PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and
Social Innovation (the ministry) dated 12 August 2015 that denied the appellant designation as a
person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry determined that the appellant did not meet all of the
required criteria for PWD designation set out in the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Act, section 2. Specifically, the ministry determined that the information provided did not
establish that the appellant has a severe mental or physical impairment that in the opinion of a
prescribed professional
(i) directly and significantly restricts her ability to perform daily living activities (DLA) either
continuously or periodically for extended periods; and,
(ii) as a result of those restrictions, she requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other 2 criteria: she has reached 18 years of
age and her impairment in the opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2
years.
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
PART E – Summary of Facts
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following:
1.
The appellant’s PWD Designation Application dated 05 June 2015. The Application contained:
A Physician Report (PR) dated 10 July 2014, completed by the appellant’s general
practitioner (GP) who has known the appellant for 11 years and seen her 2 - 10 times over
the past year
An Assessor Report (AR) dated 09 April 2015, completed by the same GP.
A Self Report (SR) completed by the appellant.
2. The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, dated 14 July 2015, to which was attached a
submission from the appellant’s advocate and 3 Internet articles on fibromyalgia.
In the PR, the GP lists the following diagnoses related to the appellant’s impairment: fibromyalgia
(onset 1996) and anxiety/depression (mood disorder) with onset unknown. The GP reports that the
appellant’s impairment will likely continue for 2 years or more (longstanding: chronic condition).
The panel will first summarize the evidence from the PR and AR relating to the appellant’s
impairments as it relates to the PWD criteria at issue.
Severity/health history
Physical impairment
PR:
Under health history, the GP writes:
“The appellant finds that her condition is progressive. Used to be able to work in restaurants
and retail but is now bothered by increased (sic) and fatigue; finds it difficult looking after
self and children (ADLs affected). Tried to work in daycare situation but unable to do that.”
As to functional skills, the GP reports that the appellant can walk 1-2 blocks unaided, climb 2-5 steps
unaided, is limited to lifting 15 – 35 lbs. and is limited to remaining seated for less than one hour.
The GP indicates that the appellant has not been prescribed any medication and/or treatments that
interfere with her ability to perform DLA. The GP also indicates that the appellant does not require
any prostheses or aids for her impairment.
Mental impairment
PR:
Under health history, the GP writes:
“Gets overwhelmed when surrounded by large group of people; not able to do restaurant
work. Avoids situations when in crowds. Snaps at the children when there is constant
demand on her attention.”
The GP assesses the appellant as having no difficulties with communications.
GP indicates that the appellant has significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in the
areas of emotional disturbance, motivation, and motor activity, commenting: “Definitely mood issues.
Very agitated today: twitching”.
Ability to perform DLA
PR:
The GP indicates the appellant is restricted the following DLA periodic basis: meal preparation, basic
housework, daily shopping, mobility inside the home, mobility outside the home. The GP also
indicates that the appellant is restricted in social functioning, giving no indication as to whether that is
continuous or periodic. The GP comments: “Has good & bad days. On worse days just lying in bed:
not able to do ADLs”
Regarding social functioning, the GP comments: “isolates self; not much social function; not many
friends; lost contact with father of children; separated.”
AR:
The GP reports that the appellant lives with her 2 children.
The GP lists the appellant's mental or physical impairments that impact her ability to manage DLA as
chronic pain issues; anxiety and depression
GP assesses the appellant's ability to communicate as good for speaking, reading, writing and
hearing.
Regarding mobility and physical ability, the GP assesses the appellant as independent but taking
significantly longer than typical in all of the following areas, with comments as shown:
Walking indoors – “some days hurts to walk.”
Walking outdoors –“some days hurts to walk.”
Climbing stairs – “stops after doing few – aggravates hip.”
Standing – “at times only able to stand for short periods.”
Lifting and carrying and holding – “neck & shoulder hurts when holding weight as low as 20
lbs.”
The GP comments: “has hard time doing hills – pain.”
The GP assesses the assistance required for managing DLA as follows (the GP’s comments in
parentheses):
Personal care: independent in all aspects, but takes significantly longer than typical for
dressing, bathing, transfers in/out of bed and transfers on/off of chair (at times difficult when
hip very painful),
Basic housekeeping: Independent for laundry and basic housekeeping but takes significantly
longer than typical (unable to do it as often as she should, gets help from friend once in a
while).
Shopping: independent in all aspects.
Meals: independent in all aspects, but takes significantly longer than typical for meal planning,
food preparation and cooking (at times only able to make something quick & easy).
