APPEAL # PART C – Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated March 6, 2015 which found that the appellant did not meet three of the five statutory requirements of Section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act for designation as a person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry found that the appellant met the age requirement and that his impairment is likely to continue for at least two years. However, the ministry was not satisfied 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, • as a result of these restrictions, the appellant requires the significant help or supervision of another person, the use of an assistive device, or the services of an assistance animal to perform DLA. 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
APPEAL # PART E – Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration decision included the Persons With Disabilities (PWD) Application comprised of the applicant information and a self-report dated November 28, 2014, and a physician report (PR) and assessor report (AR) both dated November 27, 2014 and completed by a general practitioner who has known the appellant for over 20 years. The evidence also included the appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated February 27, 2015 with the following attached documents: • Submission by the appellant dated February 25, 2015; • Letter dated February 26, 2015 from the general practitioner who completed the PR and AR; and, • Consultation report dated December 19, 2014 from a psychiatrist. Diagnoses In the PR, the appellant was diagnosed by the general practitioner with adjustment disorder, with an onset in 2012, general anxiety disorder and OCD [Obsessive Compulsive Disorder] which the appellant has had since he was young, and epilepsy with an onset in the 1970’s. In the AR, in response to a request to describe the impairment that impacts the appellant’s ability to manage daily living activities, the general practitioner wrote “poor emotional state limits all activities.” Physical Impairment In the PR, the general practitioner reported that: • In terms of health history, the “seizure disorder is well-controlled.” • The appellant does not require any prosthesis or aid for his impairment. • In terms of functional skills, the appellant can walk 4 or more blocks unaided, climb 5 or more steps unaided, and has no limitation with lifting or remaining seated. In the AR the general practitioner indicated that: • The appellant is assessed as being independent with walking indoors and walking outdoors, climbing stairs, standing, lifting and carrying and holding. • No assistive devices are indicated in the section of the AR relating to assistance provided. Mental Impairment In the PR, the general practitioner reported: • In terms of the appellant’s health history, “…emotional state is poorly controlled despite medication and counseling. Poor memory, irritability, great difficulty dealing with members of the public and any out of the ordinary events. Very stressed by previously well handled daily events. Poor social functioning as a result.” • The appellant has no difficulty with communication. • The appellant has significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in 5 of the 11 listed areas, specifically: executive, memory, emotional disturbance, motivation and attention/concentration, with no further comments added. In the AR, the general practitioner indicated that: • The appellant has a satisfactory ability to communicate in all areas. • There are two major impacts to the appellant’s cognitive and emotional functioning in the areas of emotion and executive. There are moderate impacts to insight and judgment, attention/
APPEAL # concentration, memory, motivation, and motor activity. There are minimal or no impacts assessed for the remaining six areas of functioning. The general practitioner did not provide any further comments. • With respect to social functioning, the general practitioner assessed the appellant as requiring continuous support/supervision with developing and maintaining relationships, interacting appropriately with others, dealing appropriately with unexpected demands, and securing assistance from others. The appellant requires periodic support/supervision with making appropriate social decisions. The general practitioner did not provide any further comments. • The appellant has very disrupted functioning in both his immediate and extended social networks, with no further comment added by the general practitioner. • Asked to describe the support/supervision required by the appellant that would help to maintain him in the community, the general practitioner wrote “counseling.” • In the additional comments, the general practitioner wrote that the appellant has “very disrupted social functioning- not likely to improve.” In his self-report, the appellant indicated that: • He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder but he knows that he has other disorders such as anxiety, panic, etc. • On a daily basis, he has extreme anxiety, panic attacks, sadness, crying spells and anger which come on anytime. He has grief and is tense all of the time. • Nothing seems to interest him and his mind is always racing. He has memory loss and he finds it hard to concentrate. • He avoids certain places and people daily and, every night, he cannot sleep for several hours. • He has to double/triple check doors, etc. before he is convinced that they are locked. • He has difficulty getting along with individuals (interacting) and finds himself pulling away from family and friends. In his Request for Reconsideration submission, the appellant wrote that: • He has a mental health clinician, a psychiatrist and an outreach worker whom he sees regularly. • He has lost his zest for life and changes are completely overwhelming. • He is so overwhelmed that he avoids public spaces, friends, and family. In the letter dated February 26, 2015, the general practitioner wrote that: • He thinks that the appellant is more disabled than it appears on his report and this relates entirely to his emotional and cognitive state. • The appellant has been seeing the mental health worker at the hospital and has also seen a psychiatrist. • The appellant certainly has obsessive traits as well as underlining general anxiety disorder. In the consultation report dated December 19, 2014, the psychiatrist wrote that: • His current working diagnosis for the appellant is seizure disorder due a to head injury, treated by medications, a possible personality disorder or personality change due to another medical condition, generalized anxiety disorder and low normal vitamin B12. He may also qualify for panic disorder. • The appellant has a “significant level of anxiety” and the catastrophizing and mood changes the appellant displayed at the consultation are likely related to his anxiety, while the mood
