APPEAL# I PART C-Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "ministry") reconsideration decision of October 28, 2014, which found that the appellant did not meet three of five statutory requirements of section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons With Disabilities Act ("EAPWDA") for designation as a person with disabilities ("PWD"). The ministry found that the appellant met the age requirement, and that in the opinion of a medical practitioner the appellant's impairment is likely to continue for at least two years. However, the ministry was not satisfied that: • the evidence establishes that the appellant has a severe physical or mental impairment; • the appellant's daily living activities ("DLA") are, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and that • as a result of those restrictions, the appellant requires the significant help or supervision of another person, an assistive device, or the services of an assistance animal. 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 EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART E -Summa ry of Facts The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following: 1. The appellant's PWD Application dated June 22, 2014 consisting of: • the appellant's self-report ("SR") completed by the appellant who described his disability as follows: "Since May 2013 I started having trouble walking all of a sudden. I then started having lots of pain through my neck, hands, and legs. I turned out to have spots on my brain and 3 bulging discs found through MRI. On Jan. h zf 2014 I had a C4 to C7 Laminop/asty and had some improvement with balance and pain. They do not know if I have M.S. for sure but that is also a possibility. I still have trouble walking, stiffness in legs, pain in legs, numbness in hands, pain in neck, and balance problems at times. I have had improvement and will still further improve but I am nowhere near normal or as I was a year ago. What I have is said to be rare. Now I can't stand for very Jong or walk well enough to carry anything of significant weight. I have a very tuft (sic) time sleeping because of pain and muscle spasms. I also have limited mobility in my neck and a lot of work to do on it." • a doctor's report ("PR") completed by the appellant's general practitioner and dated June 24, 2014 which does not indicate how long he has known the appellant but does indicate that he has seen the appellant 11 or more times in the past 12 months. • an assessor's report ("AR") completed by the appellant's general practitioner and dated June 24, 2014 which indicates that he has known the appellant for 18 months and confirms that he has seen the appellant 11 or more times in the past 12 months. 2. The appellant's Request for Reconsideration, dated October 1, 2014 which states the following reasori for requesting reconsideration: "The doctor that filled out my PWD application is a walk in doctor that I see regulary (sic) There are no doctors in (name of city) that are taking on patients. As a walk in doctor he did not have the time to sit with me and fill it out. He had to take it and do it on his own time with the information he had. My condition has deteriorated since filling out the application and it was always severe. I could never walk up or down stairs without holding on to something. Sometimes I have to use two hands. I can not walk or stand longer than a minute or two and I can't walk normally, properly, or carry and walk with more than 1 O pounds'. Attached to the Request for Reconsideration was a note from the appellant's doctor dated October 7, 2014, and an undated letter from a friend of the appellant describing the appellant's condition and describing the various forms of assistance that she provides for him. The doctor's note states: "This is to inform you that (the appellant's) condition has deteriorated from previously described and he has difficulty ambulating at all, cannot climb one flight of stairs without severe problems and needs help with all his household activities". The undated letter from the appellant's friend stated: "I am writing on behalf of (the appellant), I have seen him three times a week or more for the past six months. (The appellant) is unable to do many tasks without help; I drive him to the doctors and to the grocery store. When we do go to the store he requires help bringing the bags to and from the car as he cannot lift or carry much weight because of his strength and balance, I help him with some tasks around the house like dishes since he has trouble standing for long periods of time. On occasion I have taken him to my place so he can do his laundry, another task he is unable to do himself. While we are at my place he finds himself in pain as I do not have chairs that are not (sic) very back supportive. I drive him everywhere since he cannot walk far or for long period of time, even down the road to the bus stop is challenging for him. When I do see