PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (the
“ministry”) reconsideration decision dated 2016/10/20 which held the appellant was not eligible for
Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers (“PPMB”) designation as she did not meet the requirements
of section 2(4) of the Employment Assistance Regulation (the “EAR”), that she has a medical
condition that in the opinion is a barrier that precludes the person's ability to search for, accept or
continue in employment.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), section 2
PART E – Summary of Facts
The Appellant is a recipient of PPMB assistance with no dependent(s).
The evidence before the Ministry at reconsideration included the following documents:
Employment and Assistance Request for Reconsideration dated September 19, 2016:
Appellant’s reason for request for reconsideration was that she is unable to work because of
her epilepsy affecting her memory and causing confusion. Additionally her back condition
makes it so that she is unable to sit, stand or walk for more than ½ an hour before she has to
lie down for some relief. She walks hunched over from the pain being so severe and wakes up
from it as well. She does get shots which help a little for a couple of days to a week.
The following documents were before the ministry at the time of reconsideration:
-
PPMB Renewal Request letter dated 2016 May 02
-
PPMB Renewal Request letter dated 2016 June 06
-
Medical Report – PPMB dated 2016 May 26, wherein her physician notes a diagnosis of
seizure disorder and mechanical back pain
-
Medical results dated 2013 January 28 regarding her epilepsy frequency and treatment –
last seizure occurred over ten years previously
-
Employability Screen: score of 12
-
Medical consult report dated 2014 October 02 noting on assessment that the appellant is
affected by 1. Mechanical back pain with congenital spinal stenosis, complicated by facet
joint hypertrophy and a paracentral disc herniation, 2. Seizure disorder 3. Very weak core
muscles
-
Medical consult report dated 2016 June 29 following nerve blocks performed on appellant’s
back
-
PPMB Employment Checklist dates 2016 August 15
-
PPMB Decision Summary dated 2016 August 15, noting that the appellant’s physician does
not indicate any restrictions to employment
-
Decision letter dated 2016 August 15, wherein the Ministry informed the appellant that she
was no longer met the requirements for PPMB
At the hearing the appellant stated that her epilepsy and the medication she takes to treat it leave her
with memory problems and confusion. She estimates that she has seizures in her sleep and black
outs once every 1-4 weeks. Her back pain is constant and worsening. It prevents her from sitting or
standing or more than ½ an hour, then she has to lie down for some relief. The pain causes her to
waken and she walks hunched over. She goes for shots in her back every six weeks. She is waiting
for a CT scan. Her right heel is now sore and it causes her to limp.
Additional evidence was submitted by the appellant for the appeal hearing. This evidence included
the following document:
-
Letter from the appellant’s general physician dated November 9, 2016 stating that the
appellant has significant restrictions with her chronic back pain and that she cannot stand or sit
for long periods, cannot lift more than 10-15 kg, has trouble with pushing and pulling, has
restricted flexibility in her lower spine area with decreased forward flexion and has some
straining symptoms of sciatica.
At reconsideration, the doctor reported the appellant’s primary medical condition is seizure disorder
and a secondary medical condition of mechanical back pain. The medical consult report dated 2014
notes mechanical back pain with congenital spinal stenosis, complicated by facet joint hypertrophy
and a paracentral disc herniation. The appellant, in her request for reconsideration, stated she is
unable to sit, stand or walk for more than ½ an hour before she has to lie down for some relief. She
walks hunched over from the pain being so severe and wakes up from it as well. She does get shots
which help a little for a couple of days to a week. The appellant repeats this information in her Notice
of Appeal and at hearing.
The additional evidence from the appellant’s general physician dated November 9, 2016 provides
information restrictions she is having as a result of her back pain. Unfortunately this information was
not provided at reconsideration. The PPMB form completed by the physician did not indicate any
restrictions with motion in the arms or legs. As such, the panel determines the information is not
admissible as it is new information and not in support of the information before the minister at
reconsideration, as required by s. 22(4 Employment and Assistance Act).
In this case, the legislation requires information from a medical practitioner for the ministry to base its
decision upon and the PPMB application asks for a description of restrictions. There were no
restrictions identified by the medical practitioner in the PPMB report dated May 26, 2016.
The Ministry did not submit additional evidence on appeal and relied exclusively on the
Reconsideration Decision. The Ministry did not object to the submission of additional evidence
provided by the appellant’s advocate for this hearing.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue is whether the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (the “ministry”)
reconsideration decision dated 2016/10/20 which held the appellant was not eligible for PPMB
designation as she did not meet all the requirements of section 2(4) of the Employment Assistance
for Regulation (the “EAR”), specifically that the ministry is not satisfied that the appellant is precluded
from searching for, accepting or continuing in employment, is a reasonable application of the
legislation in the circumstances of the appellant or is reasonably supported by the evidence.
Section 2 of the EAR states the following:
Persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment
2 (1) To qualify as a person who has persistent multiple barriers to employment, a person must meet
the requirements set out in
(a) subsection (2), and
(b) subsection (3) or (4).
(2) The person has been a recipient for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months
of one or more of the following:
(a) income assistance or hardship assistance under the Act;
(b) income assistance, hardship assistance or a youth allowance under a former Act;
(c) a disability allowance under the Disability Benefits Program Act;
(d) disability assistance or hardship assistance under the Employment and Assistance for Persons
with Disabilities Act.
(3) The following requirements apply
(a) the minister
(i) has determined that the person scores at least 15 on the employability screen set out in
Schedule E, and
(ii) based on the result of that employability screen, considers that the person has barriers that
seriously impede the person's ability to search for, accept or continue in employment,
(b) the person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical
practitioner and that,
(i) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(A) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, or
(B) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, and
(ii) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that seriously impedes the person's ability to search for,
accept or continue in employment, and
(c) the person has taken all steps that the minister considers reasonable for the person to overcome
the barriers referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) The person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical
practitioner and that,
(a) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(i) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, or
(ii) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, and
(b) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that precludes the person from searching for, accepting
or continuing in employment.
[en. B.C. Reg. 368/2002.]
Ministry’s Position
At reconsideration the ministry found that the appellant had qualified for PPMB under section 2(2) in
that she had been in receipt of income assistance for more than 12 of the preceding 15 months. As
the appellant scored 12 on the Employability Screen, she did not meet the test under s. 2(3) which
requires the person to score at least 15 on the Employability screen. As such, the appellant has to
meet the requirements of section 2(4) EAR. The ministry was not satisfied that the appellant qualified
under section 2(4), specifically that her medical condition is a barrier that precludes her ability to
search for, accept or continue in employment as her physician did not indicate any restrictions in the
PPMB Medical Report dated May 26, 2016.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant argued that the supplemental information from her physician provided for this hearing
authenticated her statements regarding her limitations and restrictions and that she was not capable
of searching for or accepting work, despite the fact that she scored 12 on the Employment Screen.
Panel Decision
The section 2(4) EAR requires that the appellant’s medical condition, in the opinion of the minister, is
a barrier that precludes her ability to search for, accept or continue in employment. Information is
provided by the appellant’s physician to assist the ministry in making this determination. In this case,
the primary condition is seizure disorder and the appellant is receiving treatment. The secondary
condition is mechanical back pain. At the time of reconsideration, the physician indicates no
restrictions for either condition. Given this, the panel finds the ministry’s determination that the
appellant was not eligible for PPMB designation pursuant to section 2(4) of the EAR was a
reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel confirms the
ministry’s decision.
PART G – Order
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.