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 11 May 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 section 2 of 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 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 2 criteria: 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 ministry also found that it has not been demonstrated that the appellant is of one of the
prescribed classes of persons who may be eligible for PWD designation on the alternative grounds
set out in section 2.1 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation. As
there was no information or argument provided by the appellant regarding alternative grounds for
designation, the panel considers that this matter not to be at issue in this appeal.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) – section 2
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) – sections 2 and
2.1.
PART E – Summary of Facts
With the consent of the appellant, a ministry worker attended the hearing as an observer.
With the consent of both parties, a member of the Tribunal staff 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 22 November 2016. The Application
contained:
A Self Report (SR).
A Medical Report (MR) dated 16 November 2016, completed by a general practitioner
(GP) who has known the appellant for 6 months and seen him 2 – 10 times during that
period. (The GP writes that the appellant has a family doctor, while the GP works in a
walk-in clinic providing ongoing care for the appellant’s post concussion syndrome.)
An Assessor Report (AR) dated 16 November 2016, completed by the same GP.
2.
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 18 April 2017, requesting an extension.
Subsequently the appellant submitted reasons for his request (reconsideration submission)
dated 09 May 2017, attached to which is a letter of support from a registered psychologist
(RP) dated 24 April 2017, with an accompanying 14 page “Psychoeducational – Vocational
Assessment” dated 21 April 2017 prepared by the RP and a psychometrist and a shorter 5
page Summary Report, along with a “Strong Interest Inventory® Profile with Skills
Confidence Inventory Profile,” dated 11 April 2017.
In the MR, the GP diagnoses the appellant with concussion (onset November 2015) and post
concussion syndrome (onset November 2015).
The panel will first summarize the evidence from the MR and the AR as it relates to the PWD
criteria at issue in this appeal.
Severity/health history
Physical impairment
MR:
Regarding functional skills, the GP reports that the appellant can walk 4+ blocks unaided, can
climb 5+ steps unaided, his limitations in lifting are unknown and there are no limitations to
remaining seated.
The GP indicates that the appellant has not been prescribed any medication and/or treatments
that interfere with his ability to perform DLA. He also indicates that the appellant does not require
any prostheses or aids to compensate for his impairment.
AR:
The GP assesses the appellant as independent for all aspects of mobility and physical ability:
walking indoors, walking outdoors, climbing stairs, standing, and lifting and carrying and holding
Mental impairment
MR:
Under Health History, the GP writes:
“Patient has poor concentration and recurrent severe headaches from post-concussion
syndrome.”
Asked to describe the appellant’s impairment that impacts his ability to manage DLA, the GP
writes, “Takes longer to do planning/execution for activities [due to] cognition slowing. Worsening
symptoms with prolonged concentration.”
The GP indicates that the appellant has difficulties with communication, with a cognitive cause,
commenting: “Some concentration difficulties and cognitive slowing.”
The GP indicates that the appellant has significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in
the areas of executive, memory and other (“worsening symptoms with sustained concentration”)
AR:
The GP assesses the appellant's ability to communicate as good for all listed aspects: speaking,
reading, writing, and hearing.
Regarding cognitive and emotional functioning, the GP indicates that the appellant's mental
impairment or brain injury has the following impacts in the specified areas:
Major impact: none.
Moderate impact: attention/concentration, executive and memory.
Minimal impact: bodily functions, consciousness, and motor activity.
No impact: emotion, impulse control, insight and judgment, motivation, language,
psychotic symptoms, other neuropsychological problems, and other emotional or
mental problems.
Ability to perform DLA
AR:
The GP assesses the assistance as independent for all listed tasks for the DLA of personal care,
basic housekeeping, shopping, meals, pay rent and bills, medications, and transportation.
With respect to social functioning, the GP assesses the appellant as independent for all listed
areas: making appropriate social decisions, developing and maintaining relationships, interacting
appropriately with others, dealing appropriately with unexpected demands and securing
assistance from others.
The GP assesses the impact of the appellant's mental impairment on his immediate social and
extended social networks as good functioning.
Help provided/required
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids to compensate for his
impairment.
AR:
The GP does not indicate whether assistance is provided by other people.