him walking around his house a bit, it is very obvious that his walk is not normal. When I do see him he is constantly complaining if EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# (sic) pains in his legs, back and neck. Since knowing (the appellant) he hardly leaves the house besides to run basic errands. The few times we have gone out it does not last long because his pain becomes so severe. I have seen him at different times of the day, and morning are challenging for him as his neurological problems. I honestly have seen firsthand how difficult of a time (the appellant) has been having over the past few months with simple tasks and the severe pain he is constantly in. Please do not hesitate to call if you require any additional information". 3. The appellant's Notice of Appeal was dated November 3, 2014. He lists his reasons for appealing as follows: "I have gotten much worse since back then. I can Not perform my daily living activities. I can't walk normal. (The appellant's doctor) is wondering what the problem is here. I can't stand for longer than a minute or two. Look further into this please! I am in excruciating pain All day Every day! * I can't sit no longer than a minute or two. * I can't lift any weight and walk with it. * I need help with everything and I can't walk like a normal person. * I don't leave my house and I sit in a chair all day. * I am in excruciating pain all day everyday. Call my doctor and ask him. I can't believe I'm getting this answer when I'm this disabled. Call him and ask questions please. 4. Prior to the hearing the appellant submitted a letter from his doctor dated November 9, 2014 which states: "At this point (the appellant) needs assistance with all his activities of daily living due to deterioration in his condition and he is unable to complete any normal tasks . . . t akes an inordinate amount of time. He is at present unable to walk a single block due to pain and stiffness. Please contact me if you have any issues." The panel reviewed the medical evidence as follows: Diagnoses • In the PR the doctor diagnosed the appellant with "Cervical spinal cord compression" with onset of March 2013. Severity of Impairment: Physical Impairment • The doctor commented in the Health History portion of the PR that "(the appellant) has persistent severe pain in his neck and legs, as well as leg cramps and spasms. He has difficulty walking and has difficulty carrying anything of weight. His symptoms limit the distance he can walk to a few blocks at a time." • The doctor reported that the appellant's impairment is likely to continue for two years or more and states; "It is difficult to estimate how long he will be disabled. He has improved moderately since his neurosurgery but remains far from normal at this time. He could be impaired for a few years or indefinitely." • In regard to Functional Skills the doctor reports that the appellant can walk 2-4 blocks unaided on a flat surface, climb 5+ steps unaided, lift under 2 kg. and remain seated for 1 to 2 hours. • In regard to "Additional Comments", the doctor states: "At this time it is unclear whether (the appellant) has been suffering solely from cervical disc protrusion, given that he had some features of Multiple Sclerosis on his MRI. He has improved si nificantl since his Laminectomy (C4 and Cl and EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
APPEAL# I C5 and C6 Laminoplasty, but continues to have significant impairments. I suspect that he will eventually have complete recovery, but this appears will be a few years away." • In the AR the doctor reports that the appellant has "difficulty ambulating, impaired sensation in arms, weakness in arms and hands, stiffness and pain in neck." He reports that the appellant is independent in walking indoors, walking outdoors, and standing. The appellant needs periodic assistance with climbing stairs ("with more than 1-2 flights of stairs'). He also needs periodic assistance and takes significantly longer than typical when lifting, and carrying and holding ("unable to lift more than light objects and has to do so slowly'). The doctor comments "Can only walk and stand for short periods due to pain and weakness". • the doctor's note of Oct 7, 2014 reports that the appellant's condition has deteriorated and he needs help with all his household activities. He has difficulty ambulating and cannot climb one flight of stairs without severe problems. • the doctor's letter of November 9, 2014 reports that the appellant needs assistance with all his activities of daily living due to deterioration in his condition. He is at present unable to walk a single block due to pain and stiffness. Mental impairment • In the PR The doctor indicates that the appellant has no difficulties with communication and confirmed that there are no significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function. He assesses as "good" the appellant's ability in speaking, reading, writing, and