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 03 February 2017 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’s severe impairment, in the opinion of a prescribed professional,
(i) directly and significantly restricts his ability to perform daily living activities (DLA) either
continuously or periodically for extended periods; and,
(ii) as a result of those restrictions, he requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other 3 criteria: he has a severe mental,
though not a severe physical, impairment; he has reached 18 years of age; and his 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
With the consent of the appellant, a ministry worker attended the hearing as an observer.
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following:
1.
The appellant’s PWD Designation Application dated 01 Sep 2016. The Application
contained:
A Self Report (SR) completed by the appellant.
A Physician Report (PR) dated 22 August 2016, completed by the appellant’s general
practitioner (GP) who has known the appellant for 30 years and seen him 2-10 times over
the last year.
An Assessor Report (AR) dated 22 August 2016, completed by the same GP.
2.
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 06 January 2017 requesting an
extension. Subsequently, the appellant provided an undated reconsideration submission,
an undated letter from his parents, and a letter dated 08 December 2016 from a registered
psychologist (RP).
In the PR, the GP diagnoses the medical conditions related to the appellant’s impairment as:
Attention Deficit Disorder (onset>30 years),
Mood Disorder – depressive type (onset>13 years),
Anxiety Disorder (onset>13 years).
In describing the severity of the appellant’s impairment under Health History in the PR, the GP
writes:
“Patient has moderately severe cognitive dysfunction. This causes significant disruption to
his life – decreased short-term memory, decreased concentration. Loses focus on
jobs/goals/task; easily bored. Difficulty learning new skills. Depression and Anxiety
symptoms can be overwhelming – anxiety in social situations.”
The panel will first summarize the evidence from the PR and the AR as it relates to the PWD
criteria at issue in this appeal.
Ability to perform DLA
Moving about indoors and outdoors
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is able to walk 4+ blocks unaided on a flat surface, can climb
5+ steps unaided, and has no limitations with lifting; he is limited in remaining seated to less than
1 hour (“needs to get up and move”)
AR:
The GP assesses the appellant as independent with walking indoors, walking outdoors, climbing
stairs, standing, lifting, and carrying and holding.
Impacts of mental impairment on daily functioning
The GP assesses the degree of impact of the appellant's mental impairment on daily functioning
as moderate bodily functions (sleep disturbance), consciousness, emotion, impulse control,
insight and judgment, attention/concentration, executives, memory, motivation, language, other
neuropsychological problems (learning disabilities), and other emotional or mental problems
(severe dysfunction that affects his mood so is part of his daily life).
The GP assesses no impact in the area of motor activity.
The GP comments: “Difficult functioning in society
Communication
PR:
The GP indicated that the appellant has difficulties with communication, with a cognitive cause.
AR:
The GP assesses the appellant’s ability to communicate as good for speaking and hearing, and
poor for reading and writing (“ADHD interferes with comprehension and concentration”).
Daily living activities
AR:
The GP assesses the assistance required to perform DLA as follows (his comments in
parentheses):
Personal care – independent in all aspects.
Basic housekeeping – independent in all aspects.
Shopping – Independent for going to and from stores, reading prices and labels, paying for
purchases, and carrying purchases home; periodic assistance required from another
person for making appropriate choices (reduced math capability and reading skills).
Meals – independent but taking significantly longer than typical for meal planning,
preparation and cooking (can take longer if more complex tasks involved).
Pay rent and bills – independent in all aspects (as mentioned, reduced math skills).
Medications – independent in all aspects.
Transportation – independent in all aspects.
Social functioning
AR:
The GP assesses the support/supervision required in the following areas (his comments in
parentheses):
Making appropriate social decisions – independent.
Ability to develop and maintain relationships – periodic support/supervision required
(anxiety, depression in life and social anxiety and difficult to form relationships).
Interacting appropriately with others – independent.
Ability to deal appropriately with unexpected demands – periodic support/supervision
required (same comment as above).
Ability to secure assistance from others – periodic support/supervision required
The GP assesses how the appellant’s mental impairment impacts his relationship with his
immediate social network and her extended social network as marginal functioning.
The GP does not provide any additional comments, including the identification of any safety
issues.
Help required
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids for his impairment.