Regarding assistive devices, the GP does not indicate that the appellant routinely uses any of the
listed devices to compensate for his impairment.
Self report
In the SR, the appellant writes that he has been suffering from a concussion caused by a fall in
November 2015. He has severe headaches. He is now under regular medication. This removes or
reduces the headaches, but if he sometimes forgets to take the medicine, the headaches recur.
One of the medications is a tranquilizer, making him feel drowsy during the day. As a result, he
cannot concentrate to do any work for more than two or three hours. For anything that involves
physical labour, he gets tired and exhausted, with an accompanying headache.
In describing how his disability affects his life, the appellant explains that he completed his MA at
a local university in April 2016. During the last semester, he got seriously sick and sought help
from the university. The university employed an academic editor for him and he was able to
complete his program with the help of the university’s disability centre. The university also
arranged for counseling sessions for him. Since leaving university he is physically and mentally
fatigued and unable to do any work that needs labour and/or attention.
The appellant goes on to explain that, as he is unable to take any kind of mental or physical
pressure, he did not look for a job after completing his MA. As a result he has no money in his
bank and has been using his credit card and loans from friends. To recover from his illness he
needs to lead a stress-free life with scope to take rest and medication. His memory is now very
dull, noticeably affecting his everyday life. He mumbles when he speaks and takes a remarkably
longer time than usual to prepare an academic or non-academic draft, such as this Self Report,
which took 2 hours. As he does not have a job, he is unable to sponsor his only son, who lives in
another country, to join him. He concludes by writing that he cannot cope with the adversities
described above and that he is unable to take care of himself.
Request for Reconsideration
In a submission accompanying his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant writes:
“I have been experiencing headache following the injury that occurred in [November 2015.]
In spite of taking regular medication and physiotherapy my situation has been remaining the
same. As I take medicine to keep my headaches in a tolerable state, I feel a kind of
dizziness and exhaustion. It makes me unable to do anything that involves physical and/or
mental involvement. A neurologist pushed two steroid injections on my head and neck: one
in April 2016 and the other one in February 2017. The next one is scheduled for July 2017. I
might need to depend on the steroid injections for the rest of my life I guess. My doctor and
the neurologist did not give me any hope that I would recover my injury. I started working in
a grocery store: four hours a week, but presently I reduced it to 3 hours a week as I have
headache and severe fatigue. It is really difficult for me to explain the hardship I am facing in
leading my everyday life. Even I am experiencing severe headache and tiredness
composing this letter.”
Psychoeducational – Vocational Assessment
The above assessment, and its Summary Report, contain the following caveat:
“The information contained in this report was collected in order to assess cognitive/emotional
functioning and career interests: it is not intended or valid for use in any other context (e.g.
medical-legal, neuropsychological etc.)”
RP’s letter
In her letter, the RP writes that the appellant has a documented history of post-concussive
syndrome dating back to a fall in November 2015. His symptoms have remained significant and
unremitting since that time, supporting a DSM 5 diagnosis of Neurocognitive Disorder due to
Traumatic Brain Injury. This disorder involves significant decline from the previous level of
functioning in several cognitive domains (e.g. complex attention, executive functioning, learning
and memory, language, perceptual motor, or social cognition) and is currently supported by
standardized testing, self-report, and the findings of medical professionals. The appellant’s
ongoing symptoms have caused significant impairment in his cognitive, emotional, social, and
occupational functioning, to the point that he is been unable to maintain employment, social
relationships and many activities of daily living.
Drawing from her Psychoeducational – Vocational Assessment, the RP writes that as part of his
psychological assessment, the appellant completed standardized measures of intelligence,
attention, memory, and academic achievement. In comparison to others his age, he demonstrated
significant variability in his scores on tests of verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning
(borderline to high average). He also exhibited considerable variability in his attention and
concentration, with scores ranging from the borderline to average range. His processing speed
was markedly impaired and measured in the 4th percentile. Auditory memory was measured at
the 6th percentile, while visual memory was measured at the 15th percentile. His immediate
memory for auditory and visual information was significantly impaired and measured at the 5th
percentile. His delayed memory for the same auditory and visual information was also poor and
measured at the 10th percentile. His performance on the sentence comprehension test was
measured at the 10th percentile, while single word reading was measured at the 25th percentile.