Paying rent and bills: independent in all aspects.
Medications: independent in all aspects.
Transportation: independent for getting in and out of vehicle, but takes significantly longer than
typical (drives own vehicle; stays home when hip hurts too much). No assessment is provided
for using public transit schedules and arranging transportation.
Regarding cognitive and emotional functioning, the GP indicates that the appellant's mental
impairment or brain injury restricts or impacts her functioning as follows:
Major impact – emotion and motivation.
Moderate impact – executive and memory.
Minimal impact – attention/concentration.
No impact – bodily functions, consciousness, impulse control, insight and judgment, motor
activity, language, psychotic symptoms, and other neuropsychological problems.
The GP comments: “Above impaired mostly on basis of depression.”
With respect to social functioning the GP assesses the appellant as independent for making
appropriate social decisions, developing and maintaining relationships (only has a few friends),
interacting appropriately with others, dealing appropriately with unexpected demands and securing
assistance from others (no help at the moment).
The GP describes the impact of the appellant's impairment on her immediate and extended social
networks as marginal functioning, commenting that she tends to isolate herself.
Help provided/required
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids for her impairment
The GP states that, regarding DLA, the appellant gets help mostly from her mother.
AR:
The GP reports that that the appellant receives help from a friend with laundry and her mother helps
with the kids.
The GP does not indicate that the appellant routinely uses any of the listed assistive devices.
Self report
The appellant describes her disability as follows:
constant back/hip/neck pain
leg & arm goes numb
constant headaches
have to lie down a lot
trouble sleeping
In describing how her disability affects her life, she writes:
“Sometimes the pain is so bad that I just lay around the house. I will skip meals for myself
(still feed the kids). I have no motivation to just push through the pain & depression that I
will cancel appointments etc.”
Reconsideration submission
In the reconsideration submission, the appellant's advocate provides a detailed overview of the
appellant's medical conditions and their impact on her daily life. To summarize:
The appellant is a single mother with two children.
She suffers from fibromyalgia, which results in constant pain throughout her body, with certain
areas acutely affected – starting with her neck and continuing throughout her entire back and
radiating down her right arm, while from her lower back the pain radiates through her right hip
and down the full-length of her right leg.
The pain felt throughout the appellant's body disrupts her nightly sleep, resulting in no quality
or restorative sleep, and in the morning her mind is not sharp, she is irritable, frustrated,
sometimes confused and constantly fatigued, while the pain has not subsided.
In the mornings it will take her 3 to 4 times longer than typical to get out of bed because of pain
and cramping in her right hip. Her morning routine takes five times longer to accomplish, as
dressing grooming her painful.
Some days she cannot get up because the pain is so bad; because she must use stairs to get
to the family room and kitchen it is easier to stay on the bedroom level.
Going up and down stairs requires planning and she must always use either the wall or the
handrail.
If it is a day she can get up, she keeps breakfast as simple as possible. When her son goes to
school she is at home with her toddler daughter; she must conserve strength to supervise her
daughter through the day. Sometimes a friend provides childcare.
Laundry and housekeeping take 5 to 10 times longer because of constant back pain. Often
these duties are left until her son or friend can assist. If she must leave her home for shopping
or errands, the excursion must be carefully planned. She cannot drive more than 20 minutes,
after which her back, shoulders and hip cause difficulty from being in one position for too long.
At the grocery store she always uses a shopping cart. She will usually have the children assist
with shopping or ask friends if available. She may go several days without medications or
some food items because she is unable to leave the home. She relies on her brother to remind
her when utility payments must be made, as her fatigue, pain and lack of sleep make her
prone to forgetfulness.
As to the appellant's emotional state, constant pain and fatigue lead to feelings of depression
and anxiety. She is frustrated with her condition and this can make her irritable and quick to
anger. She avoids all social situations, except for a couple of friends who come to help her,
and she has no meaningful contacts outside of her home. She cannot go for walks or
participate in sports and she cannot maintain a relationship because her physical difficulties
and limitations dictate the limits of liberty.
The appellant's Notice of Appeal is dated 26 August 2015. She gave as reasons: “I believe my
disability is of a severe physical nature with associated mental impact, that my daily activities are
significantly restricted, and, I do require significant help/supervision of another person to perform my
daily living activities.”
Information submitted on appeal
Before the hearing, the appellant submitted the following:
A “To whom it may concern” letter of support dated 09 September 2015 from a friend of the
appellant. The friend describes how she, on more than a few accounts, has assisted the
appellant with many things in and out of her home simply because the pain that she
experiences does not allow her to accomplish them herself efficiently, or in a physically healthy
manner. Although the appellant is able to properly care for her children, on her worst days
things such as laundry, running errands or walking down the stairs can be difficult or scary.
