PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry)
reconsideration decision dated June 19, 2017 which found that the appellant did not meet three of the
five statutory requirements of Section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Act for designation as a person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry found that the
appellant met the age requirement and that her impairment is likely to continue for at least two years.
However, the ministry was not satisfied the evidence establishes that:
the appellant has a severe physical or mental impairment;
the appellant's daily living activities (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
nor was the ministry satisfied that the appellant fit with in one of the five classes of persons eligible for
PWD designation under section 2.1 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities
Regulation (EAPWDR).
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), Section 2(2)
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), Sections 2 and 2.1
PART E – Summary of Facts
Documents and Information Before the Minister at Reconsideration
The evidence before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration decision included:
A. The Persons with Disabilities (PWD) application dated December 16, 2016
In the Applicant Information Section, in which the appellant’s medical conditions are described by
the appellant as
being overweight
having problems with alcohol
being a heavy smoker with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD)
being frequently ill with colds and bronchitis
an injury 15 years ago (broken ankle) which was repaired with screws and bolts, but now
swells when she is standing for any length of time
difficulty with walking which combined with low back pain and low-paying jobs, she does not
get much exercise other than walking, which has put strain on her back and hips such that she
is in constant pain and cannot sit for any length of time without increased pain
so much pain that she took a medical leave from her last job
an employer who could not accommodate her need for frequent breaks from standing and
ability to only work only 3 or 4 hour shifts
difficulty with normal household chores such as washing dishes, vacuuming, and laundry as
these tasks required bending over and standing, causing and increasing pain
depression and constant pain
inability to climb stairs
difficult to walk more than a block due to COPD and hip, foot, and back pain
inability to drive due to lack of funds to ensure her car, requiring that she walk to the bus to buy
groceries or go on other errands, but limiting her to how much she can purchase and still be
able to carry her purchases and walk home with them, so she is housebound most of the time.
B. The Persons with Disabilities Designation Denial Decision Summary dated March 1, 2017
The adjudicator reports that the appellant is 18 years of age or more and that her impairment is likely
to continue for two or more years. The adjudicator, having
reviewed the reports says that the
appellant
was
diagnosed
with
lumbar
back
pain
resulting
from
an
L
4-5
disc
protrusion.
The
adjudicator reported that the appellant experienced persistent pain in the lower back and groin area,
limiting her ability to walk, sit and stand, but she does not require any assistive devices, and
reviewing her physical ability is concluded that the level of functional skills does not indicate severe
physical
impairment
and
that
her
Daily
Living
Activities
(DLA)
are
not
directly
and
significantly
restricted due to her impairment in adjudicator also reported that the appellant does not require help
with her DLA because it is not been established that they are significantly restricted and therefore
whether significant help is required cannot be determined.
C. A Medical Report (MR) completed by a Physician (General Practitioner) dated December
8, 2016, reporting that the appellant has been his patient for 15 years and he has seen her between
two and 10 times in the past 12 months, and which included a section reporting
that the appellant’s diagnosis is lumbar back pain resulting from an L4-5 disc protrusion since
2013, and a health history of persistent lower back and right growing pain on a daily basis for
more than two years, which limits her walking/sitting/standing and that she has been treated
with steroid injections with no benefit; no other medication or treatments which interfere with
her ability to perform DLA have been prescribed, and that she requires no aids for her
impairment
the GP states that the appellant’s impairment is likely to continue for two or more years, and
that
given
the
degenerative
nature
of
the
specific
diagnosis,
there
is
not
likely
to
be
improvement
on the Appellant’s Functional Skills, reporting that the appellant
walk 2 to 4 blocks unaided,
climb 5 or more steps unaided, but with a railing
lift under 2 kilograms, and
remain seated for less than 1 hour,
and has no significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function
The panel notes that in the MR the family physician stated “No” in answer to the question “Does the
applicant require any prostheses or aids for his/her impairment?”
D. An Assessor’s Report (AR) dated December 8, 2016 and completed by the same physician
who completed the MR.
