PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development
and Poverty Reduction (“the ministry”) dated 26 June that held that the appellant was not
eligible for qualification as a person with persistent multiple barriers to employment (PPMB).
The ministry determined that the appellant’s employability screen score was 12 and therefore
assessed his PPMB eligibility under sections 2(2) and 2(4) of the Employment and Assistance
Regulation (EAR). The ministry found that the appellant met the requirements of sections 2(2)
and 2(4)(a). However, the ministry was not satisfied that the information provided established
that the appellant met the criterion set out in section 2(4)(b) of the EAR, that to qualify for PPMB
a person must have a medical condition confirmed by a medical practitioner that in the opinion
of the minister is a barrier that precludes the person from searching for, accepting or continuing
in employment.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), section 2.
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration included the following:
1.
The appellant’s employability screen score is 12.
2.
Medical Report – PPMB dated 28 March 2018, completed by a general practitioner
(GP) who provides the following information:
•
Primary medical condition: carpal tunnel syndrome.
•
Secondary medical condition: Raynaud’s disease of the extremities.
•
Treatment/outcome: Nil (no history of treatment, walk-in patient only).
•
How long has this condition existed? 6 years.
•
Prognosis: expected duration of medical condition – 2 years or more. Comment:
“Repetitive use of hands in cold environments will trigger sx [symptoms].”
•
The medical condition is episodic, occurring daily and likely to recur daily.
•
Restrictions: the GP writes: “Pt. unable to work w/hands in cold environment.”
3.
From the ministry’s files and also submitted by the appellant at reconsideration –
previous medical reports completed by the same GP:
o
Medical Report – PPMB dated 04 October 2015. Primary medical condition –
attention deficit disorder; secondary medical condition – depression disorder.
Treatment: discontinuation of drugs. Outcome: stable. Duration – 2 years or
more. Restrictions: none given.
o
Medical Report – PPMB dated in 06 October 2015. Primary medical condition –
attention deficit disorder; secondary medical condition – depression and
antisocial behaviour. Treatment – nil at present, “cannot stay on task.” Duration
– 2 years or more. Restrictions: “self esteem support needs to be in place.
Raynaud’s disease – means he cannot grip during cold spells.”
o
Medical Report – PPMB dated 21 June 2013. Primary medical condition –
attention deficit disorder; secondary medical condition – depression
[unreadable]. Duration – 2 years or more. Restrictions: “unable to present as
employable. [Unreadable]. He may have dyslexia. [Unreadable].”
o
Medical Report – Employability dated 28 March 2013. Primary medical condition
– carpal tunnel syndrome; secondary medical condition – Raynaud’s disease of
the extremities. How frequently? Restriction in use of hands in cold environment
daily.
4.
Submitted by the appellant at reconsideration:
o
Operative Report completed by a surgeon and printed 10 August 2012
describing a hemorrhoidectomy on the appellant. The postoperative diagnosis is,
“Mucosal prolapse with partial full-thickness prolapse.”
o
A Certificate of Absence dated 17 April 2018 from the same surgeon stating the
appellant requires time off work for medical reasons, with a note stating, “[The
appellant] will be undergoing treatment with [the surgeon] for approximately 2
months. This will necessitate time off work for him to deal with his
medical/surgical issues.”
o
An undated document titled “Medical Conditions and Physical Barriers” prepared
by the appellant. The document states that in 2010 he was formally diagnosed
with Raynaud's syndrome (lack of circulation, freezing and stiffness in hands
and feet), that in 2012 he had hemorrhoidectomy surgery (of a complicated and
extreme nature), and that he also has carpal tunnel syndrome. The document
then lists several activities under “I MUST” and “I MUST NOT,” and a list of what
he might experience under “I MUST EXPECT.”
5. The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration is dated 05 June 2018. Under Reasons,
the appellant refers to the medical reports listed in paragraphs 2 to 4 above and goes
to argument regarding how his medical conditions satisfy the PPMB criteria. (See Part
F, Reasons for Panel Decision, below).
Notice of Appeal
The appellant signed his Notice of Appeal on 07 July 2018. Under Reasons, he writes:
“I believe the ministry is not understanding the severity of my barriers. My physicians
have identified on several documents that my barriers are severe in nature and affects
daily living and the ability to work. I am scheduled for additional testing to determine
future surgery.”