The appellant experiences frequent falls down sets of stairs due to her back and hip issues.
When this happens she is unable to do things around the house due to the resulting physical
pain, as well as the fear that she may fall again. The friend goes on to describe the appellant’s
struggles this anxiety and depression. In the appellant's anxiety is at its worst, the friend visits
to give her the support she needs.
A “To whom it may concern" letter from the appellant’s GP, dated 09 September 2015, who
writes:
“This is to state that [the appellant] is well known to me. She has a chronic pain syndrome on
the basis of fibromyalgia and this has been affecting her for the better part of 20 years. I
recently asked her to do a brief pain inventory and pain disability Index and after reviewing
this I find that she is always in pain and that she is only getting about 30% relief of this pain
using opiate analgesics. Pain is significantly interfering with most aspects of her life – ADLs,
mood, walking, going up and down stairs, work, housework, relations with other people,
sleep and enjoyment of life.
“I was also asked to elaborate on the frequency and severity of this pain. As noted in the
preceding paragraph she is always suffering from pain. About once a week this pain is so
severe she hardly gets out of bed or off the couch and this pain can linger for a day or more.
During these episodes she needs assistance and she usually gets this from some friends or
her mother.”
The hearing
At the hearing, the appellant's advocate referred to the reconsideration submission. He stated that
had prepared this on the basis of an extensive interview with the appellant, with the aim of describing
as best he could how the appellant's impairments affect her daily functioning.
The appellant explained the 9-month time difference between the GP completing the PR and the AR.
When she first went to see her GP about the application form, she was under the impression that he
would complete the PR and that it would be up to her to find somebody else to complete the AR. She
was unable to find someone to do that, and was advised by the ministry that she could have the GP
complete the AR. When she took it into him, he was in a rush and did not spend much time
questioning her about the assessments to be made on the form.
The appellant described how the past weekend was typical. Because of her pain she was barely able
to walk and a friend came over to look after the children and do some housekeeping. She explained
that when she wakes up in the morning she never knows how bad the pain will be. Her medications
are not much help, but when the pain is really bad she does not go to the hospital because she feels
that there is not much they could do for her. She said that her right hip will frequently give out and this
has caused numerous falls down the stairs. She does her best in feeding her children; while they
never go hungry, their meals may not be the most nutritious – sometimes just waffles that can easily
be warmed in the toaster. She stated that on some days the pain in her right leg is so bad that she
cannot drive, as it is that leg that must function properly to drive safely. She explained that the friend
who wrote the letter of support lives a few doors away; they are in regular contact by texting and the
friend will come over and help out when needed, subject to work and other commitments.
The appellant explained while she has been diagnosed with both depression and anxiety, her GP has
prescribed medication only for her depression, out of concern that any anti-anxiety medications would
not work well with her pain medications.
In answer to a question, the appellant stated that severe bouts of pain sometimes occur more
frequently than indicated by her GP, as a result of falling down the stairs, which may occur once or
twice a week.
Admissibility of new Information
With the exception noted below, the panel finds that the new information provided in the GPs letter,
the letter of support from her friend and the appellant's testimony at the hearing is in support of the
information and records before the ministry at reconsideration. The information from the GP
concerning the appellant's constant pain tends to corroborate the appellant's description in her self
report. The information from the GP regarding the frequency of the appellant's severe bouts of pain
about once a week tends to substantiate numerous references in the material before the ministry
concerning this happening “some days” or “sometimes.” Therefore the panel admits this information
as evidence pursuant to section 22(4) the Employment and Assistance Act.
The panel does not admit as evidence the information by the appellant and her friend concerning her
history of falling down stairs, as there was no reference to this in the records before the ministry at
reconsideration.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry decision that determined that the appellant did not
meet two of the five statutory requirements of Section 2 of the EAPWDA for designation as a person
with disabilities (PWD) is reasonably supported by the evidence or is a reasonable application of the
legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry found that the appellant met the age
requirement and that, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, her 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 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.
The following section of the EAPWDA applies to this appeal:
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.
The following section of the EAPWDR applies to this appeal:
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;
(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.
Severity of impairment
Physical impairment
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry reviewed the information provided by the GP in the PR
and found that the appellant experiences limitations to her physical function due to pain in her neck,
shoulders and hip. However, the ministry determined the assessments provided by the medical
practitioner speak to a moderate rather than a severe physical impairment.
