e c a u s e i n t h e n a d d i c t i o n i s n o t a b a r r i e r t h a t p r e c l u d e s t h e m p l o y m e n t . ( 2 ) a s h e h a s b e e n a r e c i p i e n t o f i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e h s . A l s o , t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d u l e E , n o t m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d 1 5 u n d e r S e c t i o n o f t h e E A R . T h e a p p e l l a n t h a s m e t S e c t i o n 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) a s r a c t i t i o n e r , h e h a s a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n t h a t h a s r a t l e a s t 2 m o r e y e a r s . t i o n 2 .
P A R T E S u m m a r y o f F a c t s T h e e v i d e n c e 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 o f r e c o n s i d e • a M e d i c a l R e p o r t P e r s o n s W i t h P e r s i s t e n t M u l t i c o m p l e t e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p h y s i c i a n ; • a n E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n w i t h a T o t a l S c o r e o f 1 5 • a n E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n w i t h a T o t a l S c o r e o f 1 4 • a C l i e n t E m p l o y a b i l i t y P r o f i l e ; • t h e r e s u l t s o f a n X R a y d a t e d N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 3 • t h e 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 d a t e I n t h e M e d i c a l R e p o r t , t h e p h y s i c i a n w h o i n d i c a t e s t h a t h h a s n o t e x a m i n e d p r e v i o u s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s , r e p o r t e d t h a O s t e o a r t h r i t i s w i t h a n o n s e t f r o m 1 9 9 9 . N o s e c o n d a r y m n o t e d n o n e . T h e s t a t e d c o n d i t i o n h a s e x i s t e d f o r 1 4 y e a r m o r e . F u r t h e r n o t e d i s t h a t t h e m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n i s n o t e r e p o r t e d m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n , t h e p h y s i c i a n w r o t e p a i n w i t h T h e r e w e r e 2 E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n s i n c l u d e d w i t h t h e m T h e 1 s t E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n w a s u n d a t e d a n d i n d i c a t e d E x p e c t e d t o W o r k ( s c o r e 1 5 + ) w h i c h a r e d e s c r i b e d o n t h L o n g e r T e r m I n t e r v e n t i o n s . U n d e r O f f i c e U s e O n l y i t i s n c o m p l e t e d a n d t h a t t h e c l i e n t h a s s e v e r e b a r r i e r s . U n d e r s e m i t r u c k w h i c h h a s c a u s e b a c k b o w e l s p i n e d a m a g e . i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s b e e n o n I n c o m e o r S o c i a l a s t 3 y e a r s . T h e 2 n d E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n w a s a l s o u n d a t e d a n d i n d i c w i t h E x p e c t e d t o W o r k ( s c o r e 0 -1 4 ) w h i c h a r e d e s c r i b e d e m p l o y a b l e / e m p l o y a b l e w i t h s h o r t t e r m i n t e r v e n t i o n s . T h I n c o m e o r S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e a n y w h e r e i n C a n a d a i n t h e n o t c o m p l e t e d . T h e C l i e n t E m p l o y a b i l i t y P r o f i l e i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g : • U n d e r W o r k E x p e r i e n c e ; t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s b e e n • U n d e r E m p l o y m e n t S e a r c h S k i l l s ; a s e v e r e l a c k o • U n d e r E d u c a t i o n / T r a i n i n g ; b e t w e e n g r a d e O -9 , • U n d e r L i t e r a c y ; p o o r r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g a n d n u m e r a • U n d e r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; v e h i c l e / p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o • U n d e r C h i l d C a r e ; o t h e r , 7 c h i l d r e n a t f a m i l y h o m • U n d e r S h e l t e r ; a d e q u a t e s h e l t e r , • U n d e r H e a l t h ( e x c l u d i n g a d d i c t i o n s ) ; s e v e r e h e a l t • U n d e r D i s a b i l i t y ; p e r s i s t e n t d i s a b i l i t y , s e v e r e l y i m p • U n d e r C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s ; h a s s o m e d i f f i c u l t y c U n d e r c o m m e n t s , i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e D r . i s l o o k i n g a t b a T h e s u m m a r y o f t h e r e s u l t s o f a n X R a v d a t e d N o v e m b e E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )A P P E A L r a t i o n i n c l u d e d : p l e B a r r i e r s ( P P M B ) d a t e d D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 