Overall these results indicate that at a minimum, 85-95 percent of same aged peers would
outscore the appellant on these measures.
The RP continues by writing that these test scores are also in stark contrast to his expected level
of performance (high average or greater; at or above the 80th percentile) based on his history of
significant educational and occupational achievement as an adult. These psychological
assessment results support a significant impact on his ability to rapidly process information, recall
auditory and visual information, use fluid reasoning, and attend to stimuli in his environment. In
practical terms, the appellant experiences difficulties explaining things to others and recalling the
correct words to use. He struggles to maintain focus when there are distractions around him and
is no longer able to complete two or more tasks simultaneously. He experiences difficulty recalling
information he has read or heard from others and frequently forgets important information and the
location of personal possessions. He is unable to sustain any focus beyond 30 minutes and he
cannot process information at the speed it is typically presented to him. He needs extra time to
solve problems and produce spoken or written output. He is unable to engage in any mentally
demanding tasks beyond a brief period of time, as doing so triggers severe and debilitating
headaches.
The RP adds that in addition to his significant cognitive difficulties, the appellant frequently has
severe head and neck pain, limiting his physical functioning and ability to engage in day-to-day
activities.
The RP concludes by writing that the appellant’s symptoms have also had a significant and
detrimental impact on his mental health. He is currently experiencing significant symptoms of
depression and anxiety, including feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness, fatigue, sleep
disturbance, rumination, worry about negative judgment by others, worry about saying or doing
the wrong thing, worry about making mistakes, worry about the injury, loss of confidence, and
shame.
Notice of Appeal
The appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated 18 May 2017. Under Reasons, the appellant writes:
“My real situation might not have been reflected in the papers I submitted. In my everyday
life I have been experiencing a number of hardships.”
The Hearing
At the hearing, the appellant reviewed his educational, employment and medical situations since
his concussion in 2015, much along the lines set out in his SR and reconsideration submission. In
terms of his medical situation, he stated that neither is GP nor his neurologist was able to give
him a firm prognosis as to when or if his condition might improve. He explained that the steroid
injections in his head make him feel much better for a few months and that his neurologist had
said that he can tolerate these twice a year – his next one is scheduled for August 2017.
Meanwhile, he still gets bad headaches with physical exertion, particularly bending, or
concentrating on something for too long. His GP had recently suggested that he could take one
more pill of his headache medication daily, but he has opted not to as there is a trade-off between
relief from headaches and not being able to function because of the drowsiness brought on by the
medication.
He explained that he used to earn money is a journalist, until recently writing a column for a mass
circulation newspaper in his home country. He is not able to do this anymore, though he still
writes a column, on an unpaid basis, for a paper published in his native language in another
province. However, because of his difficulty concentrating, it takes him a week to write the
column.
The appellant explained that he often gets confused and as a result seems to have to cope with
different difficult situations every day. For instance, on one day he became confused with bus
numbers and took the wrong bus, ending up in an unfamiliar area of town and having to ask a
bystander for directions. On another day he left his bag on the bus. He lives in shared
accommodation and has upset the other renters because he is confused as to which box to place
non-food garbage. Sometimes he needs help to avoid getting confused – for example, taking the
bus to the hearing site, while he had looked up its location on the Internet, he kept in contact with
his cousin by phone so that the latter could advise him as to when to get off the bus.
The appellant stated that he continues to work with WorkBC in compliance with his employment
plan obligations. It was through a WorkBC contractor that he was referred to the RP who
conducted the Psychoeducational – Vocational Assessment. This assessment involved 4
sessions with the RP and her assistant, which he stated lasted 4 hours, 4 hours, 2 hours, and 1
hour. During those sessions, he met with the RP for a total of about 5 hours. He has not had any
contact with the RP since these sessions.
The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration.