hearing. The doctor has written "NIA" in response to "an identified mental impairment or brain injury". Similarly, he has stroked through the section concerning Social Functioning (which is only to be completed if the appellant has an identified mental impairment, including brain injury) and written "NIA". In addition, the sections inviting a description of how any mental impairment might impact the appellant's relationships with his immediate social network and extended social networks are also stroked through. Restrictions in performing DLA • In the PR the doctor indicates that the appellant has not been prescribed any medication and/or treatments that interfere with his ability to perform daily living activities. • In the AR the doctor has noted that the appellant is "independent" in regard to dressing, grooming, bathing, toileting, feeding self, regulating diet, transfers in/out off bed, transfers in/out of chair, laundry and basic housekeeping. He indicates that the appellant requires periodic assistance going to and from stores ("needs help/transport at times") and carrying purchases (("needs help with heavier objects/purchases''). The doctor assesses the appellant as "independent" for meal planning, food preparation, cooking, safe storage of food (ability, not environmental circumstances), banking, budgeting, pay rent and bills, filling/refilling prescriptions, taking (medications) as directed, safe handing and storage (of medications), getting in and out of a vehicle, using public transit, and using transit schedules and arranging transportation. • the doctor's note of October 7, 2014 reports that the appellant needs help with all his household activities, and his letter of November 9, 2014 report that the appellant needs assistance with all his activities of daily living and is unable to complete any normal tasks without taking an inordinate amount of time. Help requires/provided • In the PR the doctor indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids for his impairment. • In the AR the doctor states "Assistance ma on/ be needed for heavier/far, er purchases". As noted EAAT 003(10/06/01)
pr eviously , the d o ctor in d icat e d th at the a p pe l lan t ne stores, and carr yin g purchases ho me. T he d oc t or no to p rovide assistance whe n needed a n d c o m ment s that neces sary assi st ance would be " P o ssibl y fo r shopping w d oe s no t iden tify any a ssistive dev ices as be ing routin im p air ment, a nd indic a tes that the appel l ant does n ot • t he doctor 's no te of Octo b er 7 , 2014 a nd hi s l e t t er of N needs ass ista nc e to p erform his a ctivities of dail y li v A t the h earing t he appel lant stated that he was anxio poss i ble b ecaus e of the ex tr e me p a i n he w a s experi fee l s a burning sensat i o n. He h a s a rare conditi on i n spas tici t y in his legs tha t c au ses his legs to sha ke un had surg ery b ut doesn't f ee l th at he is much be tter as a r wou l d r a t h er be wor king and hav e a life th an be o n a d friend drov e h i m to th e h eari ng b ut h e h a s very fe w fri Fi nally , he stat e d tha t he is on painkill ers to l e s sen his The ministry re p re sen tative ask e d if he u n d ersto od t designatio n had been reject ed . T h e appe ll ant res po nded wrong". The mini str y rep resentat ive expl ained that th e decision ba se d on t he d o c tor's co mment s in the PR a nd th e AR. wit h the doc to r's ass essm en t th en a new a ppli c ati on mu docto r asse s se d a v er y lim ited im pac t u pon the app el and co nseq u e n tly t h e adjudicator had no c hoi c e but o b ject io n to the lett er d at ed Novemb er 9, 20 1 4 from t e vid e n c e. T he min i s t ry noted that t he docto r' s no t e o 2014 are at v a r ianc e with the i n f o r mation in the PR a detail t o repl a ce th e P R and the A R . The appellant invited his friend who had driv e n him to the hearing to describe his sit e xplain e d that she helps the appellant do grocery shopping and he can only carry very light bags- she carries the rest. She noted that she had filled a water jug for the appella was u n able t o h a ndle it be c ause he f o und it to b e too he t rou b l e stan d i ng so she often cooks for him and s he dishes. In the mornings the appellant is especiall y "wobbly he is unable to be in the store for very long bef o re he has to leave. In resp onse to a question from the panel the ap pellant expla un d erestimat ed the severity of h is cond i tion when completing the PR appellant stated that his condition ha s gotten wo rse appellant explained that he has tried to exercise to improve his condition but that has only made thi n gs worse. He stated that he has been on medications in the PR the doctor stated that the appellant has not been prescribed any medications that interfere with his ability to perform activities of daily liv ing and asked the appellant wha EAAT003(10/06/01) I APP E A L# eds p eri odic as sistance