The Hearing
At the hearing, the appellant reviewed his employment history, both in the Canadian Armed
Forces and later in civilian life, describing how the work required high levels of skill, strenuous
activity, and at times exposure to cold and challenging environments. He described how his life
took a downturn about 10 years ago when he began to experience rectal leakage. He suffered
much embarrassment and stress attempting to cope with this, while working at the same time.
For more than 2 years, his condition was undiagnosed and went untreated by any doctors he
saw, or was improperly and ineffectively treated by a chiropractor, until he was fortunate enough
to see a surgeon who diagnosed a rectal prolapse, and arranged for and performed immediate
surgery. While the hemorrhoidectomy was a medium-term solution, he began to experience the
leakage again last year and went to the surgeon again. The surgeon performed 3 in-office, very
painful banding procedures three weeks apart and this has provided relief for the time being.
The appellant stated that he was aware that the staples implanted in the first surgery will
eventually give way and he will have to have a colostomy at some point in the future.
The appellant explained that the trauma he experienced until he was able to get proper
treatment for the rectal prolapse might have led to PTSD, although he has not been so
diagnosed. In any event, he suffers from depression and anxiety resulting from this experience.
He attributes having Raynaud's disease, a condition usually associated with women, to the
stress during that period. He explained that Raynaud's disease is a condition where, when
under stress, such as in a cold environment, the blood retreats from the extremities into the
body. As he also suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome, the Raynaud’s disease exacerbates that
wrist condition, to the point where his has become virtually incapacitated in a cold environment.
However, even in warmer or room temperatures, because of the severity of his carpal tunnel
syndrome, he cannot use his hands for more than a couple of hours without them ceasing to be
of any use. Being a man who made his living doing skilled work with his hands, this is a source
of great frustration for him, increasing his feelings of depression.
The appellant described how, since moving to the community where he currently resides, he
has been able to find the support he needs to start having a “clear head” to begin to get his life
back together again. In particular, he is grateful for being assigned the assistance of a support
person from a provincial agency, funded by the ministry. That person was to be his advocate at
the hearing, but they decided that would constitute a conflict of interest, due to the funding by
the ministry. With that person’s support and guidance, he has been able to find a physician who
has referred him for nerve tests. The results of these tests will determine whether he is a
candidate for surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. He has no idea what the wait time would be
for such surgery, or what the recovery time might be. He hopes that if he is has the surgery, he
will be able to return to work, even on a part-time basis.
The balance of the appellant's presentation went to argument regarding this denial of
qualification for PPMB (see Part F, Reasons for Panel Decision, below).
The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration.
Admissibility of additional information
With the exception noted below, the panel finds that the information provided by the appellant in
his Notice of Appeal and 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 the
appellant provided the ministry in his Request for Reconsideration. The panel therefore admits
this information as evidence pursuant to section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
The panel does not admit as evidence the information provided by the appellant in his Notice of
Appeal and in his testimony at the hearing regarding future testing and possible surgery,
because this information was not before the ministry at reconsideration.
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant
did not qualify for PPMB because he did not meet the criterion set out in section 2(4)(b) of the
EAR. More specifically, the issue is whether the following ministry determination is reasonably
supported by the evidence or is a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances
of the appellant:
•
the information provided did not establish that the appellant met the criterion set out in
section 2(4)(b) of the EAR, that in the opinion of the minister the person has a medical
condition confirmed by a medical practitioner that is a barrier that precludes the person
from searching for, accepting or continuing in employment.
The relevant legislation is from the EAR:
Persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment
2 (1) To qualify as a person who has persistent multiple barriers to employment, a person must
meet the requirements set out in
(a)subsection (2), and
(b)subsection (3) or (4).
(2) The person has been a recipient for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar
months of one or more of the following:
(a)income assistance or hardship assistance under the Act;
(b)income assistance, hardship assistance or a youth allowance under a former Act;
(c)a disability allowance under the Disability Benefits Program Act;
(d)disability assistance or hardship assistance under the Employment and Assistance
for Persons with Disabilities Act.
