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 28 April 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 has a severe physical or mental 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.
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
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following:
1.
The appellant’s PWD Designation Application dated 12 December 2016. The Application
contained:
A Medical Report (MR) dated 08 December 2016 completed by a general practioner (GP)
who has known the appellant for < 2 years and seen her 2-10 times in the past 12
months.
An Assessor Report (AR) dated 08 December 2016, completed by the same GP.
A Self Report (SR) completed by the appellant.
2.
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 27 April 2017, to which is attached 4
letters/consult reports (see below).
In the MR, the GP diagnoses the medical conditions related to the appellant’s impairment as
multiple cardiac abnormalities, including hypoplastic left ventricle, total anomalous pulmonary
venous returns, etc., and esophagitis.
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 of impairment
General
MR:
Under Health History, the GP writes, “The patient has markedly decreased exercise (work)
capacity due to her cardiac disease. This is coupled with depressive symptoms and various G.I.
symptoms and has resulted in markedly disrupted functioning and has led to social isolation.”
Under Additional Comments, the GP writes, “The patient has a long history of cardiac disease
that has required multiple interventions. Furthermore, she suffers on a daily basis with various G.I.
symptoms including vomiting most of her food intake. This has resulted in considerable loss of
energy. This coupled with her problems causes significant disability.”
The GP indicates that the appellant has not been prescribed any medication and/or treatments
that interfere with her ability to perform DLA, and that she does not require any prostheses or aids
for her impairment
AR:
The GP describes the appellant's impairment as: “Patient has markedly reduced exercise
tolerance and significant emotional disturbance due to her illnesses.”
Under Additional Information, the GP repeats the same comments as under Additional Comments
in the MR.
Physical impairment
MR:
The GP indicates that the appellant can walk 1 to 2 blocks unaided on a flat surface, can climb 5+
steps unaided, and is limited to lifting 5 to 15 lbs. The GP does not indicate how long the
appellant can remain seated.
AR:
As to mobility and physical ability, the appellant is assessed as independent for walking indoors,
walking outdoors and standing; requiring periodic assistance from another person for climbing
stairs; and requiring continuous assistance from another person or unable for lifting and carrying
and holding.
Severity of mental impairment
MR:
The GP indicates that the appellant has no difficulties with communications.
The GP reports that the appellant has significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function in
the areas of executive, emotional disturbance, and motivation. The GP comments, “Patient's
illness (chronic) has resulted in significant depression symptoms.
AR:
The GP indicates that the appellant’s ability to communicate is good for speaking, reading,
writing, and hearing.
The GP assesses the degree to which the appellant’s mental impairment restricts or impacts her
functioning in the following areas as:
Major impact: bodily functions (sleep disturbance) and motivation.
Moderate impact: emotion, attention/concentration, and executive.
Minimal impact: none.
No impact: consciousness, insight and judgment, memory, motor activity, psychotic
symptoms, other neuropsychological problems, and other emotional or mental problems.
Ability to perform DLA
AR:
The GP provides the following assessments of the assistance the appellant requires in performing
DLA (the GP’s comments in parenthesis):
Personal care – independent for dressing, grooming, bathing, toileting, feeding self,
transfers in/out of bed, and transfers on/off chair; continuous assistance from another
person or unable for regulating diet.
Basic housekeeping – continuous assistance from another person or unable for laundry
and basic housekeeping.
Shopping – continuous assistance from another person or unable for going to and from
stores and carrying purchases home; independent for reading prices and labels, making
appropriate choices, and paying for purchases.
Meals – continuous assistance from another person or unable for all tasks: meal planning,
food preparation, cooking, and safe storage of food.
Pay rent and bills – continuous assistance from another person or unable for all tasks:
banking, budgeting, and paying rent and bills (patient lacks motivation & needs mother’s
help).
Medications – continuous assistance from another person or unable for filling and refilling
prescriptions; independent for taking as directed and safe handling and storage.
Transportation – independent for all tasks: getting in and out of the vehicle, using public
transit, and using transit schedules and arranging transportation.
As to the support/supervision required for social functioning, the GP assesses the appellant as
independent for making appropriate social decisions, interacting appropriately with others, and
dealing appropriately with unexpected demands; and requiring periodic support/supervision for
developing and maintaining relationships and securing assistance from others.
The GP assesses the appellant's relationship with her immediate social network as good
functioning and with her extended social networks as very disrupted functioning (major social
isolation).
Regarding the support/supervision indicated above, the GP notes, “The patient's family members
often accompany her when travelling out of the house to help her cope with any issues."
Help required
MR:
The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids to compensate for
her impairment.
AR:
The GP indicates that the help required for the appellant’s DLA is provided by family.
The GP does not indicate that the appellant requires any of the listed equipment or devices to
compensate for her impairment and indicates that she does not have an assistance animal.