wit h going t o a n d fr o m tes t h at the ap pell ant re l ie s on fami ly and friends when help is r equ i red but n one is av ailable, h en p u rchasi ng h eavier obj ects". T he docto r ely used b y the a ppel lant to c ompe ns ate f o r his ha v e an ass ist a nc e ani m al . ovember 9, 201 4 report that t he app ellant ing. u s t o g et the heari ng ove r with a s q uic kly as encing. T he pain is w orst in t h e m orni ng whe n he w hi ch hi s spi n al c o rd is "pi n c hed". He has c o ntrol labl y -espe ciall y wh en h e i s cold. He has e su l t. Life is horrible for him at pr esent- he i s abilit y i ncom e bu t he i s unable to d o so . A en d s in ( n ame of ci t y) si nce he i s not fr om here. pa in . he reaso n s why his appl icatio n fo r the P W D that the docto r had " . . . fi lled t he for m out t o reject the app ellant 's PWD ap plication w a s S h e stated th at if the a pp e l lant disagree s st b e c omplete d. T h e m inist r y f o u nd t hat t he lant's ability t o perfor m activit ie s of daily li v i ng to deny t h e ap pli ca ti on . T h e minis t ry h ad no he app ell ant's doctor be ing ad mit ted as f Oc tober 7 , 2014 and his let ter o f Novemb er 9, nd the AR but th ey do not provid e suff ic ient uatio n. T he friend n t at his home but he avy. She stated that the appellant has does laundry for him. Occasionally he can do the " and when shopping she has f o und that in ed that he thinks the doctor a nd the AR. In addition, the si nc e the doctor completed those forms. The f or the past 1. 5 years. The panel noted that t medication(s) he was
APPEAL# I presently taking. The appellant explained that he took hydromorphine and his friend confirmed that she has seen him taking this medication prior to June 2014 when the doctor completed the PR. The panel admitted the oral testimony and the letter from the appellant's doctor dated November 9, 2014 as being in support of the information before the ministry at reconsideration, in accordance with section 22(4) of the Employment Assistance Act (EAA) as it provides more up to date information on the appellant's medical condition. EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
PART F -Re as on s f or Panel Decisi on The issue in this appeal is whethe r the ministry's decision to de PWD was reasonably supported by the ev idence or was a reasonable applicati enactment in the circumstances of t he ap pellant. In particula determining that the a ppellant doe s not ha ve a seve re opinion of a pre s cr ibed professional the appe l lant's impairmen r estrict him from pe rforming D LA either continuously or periodically for extend a result of those restrictions the appellant does not requir The relevant le g is l a tio n is as follows: E APWDA: 2 (1) In this sect ion: "assist ive device" means a device design ed activi ty that, bec ause o f a s evere men tal perfo r m ; "d a i ly li v i n g acti v i ty " has the pr es " prescri bed prof essi on al " has the p (2) Th e m i nis t er ma y designate a person di s a biliti es for the pur pos es of th is Act i f the mental or physic al impa i rme nt that (a) in the op i n io n of a m edic al years, and ( b ) in the op in i on of a p resc ribed ( i) directl y and signif ica li v ing a ctivities eith er (A) c ont i n u ou sly, (B) periodically for extended per (ii) as a result of tho s those activities. (3) For the purposes of subsect i on (2), (a) a person who has a severe mental impairment in 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 sup (iii) the services of an assistance animal. EAAT 003(10/06/01) I APPE AL# ny t he appellant designation as a o n of the app licabl e r, was t he ministry rea sonabl e in p hys ical or ment a l impairment, and that in the ts do not di r ectl y and significantly ed periods, and that as e help to pe rform DLA. to enab l e a person to perform a daily l iv ing or ph y sic a l imp ai rment , the person is u nab l e to c ribed meani n g ; re scribe d me aning. who h as re a che d 18 years o f ag e as a person with m inist er i s sat i sfied that the pers on has a seve re pr a c t itioner is lik e l y to c ontinue fo r at least 2 pr ofes sional n t l y restr i cts the pe rson' s abil ity t o p erform daily or iods, and e restrictions, the person require s help to perform c ludes a person with a e rvis i o n of another person, or
