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 J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 r e D e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n ( M i n i s t r y ) w h i s u p p l e m e n t f o r c l o t h i n g o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e A p p e a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e D i s a b il i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R ) f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g a ) t h e r e q u e s t e d i t e m ( u n d e r g a r m e n t s ) w a s n o s . 5 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) ; b ) t h e M i n i s t r y f o u n d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t h a d r e r e q u e s t e d u n d e r g a r m e n t s , s o s h e d i d n o t m c ) 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 f a i l u r e t o p r u n d e r g a r m e n t s w o u l d n o t r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n r e q u i r e d u n d e r s . 5 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( i ) . 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 f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )'. A P P E A L # c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n o f t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l c h d e n i e d t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a c r i s i s l l a n t d i d n o t m e e t a l l o f t h e c r i t e r i a t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n s w i t h r e a s o n s : t a n u n e x p e c t e d n e e d a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r s o u r c e s t o m e e t h e r e x p e n s e s f o r a n d o b t a i n e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s e t o u t i n s . 5 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) ; a n d o v i d e t h e r e q u e s t e d c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t f o r t d a n g e r t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p h y s i c a l h e a l t h , a s b i l i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R ) s e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) .
: APPFAL # PART E -Summary of Facts The Appellant has been designated a person with disabilities and receives monthly disability assistance as a sole recipient (she does not have any dependent children). The Appellant told the panel that she has an allergy to latex and requires undergarments that do not contain latex. The information before the Ministry at reconsideration included a copy of the Appellant's request for reconsideration, the date of which is unknown as the date provided appears to be the Appellant's birth date beside her signature. At the hearing, the Appellant and her advocate repeated the submissions she made in her request for reconsideration. The Appellant stated that in June 2013, she received a crisis supplement for clothing from the Ministry. In July 2013, the Appellant experienced a severe cockroach infestation at her residence that resulted in the destruction of all of her clothing and most of her possessions. The Appellant told the panel that in July 2013 when she requested a crisis supplement to replace her clothing, in particular her undergarments, she was denied the crisis supplement by the Ministry because she had just received a crisis supplement for clothing in June 2013. The Appellant said that the Ministry worker told her to reapply for the crisis supplement for clothing after one year, in June/July 2014. The Appellant told the panel that she has not been able to purchase new undergarments for herself and has been without them for a year. She told the panel she has monthly expenses for a small storage locker for her possessions that were not destroyed by the cockroaches. She also told the panel that she had to pay to put her pet to sleep and although she has tried to find suitable undergarments that are latex-free through community resources, she has been unable to find any for a year. The appellant confirmed she applied for the crisis supplement in June 2014 to replace her undergarments destroyed by the previous year's cockroach infestation. The Ministry noted that the Appellant had received a crisis supplement for clothing in June 2013. The Ministry also noted that the Appellant's monthly disability assistance provides for the cost of clothing and it is the Appellant's choice how she spends her assistance. The Ministry noted that the Appellant's cost of new undergarments was not unexpected in June 2014 and that the cockroach infestation occurred one year ago (in July 2013). The Ministry also noted that there was no information that failure to provide the Appellant with the latex-free undergarments would result in imminent danger to the Appellant's health. EAA T003(10/06/01)
P ART F -Rea s ons for Panel Decision The issue to be decide d is whether the Ministry's d supplement for clothin g on th e basis t hat she did not meet the criteria EAPWDR is reasonable . The crit e ri a to be appl ied by t he Mi nistry on a request 57 ( 1) of the EAPWDR as follows: ( 1) T h e minister may provide a cr isis su ppl ement disabi lity ass istance o r hardship ass istance (a) the family uni t or a person in the fami l y uni expense or obtain an item unexpect e d ly needed and is unable to meet the expe the item beca u s e there are no resources a v a (b) t he minist e r conside rs that failure to meet the expense ( i) imminen t da nger to the ph ys i c al h e alth of any person in Partie s' Submi s sio ns The Ap pe llant's p osition is tha t she mee t s the e li g i clothing in Ju ne 20 14. Th e App el lant d oe s not d ispu clothing in Ju ne 2 0 1 3 a nd t h at s he in itially ma de a re u nd erga rment s d estr o y ed by the cock r o a ch in f esta need for th e c ri sis s u p ple men t f or u nder ga r ments was i nfest ati o n o f July 2 013, an d that the on ly reaso n she