AR:
In terms of help required for social functioning, the GP writes: “Needs further education skills.”
The GP does not indicate that the appellant requires any of the listed equipment or devices to
compensate for his impairment and indicates that the appellant does not have an assistance
animal.
The GP indicates that the appellant is provided help from family and from friends. In terms of help
required but not available, the GP writes. “Family supporting him makes life easier and reduces
stress levels.”
Self Report
In describing how his disability affects his life and his ability to take care of himself, the appellant
writes:
“The Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder makes completing projects or duties within a
specific timeframe extremely difficult. Distraction is chronic at times and hinders day-to-day
activities. Also maintaining long-term employment is severely affected. Throughout the
past 20 years I have had over 24 jobs the longest term being 3 years. This was to do [with]
the ability to set my own schedule and structure of work. Mood disorders cause a limited
scope of motivation within the workplace. Though I am working on controlling my mood I
find without medication this to be impossible. The above two disabilities affect my peace of
mind and cause me to get anxious quite often. Anxiety can cause problems for me within
the workplace and day-to-day activities. Neurological disorders cause learning new things
extremely longer than colleagues who I have worked with in the past. This disability has
caused others to not understand my workplace performance. Throughout my life I have
tried to mask my disabilities, but I feel now I need to seek out the assistance and support
to be successful throughout the future.
Three years ago I began treatment and administering medications. This has helped. I'm
currently on social assistance but desire to be on more of a permanent support as my
disabilities are permanent and life-long.”
Request for Reconsideration
In his reconsideration submission, the appellant describes how he felt discriminated against by
the ministry's decision, and how it demonstrated a lack of sympathy for a person with a lifelong
mental impairment. He refers to the attached letters from his parents and the RP.
In their letter, the appellant’s parents begin by reviewing the history of his mental illness. In terms
of his daily functioning, they note that as a youth he had a very noticeable difficulty in processing
information or controlling behavior. They go on to write:
“This behavior is severe at times and causes our son to have extreme difficulty making
close or intimate relationships. [The appellant] struggles in responding to stressful
situations and times will go into a state of isolation and shuts down physically, mentally,
and emotionally.”
They write that through the past 28 years of the appellant's adult life they have watched him jump
from job to job, relationship to relationship, and city to city. He has relocated back home most
summers since he was a boy. As parents, they feel now is the time for him to develop a structured
environment and continue to seek the help he needs – financial, clinical, and relational.
They conclude by writing that the appellant has potential, and believe that he requires steady
financial aid. Due to his disabilities being hereditary, permanent, and severe, they believe this
application/reconsideration should be approved – being on social assistance is a start; however
$600 a month is not a healthy amount to live on. The appellant has expressed a desire to work
again soon, but he cannot cope with more than 20 hours a week; without structure he may never
move beyond social assistance and his present state.
In her letter at reconsideration, the RP writes:
“As a B.C. Registered Psychologist, I have seen [the appellant] for six sessions for support
pertaining to a recent car accident he suffered. Although we have had only a few sessions
which centred on pain and anxiety management, [the appellant’s] present and historic
struggles with the complexities of daily existence are quite evident. Although a sociable
young man, he describes experiencing a level of sensitivity to opinion that makes daily
interactions with others quite taxing, risking becoming overwhelmed and emotionally
disregulated. He often interprets negative intent in others and must manage these feelings
with care, especially when his stress load is significant. In addition, [the appellant's]
Attention Deficits make focused effort difficult across the trajectory of an hour, a day and
also a year. For example, [the appellant] describes needing to change employment
frequently due to inability to main motivation for a job once it becomes familiar.
At present, [the appellant] is experiencing significant difficulty with sleep, ongoing pain, and
difficulty managing a stress load related to uncertainty of schooling situation, living
situation, and future income. Although it is difficult to determine what [the appellant's]
stress load and vulnerabilities would look like now without having experienced a car
accident, [the appellant's] self-described history makes clear that he has struggled with
such pressure for most of his adult life.”
Notice of Appeal
In his Notice of Appeal, dated 10 February 2017, the appellant takes issue with the ministry’s
discrimination and/or incompetence in reaching its reconsideration decision.