The GP describes the type of services provided by his office as coping strategies and symptom
relief.
Self Report
In the SR, the appellant describes her disability as being diagnosed at birth with total anomalous
pulmonary venous return, ventricular septal defect, common atrium, hypoplastic left ventricular,
RV dominance, and hypoplastic aortic arch. She writes that she is not 100% sure what all these
mean, but after talking to her specialist and doing some online research she has come to the
following conclusion: hypoplastic left heart syndrome is a name for heart disease in which the left
side of the heart is critically underdeveloped and therefore the left side of the heart can't
effectively pump blood, so the right side must pump blood to the body. She writes that as a child
she survived as a result of surgery and is still having to deal with complications.
In describing how her disability affects her life, the appellant writes that as she transitions from
being a teenager to an adult, she has become more aware of the complications she has to deal
with. When she was younger she would easily become tired and therefore she was not able to
participate in any PE classes or do any sports. She still had to go through some small surgeries
and ended up skipping some classes as a result. Currently she is living with friends, but she
would like to pay her own expenses for schooling, food, clothing, phone, etc. In order to get some
experience for some of the university courses she is interested in, she tried to get a job. She tried
her best but was fired after 2 weeks because she would not handle the manual labour of lifting
heavy objects on a daily basis, as her disability causes her to become easily tired from any type
of exercise. She became sick after that and ended up with a fever for a couple of days. After that
she tried for an office job where all she had to do was input information on computers and
occasionally carry some light boxes. Her employers were aware of her disability when they hired
her, but one day she had to call in sick because she was not feeling well and they told her that
she was fired. She feels that her lack of ability to perform simple everyday tasks got her fired. She
gets stressed because she wants to work and wants to study but she cannot get a job or the
experience to apply for a job and pay for her education
Request for Reconsideration
In her Request for Reconsideration, the appellant writes that she is attaching more details about
her disability that impede her from performing daily basic tasks due to lack of nutrient intake and
side effects from medication. Attached are the following:
1.
A “To whom it may concern” letter dated 27 April 2017 from the GP, who writes:
“This is in support of the above mentioned patient’s appeal. The appellant has a
complex combination of illness (heart disease and esophagitis) that result in her
disability. Her heart disease markedly reduces her exercise capacity to the point of
which it becomes difficult for her to perform even extended activities of daily living.
Furthermore, her esophagitis causes frequent (daily) symptoms that affect her both
physically and emotionally. It also results in decreased nutrition and affects (decreases)
her energy levels. These problems continue to markedly affect her despite optimum
treatment. It is due to these reasons that she should be considered disabled for any
form of work.”
2.
Consult letter from an allergy specialist dated 18 February 2017. Impression: “From history
and SPT [skin prick test] there is not an IgE-mediated food option that can be eliminated as
part of her therapeutic plan.”
3.
Consult letter from a gastroenterologist dated 30 January 2017, who writes:
“…It is interesting that her emesis is usually when she has spicy foods or lactose-
containing foods. If she does have, for example, [fast food restaurant], she actually does
quite well. Her weight has been reasonably stable, no joint issues, no atypical rashes.
We discussed the diagnosis of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. There is no peripheral
eosinophilia. At this stage, I have referred her to an allergist/immunologist […]. I have
also given her a trial of [anti-inflammatory medication] for a month, tapering down… until
complete... In the long term, if it appears that we cannot assess precipitants/allergens,
we will have to consider immune suppression and she is aware of this. I requested a
lactose tolerance test as well.”
4.
Consult letter from a gynecologist, dated 04 November 2014, regarding a referral for
menorrhagia. No menstrual abnormalities were noted and no further follow-up was
scheduled.
Notice of Appeal
The appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated 125 May 2017. Under Reasons, the appellant writes
that she would like to inform the ministry that she has changed her family doctor, as her new
doctor’s office is closer to where she lives, and that doctor better understands the native language
of her parents, so that her parents will have a better understanding of her condition.
The hearing
With the consent of both parties, the hearing was conducted in writing, pursuant to section
22(3)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
The appellant did not make a submission for the hearing.
In an email dated 13 June 201 the ministry stated that its submission will be the reconsideration
summary provided in the Record of the Ministry Decision.
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. Specifically, the ministry determined that the
information provided did not establish that the appellant has a severe physical or mental 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.
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.
Severity of impairment
Physical impairment
The ministry began its analysis of the information provided regarding severity of impairment by noting
that the diagnosis of a serious medical condition does not in itself determine PWD eligibility or
establish a severe impairment. The ministry defined an “impairment” as a medical condition that
results in restrictions to a person's ability to function independently or effectively. The ministry must
consider the nature of the impairment and the extent of its impact on daily functioning based on the
functional skill limitations and restrictions. The panel notes that the PR form also provides a
definition along similar lines, while expanding on the restrictions to a person's ability to function to
include “appropriately or for a reasonable duration.” While the definition as framed by the ministry in
its decision is not set out in the legislation, the panel finds that it is consistent with the overall intent of
the legislation, with its focus on restrictions and help required.