For DLA, the assessor reports that the information for the report was obtained from the file/chart, but
not from an office interview with the appellant, a home assessment, family/friends/caregivers, other
professionals, community services or other sources). The assessor reports that with the DLA of
Personal Care, where there are 8 listed tasks, the appellant is independent in all 8,
Basic Housekeeping, where there are 2 listed tasks, the appellant is independent in 1, and
requires periodic assistance is independent in 1, and explains that the periodic assistance
required is that it takes the appellant significantly longer than typical to perform the task
because of limitations in bending and standing
Shopping, where there are 5 listed tasks the appellant is independent in 4, requires continuous
assistance
in
1,
such
assistance
being
described
as
continuously
needing
assistance
in
carrying purchases that way more than 5 pounds home, and that her son assistance with
lifting/carrying and that activities which involve a standing are limited in duration*
Meals, where there are 4 listed tasks, the appellant is independent in all 4
Pay Rent and Bills, where there are 3 listed tasks, the appellant is independent in all 3
Medications, where there are 3 listed tasks, the appellant is independent in all 3
Transportation, where there are 3 listed tasks, the appellant is independent in all 3
Social Functioning, which is only to be completed if the appellant has an identified mental
impairment, the physician has marked as Not Applicable.
E. Physician’s Letter dated May 19, 2017
The appellant’s family physician, the same physician who completed the MR and the AR, wrote the
ministry adding a diagnosis of moderate COPD causing the appellant shortness of breath on exertion
which, together with the appellant’s lumbar degenerative disc disease restricts her walking into about
one block before having to sit down, as the appellant reported to the physician. He reported she can
stand for three or four minutes at most before the back pain causes her to sit. These difficulties impair
the appellant’s ability to prepare meals or do laundry housework. She is not able to vacuum or bend
over to do housework. He has difficulty getting up after sitting but she can negotiate stairs slowly if
there are rails. The physician says that the appellant would benefit from tub and bathroom rails for
toilet use and that public transport is difficult given her “ambulation difficulties unquote because of
back pain and shortness of breath.
1
Information Provided on Appeal
Appellant’s Additional Evidence
Appellant’s Witness’ Additional Oral Evidence
The witness, the appellant’s sister, gave additional evidence that the appellant has a severe physical
impairment due to severe back pain which impairs the appellant’s ability to perform DLA such as
housework, vacuuming, meal preparation, using the bathroom and the shower. She requires regular
assistance with those activities. She is assisted by her son who lives with her and who does most of
the cleaning and cooking. The witness said the appellant has difficulty using the toilet, can walk
upstairs but needs to hold on to something, and after walking a short distance needs to find a place to
sit while she recovers. Witness said that the appellant sometimes needs help getting up out of the
chair, and that often when her son was away she does not eat because there is no one there to cook.
The witness took issue with the physician reporting in the AR that the appellant is independent in
walking both indoors and outdoors and said that the appellant needs a walker but cannot afford one.
The witness said that the appellant’s son goes shopping for her as he can carry the purchases home
whereas the appellant can carry less than 5 pounds. Witness also gave evidence of the appellant
losing her job because of being unable to stand or sit for any length of time because after a short
while her legs go numb.
Ministry Position on Appellant’s Witness’ Additional Oral Evidence
The ministry was not opposed to admission of the witness’ additional oral evidence.
Panel Finding on Appellant’s Witness’ Additional Oral Evidence
The witness’ additional evidence further explained the appellant’s difficulties with and assistance
needed with those at DLA referred to in the AR under “Basic Housekeeping” and “Shopping”. Her
additional evidence also expanded upon and explained why the appellant takes significantly longer
than typical to perform those DLA. Her additional evidence also expanded upon the information in
the
physician’s
letter
of
May
19,
2017.
Because
the
additional
evidence
further
explained
and
expanded upon the appellant’s difficulties with DLA, the panel finds that the witness’ additional oral
evidence
is
in
support
of
the
information
and
records
that
were
before
the
minister
when
the
reconsideration decision being appealed was made and admits that additional evidence pursuant to
section 22(4) EAA.
Appellant’s Additional Oral Evidence
The appellant gave additional evidence, saying that as far as the DLA cooking is concerned she can
do some as long as she can hold onto a counter, but she sometimes gets spasms if she uses a
utensil in the wrong way and that will end her cooking for the time being. She said it is difficult to
shower because there is nothing to hold on to. She said it takes her a long time to walk even less
than a block; there is a store located about a block away from her home and when she walks there
and back there is a wall to steady herself and benches to sit on but it is difficult to walk up hill from the
store back to her home. She said that her condition has deteriorated since she made the initial
application for PWD designation in December 2016, and that is reflected in her physician’s letter of
May 19, 2017 submitted as part of her reconsideration application, and that her condition has further
deteriorated since then. She says she has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder and while her
family physician did not provide that diagnosis as part of her original application he did provide it in
his May 19, 2017 letter which was before the minister at reconsideration.