The position of the appellant is that the evidence of significant limitations in her physical functioning
due to the constant pain in her neck, shoulders and hip arising from her fibromyalgia clearly
demonstrates that she has a severe physical impairment.
Panel decision
A diagnosis of a serious medical condition does not in itself determine PWD eligibility. Under the
legislation, eligibility for PWD hinges on an “impairment” and its severity. An “impairment” is more
than a diagnosed medical condition. An impairment is a medical condition that results in restrictions
to a person’s ability to function independently, appropriately, effectively or for a reasonable duration.
To assess the severity of an impairment one 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. The legislation makes it clear that the determination of
severity is at the discretion of the minister, taking into account all of the evidence. However, the
legislation is also clear that the fundamental basis for the analysis is the evidence from a medical
practitioner and a prescribed professional – in this case, the appellant’s GP.
The legislation requires that for PWD designation, the minister must be “satisfied” that the person has
a severe mental or physical impairment. For the minister to be “satisfied” that the person’s impairment
is severe, the panel considers it reasonable for the ministry to expect that the information provided
presents a clear and complete picture of the nature and extent of the impacts of the person's medical
conditions on daily functioning.
In the reconsideration submission, the appellant's advocate, on the basis of a lengthy interview with
her, has provided a broad overview of the impacts of her fibromyalgia on her physical functioning.
The appellant described some of these impacts at the hearing as well. However, the panel notes that
this overview describes many impacts as occurring “sometimes” or “some days,” without offering any
information as to the frequency of these occurrences. By comparison to the detail provided by the
advocate, the panel finds it difficult to develop a similar picture of the impacts of the appellant’s
fibromyalgia from the information provided by the appellant’s GP in the PR and AR.
In the PR, GP assesses the appellant as being able to walk 1-2 blocks unaided and climb 2 – 5 steps
unaided lift 15 to 35 pounds and remain seated for less than one hour. Under health history, where
the GP is asked to indicate the severity on the medical conditions relevant to the impairment, the GP
writes only that: “[The appellant] finds that her condition is progressive. Used to be able to work in
restaurants and retail but is now bothered by increased (sic) and fatigue; finds it difficult looking after
self and children (ADLs affected). Tried to work in daycare situation but unable to do that.” In the PR,
the GP indicates the appellant is restricted in meal preparation, basic housework, daily shopping,
mobility inside the home and mobility outside the home, all on a periodic basis. He explains periodic
as “Has good & bad days. On worse days just lying in bed: not able to do ADLs,” without providing
information as to the frequency and duration of good and bad days. In assessing mobility and
physical ability in the PR, GP assesses the appellant as independent but taking much longer than
typical, noting only “some days unable to walk,” without explaining why or how frequently this is the
case. In terms of climbing stairs, the GP makes the same assessment, commenting: “stops after
doing few – aggravates hip.” As to the other DLA requiring physical effort, the GP assesses the
appellant as independent in all of them, taking longer than typical for some aspects (see also below
under Direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA), again without providing any
information as to how much longer.
In his letter submitted on appeal, the GP confirms that the appellant’s pain is constant, only alleviated
by a moderate degree by analgesics, and “About once a week this pain is so severe she hardly gets
out of bed or off the couch and this pain can linger for a day or more.” In the panel’s view, without a
more detailed description of the impact of the appellant’s pain on the other days, being almost bed
ridden once a week – 4 times a month – is not sufficient to establish a severe physical impairment.
The panel considers it reasonable that the ministry would rely on the independent and professional
information provided by the medical practitioner – the GP – in making its determination, and finds
that, given the lack of information provided, the ministry was reasonable in determining that a severe
physical impairment had not been established.
Mental impairment
The position of the Ministry, as set out in the reconsideration decision, is that the information provided
does not establish that the appellant has a severe mental impairment.
The appellant’s position is that the GP has diagnosed her with anxiety and depression and his
assessments clearly demonstrate that she has a severe mental impairment.
Panel decision
The GP has diagnosed the appellant with anxiety and depression. He has identified significant
deficits with cognitive and emotional function in the areas of emotional disturbance, motivation and
motor activity, commenting: “Definitely mood issues; very agitated today; twitching.” Under health
history, he explains the severity of the appellant's mental impairment by writing: “Gets overwhelmed
when surrounded by large group of people; not able to do restaurant work. Avoids situations when in
crowds. Snaps at the children when there is constant demand on her attention.” The GP assesses
the appellant’s mental impairment as having a major impact on emotion and motivation and a
moderate impact in the areas of executive and memory, commenting that her impairment is mostly on
the basis of depression.