(3) The following requirements apply
(a)the minister
(i) has determined that the person scores at least 15 on the employability
screen set out in Schedule E, and
(ii) based on the result of that employability screen, considers that the person
has barriers that seriously impede the person's ability to search for, accept or
continue in employment,
(b)the person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a
medical practitioner and that,
(i) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(A)has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at
least 2 more years, or
(B)has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue
for at least 2 more years, and
(ii) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that seriously impedes the
person's ability to search for, accept or continue in employment, and
(c)the person has taken all steps that the minister considers reasonable for the
person to overcome the barriers referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) The person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical
practitioner and that,
(a)in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(i) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2
more years, or
(ii) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at
least 2 more years, and
(b)in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that precludes the person from searching
for, accepting or continuing in employment.
The ministry determined that the appellant’s employability screen score was 12 and therefore, in
accordance with the “either/or” provision of section 2(1), assessed his PPMB eligibility under
sections 2(2) and 2(4). The ministry found that the appellant met the requirements of sections
2(2) and 2(4)(a), but not section 2(4)(b).
Analysis
The position of the appellant, as set out in his Request for Reconsideration and in more detail in
his testimony at the hearing, is that:
•
He cannot understand why, after 6 or 7 years as PPMB, despite several attempts, he has
been denied renewal this time when the basic information provided by the GP has not
changed much while his conditions are getting worse.
•
Even so, he feels that the GP has not met his professional responsibilities, despite his
objections, in filling out the forms, not describing his restrictions fully or accurately and it
is therefore unfair for the ministry to rely solely on these forms in making its decision.
•
Noting that the GP has indicated that he is unable to work with his hands in a cold
environment, the fact is that he also has extreme difficulty in all environments with his
hands and feet on a daily basis, due to the Raynaud's syndrome and the resulting lack of
circulation in the carpal tunnel being accentuated. The result is a painful, severe
condition that he experiences on a daily basis – he would be a very undependable
person for employment. This is borne out by the GP indicating that his condition is
episodic – which he considers equivalent to severe – on a daily basis.
•
While the surgeon has completed the banding procedures to address, for the time being,
the rectal prolapse, it will still be necessary for him to be extremely cautious on how
much time he is on his feet and how much he exerts his body on daily basis. Such
restrictions are to be expected for anyone with this condition. Otherwise he will be forced
to have a colostomy sooner rather than later.
•
He has suffered from depression, anxiety, ADD, Raynaud’s disease, carpal tunnel
syndrome and full rectal prolapse for 7 years. The nature of all these conditions is that,
even with treatment, they only get worse with time. He needs PPMB and the resulting
relief from the requirement to look for work, because he requires the time and a “clear
head” to apply for PWD designation, as well to search for and obtain the treatments that
are essential for turning his life around.
In its reconsideration decision, the ministry stated that, while it found the explanations provided
in the appellant’s Request for Reconsideration to be helpful in gaining a better understanding of
his medical conditions, the ministry found that the level of restriction indicated by him has not
been confirmed by his physician. As this discrepancy makes it difficult to determine his overall
level of restriction caused by his medical conditions, the ministry relied more heavily on the
medical reports completed by the GP when assessing his eligibility for PPMB.
The ministry noted that the medical reports completed in 2013 and 2015 indicates significant
restrictions caused by his ADD and depression disorder. In the medical report completed in
2017, the GP described these medical conditions as stable, noting that he is no longer on
medication for treatment and did not indicate that he has any restrictions relating to these
medical conditions. As a result of the improvements indicated by his physician, the ministry was
not satisfied that ADD and depression disorder preclude him from searching for, accepting or
maintaining employment at this time, as required under the legislation.
The ministry acknowledged the symptoms the appellant experiences as a result of the
complications from the haemorrhoidectomy surgery would make employment more difficult.
However in the Certificate of Absence provided with the Request for Reconsideration, the
surgeon indicated that he was undergoing treatment in April 2018 that was expected to last
approximately two months only. As no information was provided by the surgeon to indicate what
the expected recovery time might be, the ministry was unable to establish that this medical
condition is expected to last for two years or more, as stipulated in the legislation.
The ministry recognized that the appellant faces certain challenges relating to employment –
specifically work that requires the use of his hands in a cold environment. However, no
information has been provided to suggest that he would be unable to do other types of work that
are less physical and indoors.
Based on the information provided, the ministry found that there was insufficient evidence to
support that the appellant is currently unable to do any type of work for any length of time or
participate in any employment related activities as a result of his medical conditions. As a result,
the ministry was not satisfied that because of his medical conditions he is precluded from
searching for, accepting or continuing in any type of employment for any length of time.