APPEAL # changes may also be due to a previous head injury. • The appellant had difficulty with increasing temporary thoughts and staying on topic during the consultation and this was likely due to his anxiety. • He suggests some neuro-cognitive testing and a CT scan of the appellant’s head. Daily Living Activities (DLA) In the PR, the general practitioner indicated that: • The appellant has not been prescribed any medications and/or treatments that interfere with his ability to perform daily living activities. In the AR, the general practitioner reported that: • The appellant’s “poor emotional state limits all activities.” • The appellant is independent with moving about indoors and outdoors. • The appellant is independent with all tasks of each listed DLA, specifically: personal care, basic housekeeping, shopping, meals, pay rent and bills, medications, and transportation. In his self-report, the appellant indicated that: • He used to be a very organized person but finds he leaves important tasks, such as not paying bills until the last day due, washing dishes when he runs out of silverware, making the bed at night, and leaving laundry and other things until he is forced to do them. In his Request for Reconsideration submission, the appellant wrote that: • He has a mental health clinician, a psychiatrist, and an outreach worker whom he sees regularly. These people help him with life skills, such as getting out of the house, cleaning his house, taking care of himself, and day-to-day living. They provide help completing applications and documents, counseling and emotional support, strategies for stress management, managing medications, connections to local resources and every day support as he is an excessive worrier. • If these services were not in place, the appellant is sure that he would give up on life, would not do anything to take care of himself and would be homeless. • He needs someone to direct him and help him do the regular tasks that need to be done. • The health care professionals help him do these important tasks. He was in a terrible state before he connected with them. • He also gets ongoing support from a minister of his church who helps him stay connected to his faith and listens to him. Need for Help In the AR, the general practitioner reported that, with respect to the assistance provided by other people, the health authority professionals assist the appellant. In the section of the AR for identifying assistance provided through the use of assistive devices, the general practitioner did not indicate any of the listed devices. In his self-report, the appellant indicated that: • He gets help primarily from health care professionals. Appellant’s additional information In his Notice of Appeal dated March 12, 2015, the appellant expressed his disagreement with the
APPEAL # ministry’s reconsideration decision and wrote that he has a hard time dealing with his mother being in extended care and dying and he is not getting any better, with his adjustment disorder, etc. and dealing with everyday life. Prior to the hearing, the appellant provided the following additional information: 1) Handwritten submission by the appellant dated March 19, 2015, in which he wrote that: • His disability is not just limited to the physical, but there are emotional/mental health disabilities which can definitely impact a person’s well being. • He is able to walk up a flight of stairs without help but his emotional state as well as his mental health is having a daily effect. He is still on a downhill slope. • When he wakes up and, after cleaning up, etc, there are days when he does not even feel like leaving his apartment and, when he does, it is usually 20 to 30 minutes before he actually leaves the building as he has to keep checking the door to make sure it is locked. Then he will worry if he left a light on or the water running. This compulsive, obsessive behavior takes a lot of energy. • He does not know what it is like to go one day without stress, worry, anxiety. With the poor condition of his mother, everything has gone from bad to worse. • Tasks such as laundry, doing dishes, cleaning his apartment, and paying bills are all left until the last minute or he is forced to do it. • He is also dealing with poor concentration, his mind is racing all of the time with worry and anxiety/panic for over 40 years. All of this has a continual affect on his daily emotional/mental well being; and, 2) Letter dated March 17, 2015 ‘To whom it may concern’ in which a mental health clinician wrote: • She has known the appellant since October 30, 2014 and has met with him 11 times. • In an assessment, the appellant scored in the extreme anxiety or panic range. He also scored in the moderate range for depression. He regularly experiences panic attacks. • The appellant’s sleep is poor. He has difficulty concentrating which results in disorganized thoughts and tangential conversation. • The appellant is often irritable and this can grow to anger and ways of expressing himself that have caused problems in his life with both his family and others. • When faced with choices, the appellant worries about making a wrong decision and looks for