Admissibility of additional information
The panel finds the information provided by the appellant in his testimony at the hearing is in
support of the information and records before the ministry at reconsideration, as it tends to
corroborate the information provided by the appellant in his SR and reconsideration submission
and by the RP in his letter of support. The panel therefore admits the appellant's testimony as
evidence pursuant to section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry decision that determined that the appellant did not
meet three 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, his 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 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 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 sections 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.
Weight of evidence
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry noted that while the additional information provided from
the RP is helpful in understanding the cognitive changes that the appellant has experienced since his
accident, when determining eligibility for PWD designation the ministry does not consider the impact
of a medical condition on employability or vocational abilities. In addition, although it is noted that this
assessment required 4 appointments to complete, it is not clear if the appellant has worked with the
RP outside of this assessment or how well she knows him. As the nature and extent of his
relationship with the RP has not been established, the ministry stated that it would rely more heavily
on the assessments provided by the GP in the PWD application.
The panel notes that employability is not a criterion for PWD designation. Under section 2 of the
EAPWDR, the minister may designate a person as PWD if the minister is satisfied that the person
has a severe mental or physical impairment that … in the opinion of a prescribed professional directly
and significantly restricts the person's to perform DLA either continuously or periodically for extended
periods, and as a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities.
Under the legislation, employability or vocational ability is not one of the prescribed DLA. As the
appellant testified at the hearing that his contact with the RP was limited to providing information for
the preparation of the Psychoeducational – Vocational Assessment and subsequent vocational
counseling, and considering that the Assessment contains a caveat that the information contained in
the report is not intended or valid for use in any other context, including medical-legal, the panel finds
the ministry was reasonable in his determination to rely more heavily on the assessments provided by
the GP in the PWD application.
Severity of impairment
General considerations
The legislation is clear that the determination of severity of impairment is at the discretion of the
minister, taking into account all of the evidence. 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 by the independent and
professional medical practitioner and the prescribed professional permits the ministry to form a clear
picture of the nature and extent of the impacts of the person's medical conditions on daily functioning.
It is therefore reasonable for the ministry to expect that the MR and the AR include explanations,
descriptions or examples in the spaces provided.
Physical impairment
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry was not satisfied that the information provided
establishes a severe physical impairment. In reaching this conclusion, the ministry noted that the
diagnosis of a serious medical condition does not in itself determine PWD eligibility or establish a
severe impairment. To assess the severity of impairment the ministry must consider the nature of the
impairment and the extent of its impact on daily functioning. Considering the focus of the legislation
on restrictions and help required, the panel considers this a reasonable approach for the ministry to
take when analyzing the information provided regarding severity of impairment.
Consistent with this approach, the ministry reviewed the appellant’s basic physical functional skills
reported by the GP in the MR (able to walk 5+ blocks unaided, etc.) and the GP's assessments of his
mobility and physical ability as reported in the AR (independent for walking, climbing stairs, etc.). The
ministry also noted that the GP indicated that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids to
compensate for his impairment.
The ministry also noted that the RP stated that the appellant frequently has severe head and neck
pain that limits his physical functioning. However no information has been provided to explain how
often he experiences headaches and how long they last and in the self-report the appellant
acknowledges getting some relief with the medication he takes.
Given the GP’s assessments of the appellant's basic physical functioning and mobility and physical
ability, as well as the reported degree of independence in managing all other DLA requiring physical
effort, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that severe physical impairment
has not been established
Mental impairment
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry noted that the GP had diagnosed the appellant with post-
concussive syndrome. The ministry then followed the same approach of reviewing reported impacts
of his diagnosed condition on daily functioning
The ministry noted that in the MR the GP indicated that the appellant has difficulties with
communication due to cognitive issues, writing “Some concentration difficulties and cognitive
slowing.” In addition, the GP indicated that the appellant has significant deficits with cognitive and
emotional functioning in the areas of memory, executive, and other – “worsening symptoms with
sustained concentration.” The ministry noted, however, that in the AR the GP describes the impacts
of the appellant's cognitive and emotional functioning on daily functioning as only moderate, minimal
or having no impact to at all, and concluded that this description does not reflect a severe mental
impairment. The ministry also noted that in the AR the GP indicated that the appellant does not
require any support/supervision in any area of social functioning and describes his functioning with
both immediate and extended social networks as “good.”