Consistent with the approach of looking to the reported impacts of the appellant's medical conditions
on daily functioning, the ministry noted that the GP reports that the appellant can walk 1 to 2 blocks
unaided, can climb 5+ steps unaided, and is limited to lifting 5 to 15 pounds. The GP also reports that
the appellant is independent walking indoors and outdoors and standing. The GP reports periodic
assistance is required with climbing stairs, and reports continuous assistance required with lifting,
carrying and holding.
The ministry further noted that the appellant is reported to be independent with her personal care,
medications, and transportation and is not reported to take significantly longer with any of these
activities. The ministry acknowledges that the appellant has a markedly reduced exercise tolerance;
however, it is unclear why she is reported to require continuous assistance with basic housekeeping,
shopping, meals, paying bills and lifting and carrying given that the GP also reported her to be
independent with walking 1 to 2 blocks, climbing 5+ stairs and lifting 5 to 15 pounds. As such, the
ministry concluded that it is not been demonstrated that the appellant has a severe physical
impairment to her overall ability to function independently or effectively. The ministry also noted that
while it is reported that the appellant's exercise tolerance significantly impact her ability to work,
employability is not a factor when determining PWD designation.
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 prescribed professional (in this case the GP) permits the
minister to form a reasonably comprehensive overview of the nature and extent of the impacts of the
person's medical conditions on daily functioning. It is therefore reasonable for the minister to expect
that the MR and the AR include explanations, descriptions or examples in the spaces provided.
The GP has provided some general narrative regarding the impacts of the appellant's medical
conditions on her physical functioning (e.g. from the AR: “markedly reduced exercise tolerance” and
from his letter at reconsideration: “difficult for her to perform even extended activities of daily living”).
In the MR he reported that she is able to walk 1 to 2 blocks unaided and lift 5 to 15 lbs., assessments
that are suggestive of a moderate, not a severe, impairment of physical functioning. However, he has
not provided any specific explanation or description in the space provided in the AR regarding his
assessments that the appellant requires continuous assistance from another person or is unable for
lifting and carrying and holding, despite his walking and lifting assessments in the MR. Taken
together, these two sets of assessments can be interpreted as meaning either a) while the appellant
is able to lift a moderate weight or walk some distance, for some unexplained reason she cannot do
both at the same time – i.e. cannot carry any weight for any distance or b) that she can lift and carry a
moderate weight for some distance, but is unable without assistance to lift and carry a weight that
exceeds 5 to 15 lbs. or the distance is greater than 1 to 2 blocks. Given these inconsistent
assessments and contradictory interpretations, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in
concluding that these assessments did not establish a severe physical impairment.
These inconsistent assessments, and the lack of explanation for them, are also relevant to the DLA
criterion. (See below under direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA.)
The panel notes that in her SR the appellant describes how her disability affects her life mostly in
terms of how she has been unable to maintain employmenthold down a job. Similarly, in his
narratives the GP places some emphasis on how the appellant's medical conditions affect her
employability. For example, in the MR he writes, “The patient has markedly decreased exercise
(work) capacity due to her cardiac disease,” and in his letter at reconsideration he concludes with, “It
is due to these reasons that she should be considered disabled for any form of work.”
As the ministry noted in the reconsideration decision, 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 is not one of the
prescribed DLA.
For the above reasons, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable in determining that a severe
physical impairment has not been established.
Mental impairment
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry noted that the GP did not identify any mental health
disorder. The ministry did note however that the GP had identified significant deficits with cognitive
and emotional functioning in the areas of executive, emotional, and motivation, and reported that the
appellant’s illness has resulted in significant depressive symptoms. The GP reported that the
appellant's impairment has a major impact to her sleep and motivation and reported moderate
impacts with emotion, attention/concentration and executive thinking. The ministry also noted that the
GP reported that the appellant has good functioning with her immediate social networks but has
major social isolation with her extended networks. The ministry concluded by acknowledging the
appellant’s identified impairments, but found that these are not indicative of a severe mental
impairment.
The panel notes that the GP has provided only general information regarding the appellant's mental
health. As the ministry noted, the GP did not diagnose any mental health disorder. In the MR, he
referred to “depressive symptoms” without describing these in any detail. Further, there is insufficient
evidence that the appellant’s mental health condition is serious enough to require treatment, either
with prescription drugs or through other therapy.