reassurance from others. He has little confidence and self-esteem. • The appellant has difficulty interacting with others. He trusts few people. He does not have close friends or a social network of support. • The appellant talks of obsessions interfering with his life. • The appellant met with the psychiatrist on December 21, 2014. The psychiatrist only conducts accessible outreach clinics approximately 8 times per year, so it is not always possible for patients to see him frequently. • The appellant has agreed to meet with the psychiatrist again on March 26, 2015 to get additional information that might help comfort him about changing his medication. • Mental health issues, at least on first appearance, are invisible. Many people with anxiety do their best to hide it because they fear appearing foolish; however, this does not stop it from creating chaos and despair in their lives. • She believes the appellant is not able to work for a year at minimum and possibly longer. At the hearing, the appellant stated that: • He has had anxiety and worry since he was a young boy.
APPEAL # • Based on the original PWD application, he can understand how the ministry came to its decision since his family doctor was not detailed enough and was not totally aware of what the appellant was going through. He only had a 10 minute appointment which does not give much time to share information. However, further information has now been provided. • He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder in August or September of 2014 and, since then, it is not getting better but is getting worse. • He has a hard time budgeting and paying his rent and bills. He gets $610 per month from the ministry and his rent is $550. He has applied for subsidized housing. He also has difficulty with meal planning and often only eats one meal a day. His desire to eat has gone. He will just eat potato chips and sometimes make pasta with luncheon meats. • He does not know how to budget to buy groceries. He will go into the grocery store, walk around and then walk out without making a purchase. • He can feed himself, toilet, dress and groom himself. He used to be a well-organized person until last year. • He has not had a seizure for over 30 years as these are controlled by medication. • Some days are better than others but he is not able to work right now and he is worried what will happen if his income assistance runs out. He has been the main caregiver for his mother. • He does not know what a “normal” life is like. He uses up so much energy worrying about everything. Admissibility of Additional Information The ministry did not object to admitting the appellant’s handwritten submission or the letter from the mental health clinician and did not raise an objection to the appellant’s oral testimony. The additional information substantiates the impact of the appellant’s impairment as diagnosed in the PWD application, which was before the ministry at reconsideration. Therefore, the panel admitted this additional information as being in support of information and records that were before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration, in accordance with Section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision as summarized at the hearing and did not provide any additional evidence.
APPEAL # PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision, which found that the appellant is not eligible for designation as a person with disabilities (PWD), was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry found that the appellant does not have a severe mental or physical impairment based on the information provided and that his daily living activities (DLA) are not, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods. Also, as a result of those restrictions, it could not be determined that the appellant requires the significant help or supervision of another person, the use of an assistive device, or the services of an assistance animal to perform DLA. The criteria for being designated as a person with disabilities (PWD) are set out in Section 2 of the EAPWDA as follows: Persons with disabilities 2 (1) In this section: "assistive device" means a device designed to enable a person to perform a daily living activity that, because of a severe mental or physical impairment, the person is unable to perform; "daily living activity" has the prescribed meaning; "prescribed professional" has the prescribed meaning. (2) The minister may designate a person who has reached 18 years of age as a person with disabilities for the purposes of this Act if the minister is satisfied that the person has a severe mental or physical impairment that (a) in the opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years, and (b) in the opinion of a prescribed professional (i) directly and significantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily living activities either (A) continuously, or (B) periodically for extended periods, and (ii) as a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), (a) a person who has a severe mental impairment includes a person with a 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 supervision of another person, or (iii) the services of an assistance animal. (4) The minister may rescind a designation under subsection (2). Section 2(1) and (2) of the EAPWDR provide definitions of DLA and prescribed professionals as follows: Definitions for Act 2 (1) For the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "daily living activities" , (a) in relation to a person who has a severe physical impairment or a severe mental impairment, means the following activities: (i) prepare own meals; (ii) manage personal finances;