3 a n d ; ; ; a n d d M a y 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 . e h a s k n o w n t h e a p p e l l a n t f o r 6 m o n t h s o r l e s s a n d t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p r i m a r y m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n i s S p i n e e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d . U n d e r t r e a t m e n t , i t i s s w i t h t h e p r o g n o s i s e x p e c t e d o f d u r a t i o n a t 2 y e a r s o r p i s o d i c i n n a t u r e a n d u n d e r r e s t r i c t i o n s s p e c i f i c t o t h e R O M [ r a n g e o f m o t i o n ] o f s p i n e , b a c k s t i f f n e s s . i n i s t r y ' s r e c o r d . a t o t a l s c o r e o f 1 5 w i t h r e s u l t s t h a t c o r r e s p o n d w i t h e E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n f o r m a s E m p l o y a b l e w i t h o t e d t h a t t h e C l i e n t E m p l o y a b i l i t y P r o f i l e w a s c o m m e n t s , i t w a s s t a t e d " c l i e n t w a s r u n o v e r b y a A r t h r i t i s . P S T m e n t a l h e a l t h i s s u e s u l c e r s " . T h i s f o r m l A s s i s t a n c e 1 -3 t i m e s , a n y w h e r e i n C a n a d a i n t h e a t e d a t o t a l s c o r e o f 1 4 w i t h r e s u l t s t h a t c o r r e s p o n d o n t h e E m p l o y a b i l i t y S c r e e n f o r m a s i m m e d i a t e l y i s f o r m i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t b e e n o n l a s t 3 y e a r s . T h e p o r t i o n , U n d e r O f f i c e U s e O n l y i s u n e m p l o y e d f o r o v e r 3 y e a r s , f e m p l o y m e n t s e a r c h a n d p l a n n i n g s k i l l s , c y s k i l l s , n a v a i l a b l e a n d a c c e s s i b l e , e , h c o n d i t i o n , a c t s o n e m p l o y m e n t o p t i o n s , a n d o m m u n i c a t i n g a n d r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s . c k a n d s p i n e s u r g e r y . r 1 4 , 2 0 1 3 a r e : " M i n i m a l e a r l v m u l t i l e v e l c e r v i c a l
APPEAL spondylosis and moderate multi-level facet arthrosis with alteration of normal cervical curvature. There is alteration of the dorsolumbar and lumbosacral curvature but otherwise no abnormality is seen in the lumbar spine." In the Notice of Appeal, dated June 9, 2014, the appellant submitted that he has been on PPMB for 10 years and his condition has not changed. He states that his back pain doesn't let him lift his children or anything that weighs more than 5-10 lbs., and that he cannot sit or stand for long periods and is unable to walk more than 1-2 blocks without needing to stop and rest. The appellant indicates that his wife has extreme anxiety and cannot be alone whether it is at home or out in public. At the hearing the appellant testified that; • he didn't understand the reason for the different scores on his Employability Screens, and that he had attended the ministry office in person only one time for the interview, • his physician didn't like filling out the forms and that he has been his physician for 6 years not 6 weeks, • the physician was waiting for the appellant's condition to change before operating, • he did not want to take painkillers -OxyContin for fear of becoming addicted, • he tried "job start'' and other programs yet was told to return to the ministry and complete the PPMB forms, 0 he was not called to renew his PPMB designation for 4 years and • his wife cannot be left alone due to her medical condition. At the hearing the ministry representative testified that the appellant's Employability Screen's total score is 14 and the difference between the 2 Employability Screens was based on the response to the question, ("Apart from your current application, how many times have you been on Income or Social Assistance anywhere in Canada in the last 3 years?") Responses: a Never -0 points, b -1 to 3 times -1 point, or c -more than 3 times -3 points. The ministry stated that the appellant was not eligible for the additional 1 point as his electronic record shows that the appellant has been registered with the ministry under the same file number since 2010 and therefore, the correct response is, a -Never -0 points. The ministry representative stated that although it appears from her records that the most recent Employability Screen indicated a total score of 15, there was no reason why there were 2 Screens included. In response to a question by the panel, the ministry representative stated that the responses to all the questions on the Employability Screen and Employability Profile were recorded directly from the appellant's interview as no other information is indicated or available on the electronic file. The ministry also stated that it is unlikely that other records would have been accessed or verified at the time of the interview. The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and submitted no new information to explain why the total score from the Employability Screen was noted as 12 in that decision. Findings of Fact The appellant's file number with the ministry is the same on both Employability Screens which dates back to 2010 according to the ministry's electronic file. The correct total score on the appellant's Employability Screen is 14. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision Th e issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry's recon appellant does not qualify as a perso n with pe rsist e n t mult all the c riteria und e r Section 2 of the Employm ent and Assistance Regulation. n ot met Se c t ion 2(4)(b), because in th e o pinion of th e min n ot a barrier that pre c ludes the app ell a nt from searching for, accepting The m in i s t ry det ermined that the appellant met Section 2 (2) as he has been a recipi f o r a t least 12 months of the preceding 15 c al e ndar months. s c ore o n the e mployability screen as set ou t in S c hed ule and was subsequently assessed under Section 2(4) of the EAR. The has been est abli shed that in the opinion o f a medi c al prac continued f or at least one year and is likely to continue for at least Rele v ant Legislation Persons who hav e Persistent Multi ple Barr i e rs to emp 2 (I) To q ualify a s a p er s on w h o has persistent m ulti ple b arr ie r s to employme subse c tio n (2), a nd ( b) subsecti on (3) or (4). (2) T he person has b een a r e cipie nt fo r at le as t 12 of the i m mediat e ly pr follo w ing : (a) in com e assistance or hard ship assis tan ce under the Act, ( under a form er Act, ( c) a dis ability allo wance under the Dis abilit y Be (d) dis abilit y assistance or hardship a s si s tance unde r the Empl oyment (3) T h e foll owing requirements apply (a ) the min ister (i) h as det e rmined set o ut in Schedu le E, and (ii) based on the resul t o f tha t em p l oyabili imped e the pe rson's ab ility to search for, a c cep t or continue in e mp lo addictio n , that is confirmed by a m edic al practioner and t hat, (i) in the o ne year and is likely t o co ntin ue for a t l e a st 2 mor e year s, or (B) ha s a t least 2 more years, a n d ( ii) in the o pi nion o f t he mi niste r , is a baiTie or continue in em pl o y me nt , a nd(c) t h e person ha s t aken all steps th at t barriers referr ed to i n par ag r aph (a). (4) The person has a medical c on d ition , other than an addiction, th at of th e me d i ca l practition e r,(i) has co ntinued for a t l east t y e a r and is li frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least 2 mo re precludes the person from searching for, accepting or continuing in employment. (B.C. Reg. 263/2002) In accordance with the leg i sl at ion to be designated as a PPMB the appellant must meet the all the criteria set out in Section 2, subsection (2) and subsection (3) or (4). subsection (4)(a), have been met. Ministry's Position The min istry's p o s ition is that a medical c on di tion is consid accepting or continuing in employment when, as a result of the medical condition, the appellant is unable to participate in any type of employment for any length of time except in a supported or sheltered-type work environment. The ministry argues that based on the information provided, the appellant's medical condition does not oreclude him from searchinq for, acceptinq or continuina in all types of employment !non-ohvsical, EAAT 003(10/06/01) APPEAi s ideration decis i on which held that t he i p l e barriers t o employ ment beca u se he di d no t meet I n particular, the appellant has i s t er, h is medical conditio n ot h er than an addiction is o r continuing in employment. ent of i ncome assistance Also, the ministry determined that the appellant's E, d id not me et the requ ired 1 5 und e r Section 2 ( 3) appellant h a s met Sectio n 2(4)(a) as i t ti t ioner, he has a med ical conditi on that has 2 mor e ye ars. loym en t nt , a person m us t meet th e requiremen t s set out in(a) eceding 15 c a lenda r mo nth s of one or more o f the b ) income assi stan ce , h ard ship assi stan ce or a y o u th al lowance nefit s Pr og ram Act, or and Assist a nc e f or Perso ns w ith D isa b ili ties Ac t. th at the pe rson scores at le ast 1 5 on t he employabi lity s cre en ty s cr ee n, cons id ers that the pe r son ha s barri ers th at ser i ous ly y me n t ,( b) th e p e r so n has a medi cal cond itio n , oth e r than an op in ion of the m ed ical p rac titi one r (A) has con ti n ued for a t l e a s t occ ur red freq u e ntly in the past ye a r an d is li k ely to continue for r t hat seri o usly impedes the p erson's ab ility to search fo r, acc ept he m in i ster co nsiders reasonable fo r t he p er s on to overcome the i s conf irm e d b y a m edical p ractitioner and that, (a ) in the opinion kely to co ntinue for at least 2 m or e ye a rs, or ( i i) h as o c curred years, a n d (b) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that The criteria in Section 2, subse ctio n 2, and e red to preclude the appellant from searching for,