Panel decision
As noted above, in its reconsideration decision, the ministry stated that it found the explanations
provided in the appellant’s Request for Reconsideration to be helpful in gaining a better
understanding of his medical conditions, but the level of restriction indicated by him has not
been confirmed by his physician. Similarly, the panel considers the appellant's testimony at the
hearing describes a higher degree of restriction resulting from his medical conditions than that
reported by his physicians, to the extent that if a medical practitioner had confirmed this degree
of restriction, the “precludes from employment” criterion in section 2(4)(b) might have been met.
However, the legislation is clear that the ministry, in making a determination on whether the
medical condition is a barrier precluding employment, has very little discretion but to rely
primarily on the opinion of a medical practitioner, in this case the GP and/or the surgeon, in
identifying the “medical condition,” with this term encompassing both the diagnoses provided by
the medical practitioner(s) and the restrictions described. Accordingly, despite the appellant’s
objections that the GP did not complete the medical reports fully and accurately, the panel must
base its determination of the reasonableness of the ministry’s decision on the ministry’s review
in the reconsideration decision of the information provided by the GP and the surgeon.
The ministry noted that in the 2013 and 2015 medical reports the GP identified ADD and
depression disorder as the primary and secondary medical conditions. The ministry further
noted that in the 2017 medical report, the same conditions were identified, but that the
conditions were stable, with drug therapy discontinued and no restrictions indicated. The panel
notes that in the most recent report, dated 28 March 2018, the GP had replaced these primary
and secondary medical conditions with those relating to the appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome
and Raynaud's disease. The appellant at the hearing argued that “stable” meant that “continuing
depression” was still present and that he was working on getting a “clear head.” However, in the
absence of any restrictions identified in the 2017 medical report, and considering that one set of
diagnoses had been replaced by another in the March 2018 report, the panel finds that the
ministry was reasonable in concluding that ADD and depression disorder are no longer factors
in precluding the appellant's employability.
The ministry also referred to the Certificate of Absence prepared by the surgeon in April 2018,
with the note that the appellant was undergoing treatment at that time that was expected to last
approximately two months only. While the appellant argued that this treatment provided relief
only for an indeterminate time and that he must avoid strenuous activity to avoid future
complications, such restrictions have not been confirmed by the surgeon, and since the surgeon
did not indicate what the expected recovery time is, the panel finds that the ministry was
reasonable in determining that the information provided by the surgeon did not establish that the
restrictions due to the rectal prolapse are likely to continue for two years or more, as stipulated
in section 2(4).
In terms of the carpal tunnel syndrome and Raynaud's disease identified as primary and
secondary medical conditions in the March 2018 medical report, the GP reported, “Repetitive
use of hands in cold environments will trigger symptoms.” This begs the question of whether,
and to what degree, there might be restrictions while working in warmer weather or indoors. At
the hearing, the appellant pointed to the GP indicating that the reported conditions are episodic
on a daily basis, thus providing evidence that he is incapacitated by these conditions daily,
irrespective of the environment. However, the GP has not provided any information as to the
nature of these episodes and how they are triggered, including whether they are related to
temperature or environment, making it difficult for the ministry to assess the degree of such
episodic restrictions and how they may affect employability. Without such information, the panel
finds that the ministry was reasonable in concluding that it had not been demonstrated that the
appellant would be unable to do other types of work that are less physical and indoors.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel finds that the ministry’s decision that found that the
appellant does not meet the qualification criteria for PPMB is reasonably supported by the
evidence. The panel therefore confirms the ministry’s decision. The appellant’s appeal is thus
not successful.
PART G – ORDER
THE PANEL DECISION IS: (Check one)
UNANIMOUS
BY MAJORITY
THE PANEL
CONFIRMS THE MINISTRY DECISION
RESCINDS THE MINISTRY DECISION
If the ministry decision is rescinded, is the panel decision referred back to the Minister
for a decision as to amount?
Yes
No
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE DECISION:
Employment and Assistance Act
Section 24(1)(a)
or Section 24(1)(b)
and
Section 24(2)(a)
or Section 24(2)(b)
PART H – SIGNATURES
PRINT NAME
Richard Roberts
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018 August 20
PRINT NAME
Robert Fenske
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018 August 20
PRINT NAME
Lynn Twardosky
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018 August 20
EAAT003 (17/08/17) Signature Page
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.