APPEAL # (iii) shop for personal needs; (iv) use public or personal transportation facilities; (v) perform housework to maintain the person's place of residence in acceptable sanitary condition; (vi) move about indoors and outdoors; (vii) perform personal hygiene and self care; (viii) manage personal medication, and (b) in relation to a person who has a severe mental impairment, includes the following activities: (i) make decisions about personal activities, care or finances; (ii) relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively. (2) For the purposes of the Act, "prescribed professional" means a person who is (a) authorized under an enactment to practise the profession of (i) medical practitioner, (ii) registered psychologist, (iii) registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse, (iv) occupational therapist, (v) physical therapist, (vi) social worker, (vii) chiropractor, or (viii) nurse practitioner, or (b) acting in the course of the person's employment as a school psychologist by (i) an authority, as that term is defined in section 1 (1) of the Independent School Act, or (ii) a board or a francophone education authority, as those terms are defined in section 1 (1) of the School Act, if qualifications in psychology are a condition of such employment. Severe Physical Impairment The appellant did not advance a position that he has a severe physical impairment as he acknowledged that he is independent with mobility and physical ability and has not had a seizure due to epilepsy for several decades. The ministry's position is that the general practitioner indicated that the appellant is not limited in his physical functioning and he is independently able to manage his mobility and all physical abilities. The ministry argued that there is not sufficient information to establish that the appellant has a severe physical impairment. Panel Decision The general practitioner diagnosed the appellant with epilepsy with an onset in the 1970’s. The appellant clarified at the hearing that this condition has been controlled by medication and he has not had a seizure for several decades. The general practitioner reported in the PR that the appellant can walk 4 or more blocks unaided, climb 5 or more steps unaided, and has no limitation with lifting or remaining seated. In the AR the general practitioner indicated that the appellant is independent with walking indoors and walking outdoors, climbing stairs, standing, lifting and carrying and holding. The appellant does not require an aid for his impairment and no assistive devices are indicated in the section of the AR relating to assistance provided. Given the absence of physical limitations, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that there is not sufficient evidence to establish
APPEAL # that the appellant has a severe physical impairment under Section 2(2) of the EAPWDA. Severe Mental Impairment The appellant’s position is that the evidence of daily impacts due to his diagnosed adjustment disorder, general anxiety disorder and OCD establishes a severe mental impairment. The appellant argued that he and his mental health clinician have provided additional detail that may have been missed in the original PWD application. The ministry’s position is that although the appellant has a mental impairment, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant has a severe mental impairment as required by Section 2(2) of the EAPWDA. The ministry argued that the general practitioner reported that there are significant deficits in five areas of the appellant’s cognitive and emotional functioning, but there are major impacts to only two aspects (emotion and executive) and the general practitioner has not provided further comment to explain how the appellant’s mental impairment impacts his ability to manage his daily living activities. Panel Decision A diagnosis of a serious medical condition does not in itself determine PWD eligibility or establish a severe impairment. An “impairment” is a medical condition that results in restrictions to a person’s ability to function independently or effectively. To assess the severity of an impairment the ministry must consider the nature of the impairment and the extent of its impact on daily functioning as evidenced by functional skill limitations and the degree to which the ability to perform DLA is restricted. In making its determination the ministry must consider all the relevant evidence, including that of the appellant. However, the legislation is clear that the fundamental basis for the analysis is the evidence from a “prescribed professional” – in this case, both the appellant’s long-time general practitioner and the psychiatrist who met with him once. The general practitioner, who has known the appellant for over 20 years, diagnosed the appellant with adjustment disorder, general anxiety disorder and OCD and reported that the appellant’s “…emotional state is poorly controlled despite medication and counseling. Poor memory, irritability, great difficulty dealing with members of the public and any out of the ordinary events. Very stressed by previously well handled daily events. Poor social functioning as a result.” The general practitioner assessed significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in 5 of the 11 listed areas, specifically: executive, memory, emotional disturbance, motivation and attention/concentration, with no further comments added. There are two major impacts assessed to the appellant’s cognitive and emotional functioning in the aspects of emotion and executive, and moderate impacts to insight and judgment, attention/ concentration, memory, motivation, and motor activity. There are minimal or no impacts assessed to the remaining six aspects of functioning and the general practitioner did not provide any further comments. In the letter dated February 26, 2015, the general practitioner wrote that he thinks the appellant is more disabled than it appears on his report and this relates entirely to his emotional and cognitive state. The general practitioner wrote that the appellant has been seeing the mental health worker at the hospital and has also seen a psychiatrist. He enclosed the psychiatrist’s consultation report from the appellant’s initial appointment with the psychiatrist but did not provide further detail of any restrictions to the appellant’s functioning.