The ministry also reviewed the RP's letter submitted at reconsideration, in which she provides a
diagnosis of Neurocognitive Disorder due to Traumatic Brain Injury and described the decline of his
cognitive functioning. While the ministry acknowledged that the appellant has significant challenges
with memory, executive and concentration, it noted that no information has been provided to describe
how these deficits impact the appellant's daily functioning, making it difficult to determine the severity
of his impairment. In addition, while the RP indicates that the appellant is experiencing symptoms of
depression and anxiety, no description is provided of how these symptoms affect his daily
functioning. The ministry concluded that, based on the RP's assessments, the presence of severe
mental impairment has not been established.
The panel notes that, at the hearing, the appellant described how he experiences situations that on a
daily basis are confusing to him. He also described limits to his ability to concentrate on a particular
task. His description of these difficulties corroborates the narrative provided by the GP in the MR:
“Takes longer to do planning/execution for activities [due to] cognition slowing. Worsening symptoms
with prolonged concentration,” and by the RP in her letter that the appellant struggles to maintain
focus when there are distractions around him and that he is unable to sustain any focus beyond 30
minutes and he cannot process information at the speed it is typically presented to him. However,
these narratives present only a general overview and do not provide a clear picture of how his mental
impairment affects such everyday activities as personal self-care, shopping, meal planning and
preparation, taking medications, using transportation or interacting with others. Without detailed
descriptions or examples from the GP or the RP in this respect, the panel considers it reasonable that
the ministry would find it difficult to determine that a severe mental impairment has been established.
Taking into account that the diagnosis of serious medical condition or the identification of significant
cognitive and emotional deficits do not in themselves determine PWD eligibility or severe mental
impairment, and considering that the GP has not identified any major impacts on the appellant's post
concussive syndrome on daily functioning and that neither the GP nor the RP have provided a clear
picture of how his mental impairment effects daily functioning, the panel finds the ministry was
reasonable in determining that a severe mental impairment has not been established.
Direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA
According to the legislation, the direct and significant restriction in the ability to perform DLA must be
a result of a severe impairment. The legislation – section 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA – requires the
minister to assess direct and significant restrictions of DLA, either continuously or periodically for
extended periods, in consideration of the opinion of a prescribed professional, in this case the
appellant’s GP or the RP. 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.”
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry noted that the GP had indicated in the MR that the
appellant has not been prescribed medications and/or treatments that interfere with his ability to
manage DLA. The ministry also noted the GP’s narrative referred to above under severity of mental
impairment that the appellant “takes longer to do planning/execution for activities [due to] cognition
slowing. Worsening symptoms with prolonged concentration,” remarking that the GP had not
indicated which activities take significantly longer to complete or how much longer than normal it
takes to complete them.
The ministry also reviewed the GP's assessments in the AR of help required to manage DLA. The GP
assessed the appellant as independent for all aspects of the DLA of moving about indoors and
outdoors, all tasks of the other DLA requiring physical effort (personal care, basic housekeeping, etc.)
and all aspects of the social functioning DLA (make decisions about personal activities, care or
finances; and relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively).
The ministry also referred to the RP's letter, writing: “Although [the RP] indicates that you [the
appellant] have been unable to maintain ‘any activities of daily living,’ she does describe the
assistance you require to perform these activities.” On review of the RP's letter, the panel can find no
mention of any assistance required. The panel is of the view that there is a typographical omission in
the quoted sentence and it should read, “… she does not describe the assistance you require…” This
interpretation is consistent with the ministry’s conclusion that this assessment by the RP does not
satisfy the ministry that the appellant is significantly restricted from performing DLA continuously or
periodically for extended periods, as required by legislation.
Given that the GP has assessed the appellant as independent in all aspects or tasks of all DLA, the
panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the information provided does not
establish that this criterion has been met.
Help with DLA
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry held that, as it has not been established that DLA are
significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods, it cannot be
determined that significant help is required.
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 neither of the GP in the MR or the AR, nor the RP in her letter at
reconsideration, provides any assessment that the appellant requires help in managing his DLA.
Since 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. The panel therefore
confirms the ministry’s 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.