The hearing
At the hearing, the appellant submitted the following documents:
Letter from the appellant’s GP dated 02 March 2017. The GP reviews the diagnoses of
the appellant’s mental illnesses as set out in the PR. In terms of restrictions to daily
functioning, the GP writes:
“All 3 of his disabilities can be acting up at [the] same time which causes a significant
and severe total disability. These mental disorders can fluctuate in intensity and at
times he is able to function reasonably well. He recently had to withdraw from
University as he was not able to effectively learn.
It affects his social functioning and he tends to avoid going out in public a lot. He sees
a psychologist on a weekly basis. I believe he requires help and support in providing
him with financial means to attempt to continue to improve his life.”
Letter from the appellant’s RP dated 21 February 2017. This letter is essentially along the
same lines as that submitted at reconsideration, adding that the RP has seen the
appellant 9 times on a weekly basis, starting on 02 November 2016 and continuing to the
present except for holidays in December.
Letter from the appellant’s parents (undated). This letter describes the appellant’s 3
mental health conditions – Depression, Anxiety and Mood Disorder, and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), going to the severity of these conditions. Regarding
restrictions to daily functioning, the parents write that:
“[W]hen all three of [the appellant's] disabilities are extreme and flaring
simultaneously, he cannot function physically, nor mentally, or communicate
effectively, within the structure of today's society. We hope that our deeper revelation
regarding our son’s medical conditions sheds light to the extreme disadvantage [the
appellant] faces in his day-to-day functioning.”
Letter from the appellant’s former landlords (a wife and husband) in another city where
the appellant resided for 3 years (2013 to 2016). The wife, a nurse, writes that the
appellant's mood would change quite frequently – one day he would be outgoing, full of
positivity and energy and the next day everything could be different. The appellant would
slump into a state of depression, isolation, and would appear to be extremely anxious.
Some days he would not eat, leave his room, and would appear to disassociate himself
with those around him.
The husband, who works at the college where the appellant attended, writes that the
appellant would take four times the length of time to learn something new in comparison
with other students. As his disabilities were professionally documented, the appellant
qualified, and was recognized as a student with a disability and given special exceptions
and supports to allow him to succeed. He was granted a tutor, a translator during exams,
time extensions for projects, a quiet isolated room to write exams, and unlimited time to
complete exams. In the husband's opinion, the appellant could never have completed his
program without these supports.
In his presentation at the hearing, the appellant stated that he was confused and upset by the
contents of the Record of the Ministry Decision, with the ministry stating in one document that he
does not have a severe impairment and in another that he does have a severe impairment. The
panel and the ministry explained that, while in the original decision the ministry found that a
severe impairment had not been established, this had been superseded by the reconsideration
decision, in which the ministry was satisfied that the appellant does have a severe impairment in
his mental functioning, but the DLA and help required criteria had not been met; this is the
decision under appeal.
The appellant explained that for most of his adult life, apart from the time he spent at college
where he benefited from the support described in the landlord's letter, he would find work away
from home for short periods of time, but would always return home between jobs – there he could
always rely on the support of his parents in dealing with his disabling mental conditions. His
parents did the best they could, but it was only 3 years ago that he was formally diagnosed by a
psychiatrist with the diagnoses reported by the GP in his PWD application.
The appellant acknowledged that the assessments provided by the GP reflect his abilities on his
“good days.” He emphasized, however, that he has “bad days,” usually 2-3 days/week, though
sometimes continuing for 5 or 6 days. These bad days are often triggered by his taking offense at
what somebody might say to him, making him feel hated, and bringing on a flare-up of his three
mental health disorders, particularly the ADHD, impairing his ability to regulate decision-making.
On these bad days, he feels numb and paralyzed, and is immobilized to the point of not getting
out of bed, not eating (except maybe cereal), not doing any housekeeping or laundry, not going
out of his room, and not interacting with others.
The appellant stated that his condition has improved somewhat with the medication he takes, but
it does not prevent the flare-ups of his mental disorders.
In answer to a question, the appellant explained that he had been involved in a motor vehicle
accident several months ago, hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk, and further to an
insurance settlement he has been seeing the RP on weekly basis. He also explained that during
the Fall of 2016 he had attended another university, but the level of support provided there was
not nearly what he received at his former college, and he withdrew at the end of term.
The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration.