E A P W D R s e c t i o n 2 ( 1 ) : 2 ( 1 ) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e A c t a n d t h i s r e ( a ) i n r e l a t i o n t o a p e r s o n m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t , m e a n s ( i ) p r e p a r e o w n m e ( i i ) m a n a g e p e r s o n a ( i i i ) s h o p f o r p e r s o n ( i v ) u s e p u b l i c o r p e ( v ) p e r f o r m h o u s e w a c c e p t a b l e s a n i t a r y ( v i ) m o v e a b o u t i n d ( v i i ) p e r f o r m p e r s o n ( v i i i ) m a n a g e p e r s o ( b ) i n r e l a t i o n t o a p e r s o n f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s : ( i ) m a k e d e c i s i o n s a ( i i ) r e l a t e t o , c o m m ( 2 ) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e A c t , " p r e s c r i b ( a ) a u t h o r i z e d u n d e r a n e n ( i ) m e d i c a l p r a c t i t i ( i i ) r e g i s t e r e d p s y c ( i i i ) r e g i s t e r e d n u r s ( i v ) o c c u p a t i o n a l t h ( v ) p h y s i c a l t h e r a p ( v i ) s o c i a l w o r k e r , ( v i i ) c h i r o p r a c t o r , o ( v i i i ) n u r s e p r a c t i t i ( b ) a c t i n g i n t h e c o u r s e o f b y ( i ) a n a u t h o r i t y , a s I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o ( i i ) a b o a r d o r a f r a d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1 i f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n S e v e r e P h y s i c a l I m p a i r m e n t: 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 h e i s i n e x c r u c i a t i n g p s e v e r e p h y s i c a l i m p a i r m e n t . H e s t a t e d t h a t h e h a s b e T h e m 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 d o c t o r ' s e v i d e n c e w s k i l l s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o d e m o n s t r a t e a s e v e r e p h s i c EAA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L # L g u l a t i o n , " d a i l y l i v i n g a c t i v i t i e s " , w h o h a s a s e v e r e p h y s i c a l i m p a i r m e n t o r a s e v e r e t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s : a l s ; l f i n a n c e s ; a l n e e d s ; r s o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s ; o r k t o m a i n t a i n t h e p e r s o n ' s p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e i n c o n d i t i o n ; o o r s a n d o u t d o o r s ; a l h y g i e n e a n d s e l f c a r e ; n a l m e d i c a t i o n , a n d w h o h a s a s e v e r e m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t , i n c l u d e s t h e b o u t p e r s o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , c a r e o r f i n a n c e s ; u n i c a t e o r i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r s e f f e c t i v e l y . e d p r o f e s s i o n a l " m e a n s a p e r s o n w h o i s a c t m e n t t o p r a c t i s e t h e p r o f e s s i o n o f o n e r , h o l o g i s t , e o r r e g i s t e r e d p s y c h i a t r i c n u r s e , e r a p i s t , i s t , r o n e r , o r t h e p e r s o n ' s e m p l o y m e n t a s a s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g i s t t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1 ( 1 ) o f t h e l A c t , o r n c o p h o n e e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y , a s t h o s e t e r m s a r e ( 1 ) o f t h e S c h o o l A c t , p s y c h o l o g y a r e a c o n d i t i o n o f s u c h e m p l o y m e n t . a i n a l l d a y e v e r y d a y a n d t h i s c o n s t i t u t e s a e n o n p a i n k i l l e r s f o r 1 8 m o n t h s . i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p h y s i c a l f u n c t i o n a l a l i m a i r m e n t .
P anel De c is ion I n the P R the app el l ant's do ctor s tates that the appella co r d co mp ressi on and states tha t the app e l lant has sever cra m ps and spasm s . H e in d icat es th at the a p pel lant climb 5+ sta i rs unaided , li ft under 5 p ounds, and r em O ctobe r 7, 2014 s tate s that th e appel lant 's co n d ition he has dif ficulty a mbula tin g a n d c an not climb one flight of N ove mb e r 9, 2 01 4 th e ap pel lant's doctor re peats t appellant's c ondition and is pres ently unable to w al k a si claimed tha t the do cto r ha d under estimated the sever condi tion h ad d e t e riorated s ince th e P R w as com ple The pa nel notes tha t t h e d octor r epo r ted hav ing se en In addit ion, the do ct or reporte d in the AR that he used con sulti n g neuros urgeon and a physiotherap i st in co co nsi d ers that the fr equency of t h e ap pel lant's vi s i t s w d oc t or's review of info rm a ti o n source s fr om other m ed appel lant d o make i t unlikely that th e doc tor unde restimate at t he time h e com pleted t he P R a n d AR. B ut t he p anel app el lant 's co ndition h a ving deteriorated in both t he n No vemb er 9, 2 0 1 4. Thi s info rmation t o ge t he r w i t h th t he a p pellant's ph ysica l co ndition has deteri orated s i B u t ar e th e se two b rief reports fro m the a p pellant's doctor su severe ph ysica l imp a irment? T he note o f October 7, has dete riora ted altho ug h it do es state that t he app ellan c ann ot c l i mb one f light of s t airs without sev e re problem a p pellant ca n n ow walk una id e d , n or wh at type of s ev a p pellant c limbs sta i r s . I t doe s not s pe cify wh et h er the appe stairs. It is silen t on t he que s t ion of how long t he appell pr ovi d e s uf f ic ien t infor m ation to replace the more det th e letter of Novembe r 9, 2014 is a ve r y b rief stat ement walk a single block due to pain and sti