Ministry Position on Appellant’s Additional Oral Evidence
The ministry was not opposed to admission of the appellant’s additional oral evidence.
Panel Finding on Appellant’s Additional Oral Evidence
The appellant’s additional evidence further explained and expanded upon her difficulties with and the
periodic and continuous assistance needed with those DLA identified in the AR and in the physician’s
letter of May 19, 2017. Her additional evidence also expanded upon and explained why she takes
significantly longer than typical to perform those DLA. Because the appellant’s evidence further
explained information and records that were before the minister when the reconsideration decision
being appealed was made the panel the panel admits that additional evidence pursuant to section
22(4) EAA.
Ministry’s Additional Evidence
The ministry did not submit additional evidence.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
Issue on Appeal
The issue on appeal is whether the Ministry’s reconsideration decision to deny the Appellant
designation as a PWD was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of
the applicable enactment, namely section 2(2) EAPWDA and sections 2 and 2.1 EAPWDR, in the
circumstances of the appellant. The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the
ministry) reconsideration decision dated June 19, 2017 found that the appellant did not meet three of
the five statutory requirements of Section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Act for designation as a person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry found that the
appellant met the age requirement and that her impairment is likely to continue for at least two years.
However, the ministry was not satisfied the evidence establishes that:
the appellant has a severe physical or mental impairment;
the appellant's daily living activities (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
nor was the ministry satisfied that the appellant fit with in one of the five classes of persons eligible for
PWD designation under section 2.1 of the EAPWDR.
Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA)
(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 ability to perform daily living activities either
(A) continuously, or
(B) periodically for extended periods, and
(ii) as a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) a person who has a severe mental impairment includes a person with a mental disorder, and
(b) a person requires help in relation to a daily living activity if, in order to perform it, the person requires
(i) an assistive device,
(ii) the significant help or supervision of another person, or
(iii) the services of an assistance animal.
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR).
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.
Alternative grounds for designation under section 2 of Act
2.1 The following classes of persons are prescribed for the purposes of section 2 (2) [persons with disabilities] of the Act:
(a) a person who is enrolled in Plan P (Palliative Care) under the Drug Plans Regulation, B.C. Reg. 73/2015;
(b) a person who has at any time been determined to be eligible to be the subject of payments made through the
Ministry of Children and Family Development's At Home Program;
(c) a person who has at any time been determined by Community Living British Columbia to be eligible to receive
community living support under the Community Living Authority Act;
(d) a person whose family has at any time been determined by Community Living British Columbia to be eligible
to receive community living support under the Community Living Authority Act to assist that family in caring for the
person;
(e) a person who is considered to be disabled under section 42 (2) of the Canada Pension Plan (Canada).
General Scheme of the Legislation
The general scheme of section 2 EAPDWA and sections 2 and 2.1 EAPDWR is that in order to be
designated as a Person With Disabilities (PWD), an applicant must satisfy the Minister that she has a
severe mental or physical impairment which is likely to
continue for at least 2 years, and that
impairment, in the opinion of one of the members of a prescribed class of professionals, directly and
significantly restricts her ability to perform Daily Living Activities continuously or periodically for
extended periods, and as a result she requires help to perform them. Alternatively, if an applicant fits
within any 1 of 5 classes of people described in section 2.1 EAPDWR, the person may be designated
as a PWD.
Parties’ Positions at Appeal
Analysis
Section 2(2) EAPDWA
Age and Duration and Severe Impairment Requirement
Section 2(2) EAPWDA requires that an applicant for PWD status must be 18 years of age of older,
have a severe mental or physical impairment, and that in the opinion of a prescribed professional, is
likely to continue for at least 2 years.
At reconsideration the ministry found that the Appellant met the age requirement, and that the
Appellant, in the opinion of a physician, had neither a severe physical impairment nor a severe
mental impairment. The physician indicated that the appellant’s impairment was minimal to moderate,
not severe, and that it likely to continue for at least 2 years.
Thus the requirements of section 2(2) of the EAPWDA as to age and duration had been met.
Severe Physical Impairment
At reconsideration the ministry found that the appellant did not have a severe physical impairment.