In terms of impacts on daily functioning, the GP stated that the appellant's conditions “resulted in
markedly disruptive functioning and has led to social isolation,” without providing the narrative
necessary for the ministry to find that a severe mental impairment had been established on the basis
of “markedly disruptive functioning.” For example, while the GP assessed a major impact of the
appellant's mental health condition on bodily functions (sleep disturbance), he has not provided any
description as to how often or to what extent sleep is disturbed and what the consequences are for
her physical functioning the next day. The GP also assessed a major impact in the area of motivation
and under DLA assessed the appellant as requiring continuous assistance from another person or
unable for paying rent and bills, commenting that the appellant lacks motivation for this DLA and
needs her mother's help. However, the GP has not identified any other area of daily functioning
where lack of motivation is a factor. The panel also notes that while the GP has referred to “social
isolation,” and assessed the appellant as requiring periodic support/supervision for developing and
maintaining relationships (without describing the nature, frequency or duration of such
support/supervision), he has assessed the appellant as independent for making appropriate social
decisions and interacting appropriately with others.
In the absence of a diagnosis of a mental health disorder and without the narrative that would support
the GPs assessments of major impacts on daily functioning, the panel finds that the ministry was
reasonable in determining that severe mental impairment has not been established.
Direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA
Panel decision
The panel notes that, according to the legislation, the direct and significant restriction in the ability to
perform DLA must be the result of a severe impairment, a criterion not 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 does not mean that other evidence should not be factored in as required to
provide clarification of the professional evidence, but the legislative language is clear that a
prescribed professional’s evidence is fundamental to the ministry’s determination 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 extent to which the ability to perform DLA is
restricted, as assessed in terms of the nature and duration of help required, in order for the ministry to
determine whether the restrictions are “significant.”
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry stated that it is not satisfied that the appellant has a
severe impairment that, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricts
her ability to perform DLA continuously or periodically for extended periods.
In reaching this conclusion, the ministry noted that the GP reports that the appellant requires
continuous assistance with regulating diet, basic housekeeping, shopping (going to and from stores
and carrying purchases home), and also with meals, paying bills, and refilling prescriptions. However,
it is unclear to the ministry why the appellant would then require continuous help in these areas given
her reported functional skills. The ministry acknowledged the appellant's reduced exercise tolerance
due to her heart condition and G.I. issues. However, the ministry found that there is not enough
information provided to support that the appellant's impairment results in a direct and significant
restriction in her ability to perform DLA, either continuously or periodically for extended periods. In the
ministry’s view, reduced exercise tolerance, loss of energy, and lack of motivation are not indicative
of an overall significant continuous restriction in her ability to complete her DLA. The ministry also
added that it is unclear what the GP meant when reporting that it is difficult for the appellant to
perform “even extended activities of daily living.”
As discussed above under severity of physical impairment, there are inconsistencies between the
GP’s assessments in the MR of the appellant's walking and lifting ability and those in the AR
regarding help required for lifting and carrying and holding. Given these inconsistencies, the panel
considers the ministry reasonable when finding it unclear why the appellant would require continuous
assistance from another person for such DLA as basic housekeeping, shopping (going to and from
stores and carrying purchases home), and also with meals and refilling prescriptions. While the GP
has explained the need for continuous assistance from the appellant's mother for paying rent and bills
due to lack of motivation, he has not provided an explanation for his assessments of continuous
assistance required for these other DLA – whether these are as a result of the appellant's heart
disease, lack of energy because of her G.I. condition, fatigue due to sleep disturbance, or lack of
motivation due to her mental impairment. Further, the GP has not provided any description as to
whether there are limits in her abilities for various aspects of these DLA – for example, for basic
housekeeping, no information is provided as to whether the limitations encompass such light-duty
aspects as sweeping the floor, wiping clean the counter and table, making her bed, or washing dishes
or whether they extend only to more strenuous activities such as vacuuming or washing floors.
Without such information, in the panel’s view it would be difficult for the ministry to determine if the
restrictions were “direct” and “significant.”
The panel further notes other unexplained inconsistencies regarding the GP's assessments of the
appellant's ability to perform DLA: she is assessed as requiring continuous assistance from another
person or unable to go to and from stores, yet as independent for using public transit; and she is
assessed as requiring continuous assistance from another person or unable for regulating diet, yet
she assessed as independent for making appropriate choices when shopping.
As a severe impairment has not been established, and considering that the GP – the prescribed
professional – has not provided a clear picture of how, to what degree, or why the appellant’s ability
to perform DLA is restricted, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that it
has not been established that the appellant has a severe impairment that significantly restricts her
ability to perform DLA continuously or for extended periods. The panel therefore finds that the
ministry was reasonable in finding that this legislative criterion has not been met.
Help required
Panel decision
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry held that, as it has not been established that DLA are
significantly restricted, 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.
While the appellant benefits from the assistance of her family, 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.