Admissibility of new information
The ministry did not object to the panel receiving the new information provided at the hearing.
Section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA) provides that panels may admit as
evidence the information and records that were before the minister when the decision being
appealed was made and “oral or written testimony in support of the information and records”
before the minister when the decision being appealed was made.” These limitations reflect the
jurisdiction of the panel established under section 24 of the EAA - to determine whether the
ministry’s reconsideration decision is reasonably supported by the evidence or a reasonable
application of the enactment in the circumstances of an appellant. That is, panels are limited to
determining if the ministry’s decision is reasonable and are not to assume the role of decision-
makers of the first instance by considering a new set of information that presents a new or
different picture of the impairment or restrictions than what was before the ministry. Accordingly,
panels cannot admit information that would place them in that role.
In this case, much of the testimony of the appellant and the content of the letters submitted at the
hearing tends to be information that goes to severity of impairment, already established by the
ministry. This material also introduces information as to restrictions in the appellant’s ability to
function on “bad days” and the degree of support provided the appellant while attending his
college, information that was not before the ministry at reconsideration.
The panel therefore finds that this information regarding restrictions on bad days and his support
while at college is not in support of the information and records before the ministry at
reconsideration as it goes beyond the assessments provided in the PR and AR and the RP’s
original letter and therefore cannot be said to corroborate or substantiate those assessments. In
accordance with sections 22(4) and 24 of the EAA, the panel therefore does not admit this
information as evidence – i.e. will not take this information into account in the panel’s decision.
Although the panel has found this new information not admissible for this appeal, this finding as to
admissibility does not preclude the appellant from putting this information, or information along the
similar lines, before the ministry in the future.
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. Specifically, the ministry determined that the
information provided did not establish that the appellant’s severe mental impairment, in the opinion of
a prescribed professional,
(i) directly and significantly restricts his ability to perform daily living activities (DLA) either
continuously or periodically for extended periods; and,
(ii) as a result of those restrictions, he requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other 3 criteria: he has a severe mental,
though not a severe physical, impairment; he has reached 18 years of age; and his impairment in the
opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years.
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 is in a prescribed class of persons or that the person has a severe
mental or physical impairment that
(a) in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse 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 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.
Direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA
The appellant’s position
The position of the appellant, as explained at the hearing, is that when his mental disorders flare up,
which can happen for 2/3 days/week and sometimes longer, he becomes basically immobilized, not
getting out of bed, not able to perform such activities as eating, cooking, or housekeeping and
laundry, and not interacting with others. The appellant also argues that the evidence shows that his
mental impairment significantly restricts his ability to make decisions about personal activities, care or
finances and relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively. Given these considerations, it
is unreasonable that the ministry found that he is not significantly restricted in his ability to perform
daily living activities on an ongoing basis.
The ministry’s position
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry reviewed the assessments provided by the GP in the AR
regarding the appellant's ability to manage DLA, noting that he requires periodic assistance with
making appropriate choices while shopping due to decreased math capabilities and decreased
reading skills and for that activity and for meal preparation and managing personal finances he takes
significantly longer than typical. The ministry noted that his the GP does not describe how much
longer the appellant takes for these tasks, as requested in the application, and without this
information it cannot be determined whether the extra time taken represents a significant restriction in
his ability to complete these tasks. Otherwise, the GP indicated that the appellant is independently
able to manage all other DLA.
The ministry also noted that the RP, while supporting the appellant’s generalized description of his
impairment and his application for PWD designation, does not provide an assessment of his ability to
perform specific DLA as a direct result of his impairment.
The ministry stated that, unfortunately, the GP's assessment of the appellant’s mental functioning
does not correlate with his assessment of the appellant's ability to manage DLA. The degree of
independence does not support a finding that the appellant is unable to make decisions about
personal activities, care or finances. In addition, the GP's assessment of his social functioning does
not indicate that he requires continuous support/supervision with any aspect or that he requires a
significant level of support/supervision to maintain himself in the community.
In conclusion, the ministry found that there was not enough evidence provided to establish that the
appellant's ability to manage DLA is significantly restricted and as a result, he requires significant
assistance from others to manage them.