The legislative requirement respecting DLA set out in section 2(2)(b) of the EAPWDA is that the
minister be satisfied that as a result of a severe physical or mental impairment a person is, in the
opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricted in the ability to perform DLA
either continuously or periodically for extended periods. Consequently, while other evidence - such as
that of the witness and of the appellant - may be considered for clarification or support, the ministry’s
determination as to whether or not it is satisfied is dependent upon the evidence from prescribed
professionals. DLA are defined in section 2(1) of the EAPWDR and are listed in both the PR and the
AR sections of the PWD application with the opportunity for the prescribed professional to check
marked boxes and provide additional narrative.
While there was evidence from the appellant and her witness was to the effect that the appellant lost
her job about 2 years ago due to her inability to sit or stand for lengthy periods and is still unable to
work, DLA, as defined in the legislation, do not include the ability to work.
In this case, the prescribed professionals who have provided information respecting the appellant’s
ability to perform DLA are the appellant’s family physician for both the MR, and the AR.
A diagnosis of a serious medical condition does not in itself determine PWD eligibility or establish a
“severe” impairment. An “impairment” is a medical condition that results in restrictions to a person’s
ability to function independently or effectively.
To assess the severity of an impairment, the ministry must consider both the nature of the impairment
and the extent of its impact on daily functioning as evidenced by functional skill limitations and the
degree to which the ability to perform DLA is restricted. In making its determination the ministry must
consider all the relevant evidence, including that of the appellant. However, the legislation is clear
that the fundamental basis for the analysis is the evidence from a prescribed professional – in this
case, the MR and AR completed by the appellant’s family physician.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant’s position was that she was severely physically impaired, and due to her severe back
pain impairing her ability to perform the DLA, in the way that both she and her witness have given
evidence of, despite the fact that she can, with pain and sometimes only for short periods of time,
perform DLA.
Ministry’s Position
The ministry relied on the reconsideration decision. In that decision it was stated that the appellant
did not require any aids or prosthesis. It was also stated that according to the family physician’s
opinion set out in the MR, the appellant was able to perform the functional skills set out in the MR
unaided, except for needing a railing to climb stairs, and being limited to lifting under 5 pounds and
remain seated for less than an hour. It was also stated in the AR that the appellant has continuous or
periodic restrictions with some DLA. However, reading the MR together with the AR indicates that
the assistance required is because the appellant cannot lift or carry more than 5 pounds without
requiring assistance from her son, and takes significantly longer than typical to manage some tasks,
such as basic housekeeping in which she is limited by her difficulties with bending and standing. The
physician also observed that she requires continuous assistance carrying purchases weighing more
than 5 pounds home and she obtained that assistance from her son.
The
ministry
found
these
factors
more
indicative
of
a
moderate
rather
than
a
severe
physical
impairment.
Panel Finding
The panel notes that the assessor completed the AR using only the file/chart information, and did not
utilize
an
office
interview
with
the
appellant,
had
no
home
or other
assessments,
obtained
no
information from the appellant’s family/friends/caregivers, other professionals, or community services.
The panel finds that the appellant’s functional skills, as set out in both the MR and the AR, are
indicative of an individual whose impairment, while it may directly restrict the appellant’s ability to
perform DLA, are more indicative of a moderate level of impairment causing the appellant to perform
DLA more slowly, than they are of a severe impairment restricting the appellant from performing one
or other DLA entirely.
The panel finds that the ministry’s decision at reconsideration that the appellant does not have a
severe
physical
impairment
was
reasonably
supported
by
the
evidence
and
was
a
reasonable
application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant.
Severe Mental Impairment
At reconsideration the ministry found that the appellant did not have a severe mental impairment.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant did not claim that she had a mental impairment.
Ministry’s Position
The ministry relied on the reconsideration decision. In the MR the family physician reported that the
appellant did not experience significant deficits with cognitive and emotional functioning and in the AR
wrote “N/A” indicating “not applicable” to this section dealing with Cognitive and Emotional
Functioning.
The ministry therefore determined that the appellant did not have any severe mental impairment.
Panel Finding
Why the minister, at reconsideration, determined that the appellant had no mental impairment when
she did not claim she had such an impairment and the physician did not give an opinion on mental
impairment is not known, but as the ministry did make a finding, the panel finds that the ministry’s
decision at reconsideration that the appellant does not have a severe mental impairment was
reasonably supported by the evidence and was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment
in the circumstances of the appellant.
Section 2(2)(b)(i) & (ii) EAPWDA
Direct and Significant Restriction in the Ability to Perform Daily Living Activities
Section
2(2)(b)(i)
EAPWDA
requires
that
a
prescribed
professional
provide
an
opinion
that
the
Appellant’s mental or physical impairment directly and significantly restrict the person’s ability to
perform daily living activities either continuously or periodically for extended periods.