In terms of the impact of the appellant’s mental health condition on her ability to perform DLA, the GP
indicates in the PR that the appellant's social functioning is restricted, without an assessment as to
whether this is continuous or periodic, and comments “isolates self; not much social function; not
many friends; lost contact with father of children; separated.” In the AR, the GP assesses the
appellant as independent in all listed areas of the social functioning DLA (See Direct and significant
restrictions on the ability to perform DLA, below).
The GP provided little further narrative in support of the determination of severe mental impairment.
For instance, no explanatory details are provided regarding the major impact on motivation, and there
is nothing to indicate in the assessments of DLA requiring physical effort that motivation is a factor in
taking significantly longer than typical. Similarly for memory, the GP does not confirm that the
appellant requires the help of her brother in reminding her to pay her utility bills, as described in the
reconsideration submission.
Considering that there is no information to suggest the appellant has ever been referred to a
psychiatrist and taking into account the lack of detail that would support the GP's assessments of
major impacts of her mental health condition on daily functioning, the panel finds that the ministry was
reasonable in determining that a severe mental impairment had not been established.
Direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA.
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry acknowledged that the appellant has certain limitations
resulting from pain which as a result makes her stay in bed or take longer than typical to perform
DLA. However, frequency and duration of these periods are not described in order to determine if
they represent a significant restriction to her overall level of functioning. The ministry found that the
assessments provided by the GP are indicative of a moderate level of restriction. The position of the
ministry is that the information provided by the GP does not establish that a severe impairment
significantly restricts DLA continuously or periodically for extended periods.
The position of the appellant is that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that, as a result of her
constant pain and anxiety and depression, she is significantly restricted in their ability to perform DLA
on an ongoing basis
Panel findings
The panel notes that, according to the legislation, the direct and significant restriction in the ability to
perform DLA must be a result of a severe impairment, a criterion that has not been established in this
appeal. The legislation – section 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA – requires the minister to assess direct
and significant restrictions of DLA in consideration of the opinion of a prescribed professional, in this
case the appellant’s GP. This doesn’t mean that other evidence shouldn’t be factored in as required
to provide clarification of the professional evidence, but the legislative language makes it clear that
the prescribed professionals’ evidence is fundamental to the ministry’s determination as to whether it
is “satisfied”.
In the AR, GP assesses the appellant as independent, with some restrictions noted, for all DLA
applicable to a person with a physical or mental impairment. Regarding the DLA of moving about
indoors and outdoors, the GP comments that on some days she is unable to walk, but as noted
above under severity of physical impairment, no information is provided as to how often this occurs.
The GP assesses the appellant as taking significantly longer than typical in some aspects of personal
care, (the GP comments that at times difficult and very painful), basic housekeeping (she is unable to
do it as often as she should; gets help from friend once in a while), meals (at times only able to make
something quick & and easy) and getting in and out of the vehicle (stays home when hip hurts too
much). Again, the GP is not provided any detail in the AR that would shed some light on how often
these restrictions occur. In his letter submitted on appeal, it is unclear whether these restrictions
occur more frequently than once a week.
Regarding the DLA applicable to a person with severe mental impairment – make decisions about
personal activities, care or finances; and relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively –
in the AR the GP assesses the appellant as independent in making appropriate social decisions,
developing and maintaining relationships (only has a few friends), interacting appropriately with
others, dealing with unexpected demands and securing assistance from others. He assesses
relationships with immediate and extended social networks as marginal functioning, commenting:
“Tends to isolate herself.”
Considering that a severe impairment has not been established and taking into account that the GP
has assessed the appellant as independent in all DLA, albeit with some restrictions on an unspecified
frequency and duration, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable in determining that there was not
enough evidence to establish that the appellant’s impairments directly and significantly restrict her
ability to perform DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods.
Help with DLA
The ministry’s position is that as it has not been established that DLA are significantly restricted, it
cannot be determined that significant help is required from other persons.
The position of the appellant is that she requires the support and assistance from her friends and
children in managing her daily life.
Panel findings
The panel notes that the legislation requires that in the opinion of a prescribed professional the need
for help must arise from direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA that are either
continuous or periodic for extended periods. Since it has not been established that DLA are directly
and significantly restricted, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in finding that it cannot be
determined that help is required as provided under section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA.
Conclusion
Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and the relevant legislation, and for the reasons
provided above, the panel finds that the ministry’s decision that the appellant was not eligible for
PWD designation was reasonably supported by the evidence. The panel therefore confirms the
ministry’s 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.