more sedentary, part-time) or in pa r tici pating in a prog ram barriers noted on his Employability Scre en. The ministry noted t that are specific to the appell a nt's med ical condit ion are pain with range of motion of spine and back stiffness and that t he p hy sician do es not describe any tre atment/reme are expected in the future. The ministry a lso determined describes t he appe llant's medical condi tion as mild to moderate. For t the app ellant's med ical condition and result ant restrictions conti nuing in all t ypes o f employment; th er efore he doe s subsection 2(4)(b). Appellant 's P osition The appellant' s position is th at his medical conditi on has no PPM B. Based on the fac ts o f his case; specifically, the information on the r co nfirms th at the ap pella nt mee ts the m e dic al p o rtio n of t unre asona ble to de ny him the PPM B des i gnation. A ddit ionally, con dition d oes n o t a llow her t o be alone. Pan el's F in dings Th e pa nel notes th at i n the appell ant's Medical Report -PPM conditi on a s Spine Os t eoa rt hrit is . The app ellant's restr ictio p a in w ith rang e of mot i o n of s pine an d bac k stiffne s s. After re vie wing the P PM B Medica l Report and t he X-R ay Report, t physici an co n f i r m s that th e pa tien t's pri mary m edical c ond yea rs or mo re a n d tha t t h e ap pellan t has re s tr icti ons s pecif d iff e ren t from t he legislatio n wh ich requ i r es that in t h e opin a bar rie r th at precludes th e pers on f rom se ar chi ng for, a cce panel fi nds that while the ap pellant s t at es th a t his medical lift m o re than 5-1 O l bs. , c annot s it or st and for long perio ds su mm ari z es that the appella nt has "Minim al ear ly m ulti-level fac e t a r thro sis wi t h alteration of n o rmal cervical curvature l umb o sac ral cu r va t ure b u t ot herwise no a bnormality is seen in rece n t medical information does not support the appellant's statement or establish that he is preve pa rticipating in a program that would work with h i m to over Screen. Ha ving reviewe d an d cons idered all of the evidence and the relevant l ministry re a so n ably dete rmi ned that the evi d en ce does not are a barrier that precludes him from searching for, accepting or conti cri t erion u n der sect i on 2 (4)(b) o f th e EAR wa s n ot m et and he does not qualify as a per m ultiple bar riers to employment. The panel confirms the reconsideration decision EAA T003( 10/06/01) APPEAL that woul d work with the appel lant to overcome the hat th e restrictions as repor ted by the physician dial app r oach e s th at have been tried to date or that th e X -Ra y Rep ort dated Nove mber 14, 2013 he se r easons, in th e m i nister's opi nion, do not precl ude him fro m searching for, accepting or not mee t the eligibi lity requirement of EA Regulation, t changed in the 10 years sin ce he qua li fied for ecord s u pplied by the doctor h e t est f or P PM B and tha t the ministry w as th e appellant argue s th at his wi fe's me d i c a l B d a t ed Decem ber 3, 2013, t he p ri mary m edical ns s pecific to the r eport ed medi cal cond iti ons are he panel fi nds that a l t hough the a p pellant 's it ion's onset was 1999 and th a t t h e p r ogno s is is 2 ic t o the report ed medical co nditio n, this is quite ion of th e min ist e r, the natur e o f t he r es t ric tion (s ) is p t ing or con tinuing in empl o ym en t. Add i t i o n a lly the c onditio n has not chan ged and th at he i s not able to or w alk more t han a bl o ck or t wo; the X-Ray R epor t ce rvic al sp ondylosis and m ode rate mul ti-l e ve l . The re is alteration of the dorsolumbar and th e lu mbar s p ine ." T h e pan el fin d s t ha t t h is nt e d from c ome the barriers not ed on his E m p l oyabil ity e gi slation, the panel fin d s that the establi sh that the appellant's medical condi tion(s) nuing in employ men t and therefore the son with persistent .
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.