APPEAL # The psychiatrist reported that the appellant has a “significant level of anxiety” and the catastrophizing and mood changes the appellant displayed at the consultation are related to his anxiety, while the appellant’s mood changes may also be due to a previous head injury. The psychiatrist characterized the appellant’s anxiety as “severe” or “significant”, but he did not specifically address how the appellant’s anxiety affects DLA, except for communication. The psychiatrist noted that the appellant had difficulty with increasing temporary thoughts and staying on topic during the consultation and this was likely due to his anxiety. In his self-report, the appellant wrote that on a daily basis he has extreme anxiety, panic attacks, sadness, crying spells and anger which come on at anytime. Nothing seems to interest him, his mind is always racing, he has memory loss and he finds it hard to concentrate. Considering the two DLA that are specific to mental impairment – make decisions about personal activities, care or finances (decision making), and relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively (social functioning), the evidence does not clearly indicate that the appellant is significantly restricted in either. With respect to decision making, the general practitioner reported in the AR that the appellant is independent with the decision-making components of the DLA of daily shopping (making appropriate choices), meal preparation (meal planning and safe storage of food), managing his finances (banking, budgeting, pay rent and bills), managing his medications (taking as directed and safe handling) and transportation (using transit schedules and arranging transportation). While the general practitioner reported in the AR that the appellant requires periodic support/supervision from another person with making appropriate social decisions, he did not provide an explanation or description of the degree and duration of the supervision required. In her letter dated March 17, 2015, the mental health clinician wrote that, when faced with choices, the appellant worries about making a wrong decision and looks for reassurance from others. Regarding the DLA of social functioning, the appellant is assessed in the AR as requiring continuous support/ supervision from another person with developing and maintaining relationships, interacting appropriately with others and securing assistance from others. In the AR, the general practitioner reported that the appellant has very disrupted functioning in both his immediate and extended social networks and, asked to describe the support/supervision required by the appellant that would help to maintain him in the community, the general practitioner wrote “counseling.” The general practitioner also reported in the PR that the appellant has no difficulty with communication, whereas the psychiatrist noted in his consultation report that the appellant had difficulty staying on topic due to his anxiety. In the AR, the general practitioner indicated that the appellant has a satisfactory ability to communicate in speaking, reading, writing, and hearing. In her letter dated March 17, 2015, the mental health clinician wrote that the appellant is often irritable and this can grow to anger and ways of expressing himself that have caused problems in his life with both his family and others. The appellant has difficulty interacting with others, he trusts few people, and he does not have close friends or a social network of support. She believes the appellant is not able to work for a year at minimum and possibly longer. At the hearing, the appellant also stated that he is currently not able to work. As for finding work and/or working, the panel notes that employability is not a criterion in section 2(2) of the EAPWDA nor is it listed among the prescribed DLA in section 2 of the EAPWDR. Given the emphasis in the new information on the appellant’s ability to work, the incomplete information regarding the appellant’s social functioning, and the mostly moderate impacts to the appellant’s cognitive and emotional functioning, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably
APPEAL # determined that a severe mental impairment was not established under Section 2(2) of the EAPWDA. Restrictions in the ability to perform DLA The appellant’s position is that his mental impairment directly and significantly restricts his ability to perform DLA on an ongoing basis to the point that he requires the significant assistance of another person, namely various health care professionals. The appellant argued that although his general practitioner did not provide sufficient detail in the PWD application, his condition has gotten worse since then and more information has been provided by his general pracitioner and the mental health clinician. The ministry’s position is that the information from the prescribed professionals does not establish that the appellant’s impairments significantly restrict his DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods of time. The ministry recognized that the general practitioner assessed the appellant as requiring continuous or periodic support/supervision in the area of social functioning, there is no explanation given as to why he requires this level of support/supervision. The ministry argued that the general practitioner indicated that the appellant can independently manage all other DLA. Panel Decision