Panel decision
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 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 and RP. This does not mean that other evidence should not be factored in as
required to provide clarification of the professional evidence, but the legislative language makes it
clear that a prescribed professional’s evidence is fundamental to the ministry’s determination as to
whether it is “satisfied.” And for the minister to be “satisfied,” it is reasonable for the ministry to expect
that a prescribed professional provides a clear picture of the degree to which the ability to perform
DLA is restricted in order for the ministry to determine whether the restrictions are “significant.”
The panel will first review the information provided regarding restrictions in the appellant's ability to
perform the 8 DLA applicable to a person with a severe mental or physical impairment. As the
ministry noted, the GP assessed the appellant as independent for most of these DLA, including all
aspects of mobility and physical ability (the DLA of moving about indoors and outdoors), personal
care, basic housekeeping, medications, and transportation. The GP assessed the appellant as
requiring periodic assistance from another person and taking significantly longer than typical for
making appropriate choices while shopping due to reduced math capability and reading skills, with all
other aspects of shopping assessed as independent. For meals and paying rent and bills, the GP
assessed the appellant as independent, but with a note that for meals it can take longer if more
complex tasks are involved and for paying rent and bills, reduced math capability and reading skills
are an issue. As the ministry noted, that GP provided no information as to how much longer it might
take for these tasks, making it difficult for the ministry to determine the degree of restriction.
In addition to the above DLA, there are 2 DLA (the “social functioning” DLA) that somewhat overlap
with the 8 other DLA and are applicable to a person, such as the appellant, with a severe mental
impairment: make decisions about personal activities, care or finances and relate to, communicate or
interact with others effectively.
Regarding the “decision-making” DLA, the GP assess the appellant as independent for making
appropriate social decisions and requiring periodic support/supervision for dealing appropriately with
unexpected demands and securing assistance from others. While the GP comments, “anxiety,
depression in life and social anxiety and difficult to form relationships,” he does not, as requested,
provide a description of the degree and duration of the support/supervision required, making it difficult
for the ministry to assess the degree of restriction for this DLA.
As to the “relating-effectively” DLA, the GP assessed the appellant's ability to communicate as good
for speaking and hearing and poor for reading and writing. The GP assessed the appellant as
requiring periodic support/supervision for developing and maintaining relationships, with the same
comment as above. Again, the GP does not provide a description of the degree and duration of
support/supervision required. The GP assessed the appellant independent for interacting
appropriately with others. Here, the panel notes some inconsistency between the GP’s assessment
and that of the RP, who writes that that the appellant “describes experiencing a level of sensitivity to
opinion that makes daily interactions with others quite taxing, risking becoming overwhelmed and
emotionally disregulated.”
Considering the extent to which the GP has assessed the appellant as independent in managing his
DLA and the absence of any assessment of the appellant requiring continuous help from another
person or social functioning support/supervision, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in
determining that the information provided did not establish that, as a result of the appellant's severe
mental impairment, his ability to manage DLA is significantly restricted, either continuously or
periodically for extended periods, as required under the legislation..
Help with DLA
The appellant’s position
The position of the appellant is that he requires ongoing counseling, such as currently provided by his
RP. He also requires the increased financial support available from being provided disability
assistance. He also relies on his prescription medication, considering this an essential aid to his well-
being.
The ministry’s position
The position of the ministry is that, as it has not been established that DLA are significantly restricted,
it cannot be determined that significant help is required.
Panel decision
Section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA requires that, as a result of being directly and significantly
restricted in the ability to perform DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods, a
person must also require help to perform those activities. That is, the establishment of direct and
significant restrictions under section 2(2)(b)(i) is a precondition of meeting the need for help criterion.
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 notes that while increased monthly assistance is an outcome of PWD designation, financial
need is not a criterion for such designation. The panel also notes that prescription medication is not
considered an “assistive device” under the legislation.
While the appellant benefits from the counseling by the RP and the support of his family, as the
ministry reasonably determined that direct and significant restrictions in the appellant’s ability to
perform DLA have not been established, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that
under section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA it cannot be determined that the appellant requires help to
perform DLA.
Conclusion
The panel finds that the ministry’s reconsideration decision, which determined that the appellant was
not eligible for PWD designation, was reasonably supported by the evidence, and therefore confirms
the decision. The appellant is thus not successful on appeal.
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.