Section 2(2)(b)(ii) EAPWDA requires that a prescribed professional provide an opinion that as a result
of the direct and significant restrictions of the Appellant’s ability to perform Daily Living Activities, the
Appellant requires help to perform those activities.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant’s position, from her evidence and that of her witness, was that she requires daily
assistance with some DLA.
Ministry’s Position
The ministry relied on the reconsideration decision. The ministry found that, because of the DLA as
reported by the physician in both the MR and the AR, the appellant had limitations resulting from her
lower back pain and shortness of breath, she could still independently perform most DLA but at a
reduced pace or in a reduced capacity, that the appellant’s physical impairment was more indicative
of a moderate impairment as opposed to a severe impairment of the appellant’s ability to perform
DLA.
In that decision the ministry found that it could not be determined that the appellant had either a
severe physical impairment or a severe mental impairment. The reconsideration decision stated that
while it was to be expected that the appellant would encounter some restrictions in her ability to
perform DLA and require assistance as a result, there was not enough evidence to confirm that the
appellant’s
impairment
significantly
restricted
her
ability
to
perform
DLA
either
continuously
or
periodically for extended periods.
Panel Finding
The panel notes that the determination of whether or not there is a direct and significant restriction of
the Appellant’s ability to perform Daily Living Activities is to be determined by the opinion of a
prescribed
professional
and
that
while
the
opinion
of
the
appellant
or
of
another
person
is
of
assistance, the determination is that of the prescribed professional.
The panel finds that no prescribed professional determined that the appellant has a severe physical
or mental impairment which directly and significantly restricts the appellant’s ability to perform DLA
either continuously or periodically. The panel finds that the opinion of the physician in the MR, the
AR, and his letter of May 19, 2017 all explain that the appellant had difficulty with a few tasks in the
several DLA, but not that any of these tasks were impossible for her; that her limitations caused her
to take significantly longer with some tasks or to require the continuous assistance of someone else
with two tasks, specifically “lifting” and “carrying and holding” when the she had to lift or carry heavier
objects. The panel finds that none of the limitations found by the prescribed professional prevented
the appellant from being able to perform any DLA but rather that she could perform all DLA, albeit
more slowly or with assistance for part of a DLA.
The panel finds that the ministry’s determination at reconsideration that the appellant does not have a
severe physical or mental impairment that directly and significantly restricts the appellant’s ability to
perform DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods was reasonably supported by
the evidence and was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of
the appellant.
Alternative Grounds – Section 2.1 EAPWDR
As an alternative to an applicant for a PWD designation under section 2(2) EAPWDA, where the
applicant must show that she has a severe mental or severe physical impairment which in the opinion
of a physician or nurse practitioner is likely to continue for at least two years, and which in the opinion
of
a prescribed
professional
directly
and
significantly
restricts
her
ability
to
perform DLA
either
continuously or periodically and that as a result of such restrictions she requires help to perform those
activities, an applicant for PWD designation will be granted that designation if she falls under any of
five classes of persons prescribed in section 2.1 EAPWDA, which are:
She is enrolled in Plan P under the Drugs Plans Regulation
She has at any time been determined is an eligible individual to be the subject of payments
made through the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home Program
She has been at any time determined as eligible to receive community living support under the
Community Living Authority Act by Community Living British Columbia
She is a member of a family which has been at any time determined to be eligible to receive
community living support under the Community Living Authority Act so as to assist his family in
caring for the person, as determined by Community Living British Columbia, or
She is a person considered to be disabled under section 42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan
Appellant’s Position
The appellant did not make an application for PWD designation based on any of the 5 alternative
grounds, and did not advance such a claim at the appeal.
Ministry’s Position
The ministry determined at reconsideration that the appellant had not demonstrated that she fell
within one of the 5 classes of people who may qualify for PWD designation on alternative grounds.
Panel Finding
The panel notes that although the reconsideration decision addressed the appellant’s eligibility under
section
2.1
EAPWDR,
the
appellant
had
not
applied
for
PWD
designation
under
section
2.1
EAPWDR.
Conclusion
Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the
ministry’s reconsideration decision, which determined that the appellant was not eligible for PWD
designation under section 2 of the EAPWDA, was reasonably supported by the evidence and was a
reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the appellant’s circumstances.
The appellant is not successful in her 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.