s upple m en t for the repla cem ent of h er late x-free u h er in Jul y 2013 that s he was n o t elig ible for another 2 0 1 4) . Th e App ellant said that she has not be en able through c ommunity res ou rc es and s he e stim at ed the a ppr oxima t ely $50. Th e App e llant do es not dis pute h er posses sion s that wer e not d e stroyed by co ck roaches cockroaches a re not longer infesting her possessions). tha t f ail ur e to obtain money for underg arme nt s would result in immine The Ministry says that the A p pellant doe s n ot m eet the l crisis supplement for undergarments. The Ministry says that the Appellant has not established that the expense for replacement of her undergarments lost in the cockroach ex p e n s e, as required by subs. 5 7(1 ) (a), bec ause the infestation occurred in July 2013. notes that subs. 57(1) (a) requires that there be no resources ava expense of replacing her undergarments. The Ministry says that the Appellant's monthly disability assistance should cover the cost of replacing her latex-free undergarments and she thus has resources available to her to meet the expense of replacing her undergarments lost in the infestati The Ministry also not e d that the Appell ant has not s latex-free undergarments will result in imm i nent danger to her physica 57(1 )(b)(i). EMT003(10/06/01) APP EAL# : ecision to d eny the Appella n t 's request for a crisis set out in s ec t ion 5 7 (1) of the for a crisi s supplement a re set out in section to or for a family un it that is elig ible for if t requires th e su p plem ent to meet a n unexpect ed ns e or obtain ilable to the famil y unit, and or obtain the item wi ll result in the f amily unit ... b i lity criter ia to receive a c risis s up plement for te that she rec eiv e d a cri sis suppleme nt for qu est for a c risis supplement to r eplac e the tion i n Jul y 2013. Th e Appe ll ant argu ed tha t her as a resul t of the unexp ected cock roach w a i ted unti l J une 20 14 to req ue s t a cr i s i s nd erg arment s was b ecause a M inist ry wo r k e r t o ld crisis supp le m e n t f or a nothe r year (unt i l Ju ne to find s ui t able latex-free u nder garments cost of n e w l ate x-fre e u nderg a r ments a t t hat she pays t o rent a sto rage lo ck er to house ( she is waiti ng six m onths t o en s u r e the Th e App el lant did not mak e an y submissions nt dang er to her physical health. eg islative criteria under subs. 57(1) for a infestation is an unexpected The Ministry ilable to the A p pellant to meet the on. a id t hat failure t o pay for the replacement of her l health as required by subs.
Pa n el' s d e cisi o n In or der to r e cei ve a cri sis suppl em en t und e r section 57o three of the cri teri a set out in su b s. 57(1) -if the a t he cris is su p plem ent w i ll not be pr ovid ed. T h e p anel notes that the Min i s try pro v id ed th e Ap pel an d t ha t th e c ockroac h inf estation whi ch de stroyed unde rg a r me nt s, o c cu rred in J ul y 20 13 -fact s whi ch the the A ppe ll a nt' s a ss ertion t h at she wa s to ld by a M in crisi s supp l e m e nt for re pla cemen t of clo t h i ng in Ju the panel n o te s tha t the Ap pe llant was awa re that she n undergarm ents as a r e sul t o f the co ckroach i nfe stat fin ds re asonable the Mini stry's determin a ti on that t of replacin g he r un d erg a rmen ts in J une 2014 as a un expected e x p ense (as requ ire d by su b s . 57(1)) . The App ellant ar gu ed tha t she was unable to find s c om mu n it y s ervic es. The p an el notes t hat the Ap pellant monthl y disabilit y a ss i s t anc e t o pay f or a st or ag e lo free. The p anel finds reasona bl e th e Mini stry's de t th at s he does not h a ve r es our c es t o cover the cost of replacin requ ired b y s ubs. 57( 1 )). The pan el f urther notes t hat the A ppella n t d i d not provide any i about the impa ct the la c k of la te x-free undergarment dem onstr ate th a t sh e m et t he req ui r e me nt s e t out i underg a r ments will r esul t i n imminent da n ge r to he T he pan el fi nds th a t th e Min ist ry 's de t erm i n at ion t hat the s ub s . 5 7 (1)(a) and 57(1 )(b) ( i) was reasonable, as th underg a r ments a s a r es ul t o f a cockro ach i nfestation was not unexpected at the time of t h e application in June she did not have resources to pay for the undergarments, and there was no evidence that th to provide the reque sted crisis supp lement for the u the health of the Appellant. The panel th erefore co nfirms EMT 003(1 0/06/01) AP PEA L # : f t he E APWDR , a n applicant must m e et all pplic an t d oes not mee t a ny o ne o f the three cr iteri a, lant a cri sis supp l e ment for cl o th ing i n June 201 3 the Appellant' s clot hi n g , in cl udi n g her latex-free App ell a nt does n ot d ispute. The p anel n ot e s i s t ry worker t hat she w a s not el igibl e to apply for a ly 2013 and that she had to wait a yea r. Ho weve r, e ed ed to rep lace her latex-free i on fr o m Jul y 2 013 o n . Acc ordi n g ly, t he p ane l he A ppe ll ant ha s not est a blishe d t h at the expens e r esu l t of the July 2 0 13 coc k roach inf e station is an uitable latex-fr e e unde r garme nts through d id not d is pute tha t s he is us i ng some o f her c k er f or her b e longin gs u nti l the y are cockr oa ch e rmin ation th at the A pp ell a nt has not establis hed g he r la t ex -free u nder g arment s ( as nforma t ion i n a n y of he r submi ssions s would have on her phys ic al health to n su b s . 57(1)( b)(i) -that la c k of latex-fre e r h ea lt h. App ellant d id not mee t the requ i rem en ts of e expense of the replacement of her latex-free in Jul y 2013, though une x p ected i n July 2013, 2 01 4 , the Appellant did n ot establish that e failure n de r garments would result in imminen t danger to the M inistry's reconsid e rat ion 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.