f fness. It states that t but provides no d etail on h ow much, a n d i n what ways the appellant's condition has deteriorated. It st ates t ha t the appe l lant takes an inordinate amou nt requires assistance with all his activities of daily living. In short, these two d octor encou rage the panel to believe that there has been a deterioration in the appellant's condition since the earlier assess m ent in th e P R and t he A R. Nonetheles provide sufficient information to establish a clear p icture therefore the panel finds the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant had not established a severe physical impairment. Severe Mental Impairment: The appellant advanced no argument with respect to a severe mental impairment. The ministry's position, as set out in its reconsideration decision, is simply that there is not enough evidence to establish a severe mental impairment. EM T003(10/06/01) A PPE AL# I nt has b een diag nosed with cervical spin al e p a in in his neck and legs, a s wel l a s l eg ca n walk 2 -4 bl oc ks unaided on a fla t surfac e , ain sea ted for 1 -2 h o ur s . Th e d octo r ' s note of has d eteriorated (from prev i o usly d e s cribed) a nd o f s t air s without sev ere pr ob l ems. I n his letter hat the re has bee n d e terioration in the n gle blo ck. At th e h earing t h e app e l lant ity o f the appell an t's condition bu t also that his t e d. the ap pel lant 11 o r m ore t imes in the past y ea r . inf or mation f rom a consu lting n eur ologi st, a m pleting the AR a n d PR. Ac co r d ingly, the pa nel ith t he do cto r ov e r t he pas t year, and t h e i cal profe s si o nals who h ave e xamined the d the severity of the app e llant ' s con dition also notes that the doctor refer red to the ote of Octo ber 7, 2 014 a n d the le tter o f e app e l lan t' s te s t imony persua des th e panel th a t nce th e PR and the AR were comp leted. fficien t ev i d enc e t hat t he appellant h as a 2014 do es no t sp e cify how much h i s co ndition t n ow has d i fficult y a m bula ti n g at a ll, and s. T hese comments do not specify how far the ere problems ar e experie nc ed when the l lan t can cl i mb more tha n o ne flight of a nt can remai n s e at e d. I n short , it does not ail ed assessme n t c ont ained in t he P R. Similarl y, . I t do es speci fy that t he appellant is un able t o he appe l lan t's c on d itio n ha s deteriorate d of time to complete any normal tasks and report s f rom the appellant's s, in the panel's view they fail to o f the appellant's physical func t ioning and
P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e p a n e l n o t e s t h a t i n t h e P R t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s d o c t o r w i t h c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d h a d n o s i g n i f i c a n t d e f i c i t s w t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s d o c t o r w r o t e " N I A " a t t h e t o p o f t h e p a w i t h a n i d e n t i f i e d m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t o r b r a i n i n j u r y , a 2 1 o f t h e A R w h i c h o n c e a g a i n i s o n l y t o b e c o m p l e t e i m p a i r m e n t o r b r a i n i n j u r y . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p a n e l c o t h a t t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h a t t h e a p p S i g n i fi c a n t R e s t r i c t i o n s t o D L A : 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 h i s D L A a r e s i g n i f i c a n a n d t h a t h e r e l i e s o n h i s f r i e n d t o p e r f o r m m a n y o f h i T h e m 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 a p p e l l a n t ' s d o c t o r h t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s i m p a i r m e n t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e s t r i c t s h i s a c o n t i n u o u s l y o r p e r i o d i c a l l y f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s . T h w h i c h a c c o m p a 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 R e c n o t e d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e w h a t t y p e o f a s s i s t a n c e , e i t h e r e q u i r e s . P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e p a n e l n o t e s t h a t i n t h e A R t h e d o c t o r r e p o rt e d t h a l l D L A e x c e p t g o i n g t o a n d f r o m s t o r e s ( p e r i o d i c a s s ( p e r i o d i c a s s i s t a n c e r e q u i r e d ) . H e c o m m e n t e d t h a t " p u r c h a s e s . T h e p a n e l c o n s i d e r s t h i s a s s e s s m e n t t o a p p e l l a n t ' s D L A . T h e d o c t o r ' s n o t e o f O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 h o u s e h o l d a c t i v i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , t h e d o c t o r ' s l e t t e r o f N a s s i s t a n c e w i t h a l l h i s a c t i v i t i e s o f d a i l y l i v i n g . T h e s e p i c t u r e t h a t t h a t r e p o r t e d i n t h e A R . O n c e a g a i n , t h i s a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n s i n c e t h e P R a n d t h e A R w e r e r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s e b r i e f c o m m e n t s d o b y t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c o r e s t r i c t i o n s t o h i s D L A . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p a n e l c o n c l u t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o m a n a g e h i s D L A i n d e p e n d e c o n t i n u o u s l y o r p e r i o d i c a l l y f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s . H e l p w i t h D L A : 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 h e r e l i e s o n h e l p f r o m T h e m i n i s t r y ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t s i n c e i t h a s n o t b e e n e 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 d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s P a n e l D e c i s i o n : O n t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r e s c r i b e d p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d t w i t n e s s , t h e p a n e l c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e l p p r o h e l o r s u e r v i s i o n o f a n o t h e r e r s o n " t h a t i s r e u i r e EAA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L # 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 d n o d i f f i c u l t i e s 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 . I n t h e P R g e 1 2 w h i c h i s t o b e c o m p l e t e d f o r a n a p p l i c a n t n d s i m i l a r l y h a s w r i t t e n " N / A " a t t h e t o p o f p a g e d f o r a n a p p l i c a n t w i t h a n i d e n t i f i e d m e n t a l n c l u d e 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 e l l a n t h a s a s e v e r e m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t . t l y r e s t r i c t e d . H e s t a t e d t h a t h e i s l i m i t e d b y p a i n s D L A . a s n o t p r o v i d e d e n o u g h e v i d e n c e t o c o n f i r m t h a t b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m h i s d a i l y l i v i n g a c t i v i t i e s e m i n i s t r y n o t e s t h e d o c t o r ' s n o t e o f O c t 7 , 2 0 1 4 o n s i d e r a t i o n b u t t h e m i n i s t r y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r p e r i o d i c o r c o n t i n u o u s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s " I n d e p e n d e n t " i n p e rf o r m i n g i s t a n c e r e q u i r e d ) , a n d c a r r y i n g p u r c h a s e s h o m e A s s i s t a n c e m a y o n l y b e n e e d e d f o r h e a v i e r / l a r g e r e f l e c t a m o d e s t l e v e l o f r e s t r i c t i o n o n t h e 4 s t a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t n e e d s h e l p w i t h a l l h i s o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 1 4 s t a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t n e e d s l a t e r r e p o rt s a p p e a r t o r e f l e c t a m u c h d i f f e r e n t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e h a s b e e n d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n t h e c o m p l e t e d . B u t 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 n o t i n d i c a t e w h a t t y p e o f a s s i s t a n c e i s r e q u i r e d n c l u d e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s s i g n i f i c a n t d e 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 t h a t n t l y i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e s t r i c t e d e i t h e r h i s f r i e n d t o p e r f o r m h i s D L A . s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s D L A a r e i g n i f i c a n t h e l p i s r e q u i r e d f r o m o t h e r p e r s o n s . h e e x p l a n a t i o n s g i v e n b y t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d h i s v i d e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n s t i t u t e s " t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d b s . 2 3 b ( i i ) o f t h e E A P W D A .
I APPEAL# There is no evidence to indicate that the appellant requires an assistive device, or that he has an assistance animal. For these reasons, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded it could not be determined that the appellant requires help with DLA as defined bys. 2(3)(b) of the EAPWDA. Conclusion: The panel acknowledges that the appellant's medical conditions have some impact on his ability to function and that the appellant's condition has deteriorated since the doctor completed the PR and the AR. However, having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and the relevant legislation, the panel concludes that the ministry's decision finding the appellant ineligible for PWD designation is reasonably supported by the evidence and confirms the ministry's decision. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
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.