Section 2(2)(b) of the EAPWDA requires that a prescribed professional provide an opinion that an applicant’s severe impairment directly and significantly restricts his DLA, continuously or periodically for extended periods. In this case, the general practitioner and the psychiatrist are prescribed professionals. The definition of “prescribed professional,” as set out in Section 2 of the EAPWDR, lists various types of registered professionals and there is no indication that the mental health clinician is one of these registered professionals. DLA are defined in Section 2(1) of the EAPWDR and are also listed in the PR and, with additional details, in the AR. Therefore, the prescribed professional completing these forms has the opportunity to indicate which, if any, DLA are significantly restricted by the appellant’s impairments continuously or periodically for extended periods. In the appellant’s circumstances, the general practitioner has known him for over 20 years and he reported that the appellant has not been prescribed any medications and/or treatments that interfere with his ability to perform DLA. While the general practitioner wrote in the AR that the appellant’s “poor emotional state limits all activities,” he went on to assess the appellant as being able to independently perform all tasks of each listed DLA. As previously discussed, the evidence does not clearly indicate that the appellant is significantly restricted in the two DLA specific to mental impairment, namely decision making and social functioning. Although the psychiatrist provided some information in his consultation report relating to the appellant’s ability to communicate, he had only met with the appellant one time and did not assess the appellant’s ability to perform DLA. The appellant indicated in his self-report, in his Request for Reconsideration, and at the hearing that he used to be a very organized person but he now leaves important tasks, such as paying bills until the last day due, washing dishes when he runs out of silverware, making his bed at night, and leaving laundry and other things until he is forced to do them. He does not know how to budget for grocery shopping. He has lost the desire to eat and will often eat only one meal a day. He has a mental health clinician, a psychiatrist, and an outreach worker who he sees regularly and these people help him with life skills, such as getting out of the house, cleaning his house, taking care of himself, and managing day-to-day living. He needs someone to direct him and help him do the regular tasks that
APPEAL # need to be done. The health care professionals help him do these important tasks and, if these services were not in place, he is sure that he would give up on life and taking care of himself, and would be homeless. While the general practitioner wrote, in the letter dated February 26, 2015, that he thinks that the appellant is more disabled than it appears on his report and this relates entirely to his emotional and cognitive state, he did not provide details of any specific assessed impacts to the appellant’s DLA. Considering the evidence of the prescribed professionals, the general practitioner and the psychiatrist, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable to conclude that the evidence is insufficient to show that the appellant’s overall ability to perform his DLA is significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods, pursuant to Section 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA. Help to perform DLA The appellant’s position is that his mental impairment significantly restricts his daily living functions to a severe enough extent that significant assistance is required from health care professionals. The ministry’s position is that because it has not been established that DLA are significantly restricted, it cannot be determined that significant help is required. The ministry noted that no assistive devices or assistance animals are required. Panel Decision Section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA requires that, as a result of direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA, a person requires help to perform those activities. Help is defined in subsection (3) as the requirement for an assistive device, the significant help or supervision of another person, or the services of an assistance animal in order to perform a DLA. The panel finds that the evidence of the appellant's general practitioner, as the prescribed professional, is that the appellant receives assistance from health authority professionals and that he does not require an aid for his impairment. In his self-report, the appellant wrote that he gets help from health professionals and he does not claim to require an assistive device. The panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that as direct and significant restrictions in the appellant’s ability to perform DLA have not been established, it cannot be determined that the appellant requires help to perform DLA as a result of those restrictions, as defined by section 2(3)(b) of the EAPWDA. Conclusion Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the ministry’s reconsideration decision which determined that the appellant was not eligible for PWD designation pursuant to Section 2(2) of the EAPWDA was reasonably supported by the evidence, and therefore confirms the 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.