APPEAL NUMBER
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 24 October 2019 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 the appellant’s ability to perform daily living activities
(DLA) either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and,
(ii)as a result of those restrictions, the appellant requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other criteria of having reached 18 years
of age and the impairment continuing for at least 2 years.
T
he ministry also found that it has not been demonstrated that the appellant is in 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 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.
APPEAL NUMBER
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
Evidence before the ministry at reconsideration
1.
The appellant’s PWD Designation Application, undated. The Application contained:
•
A Self Report (SR).
•
A Medical Report (MR) dated 03 May 2019, completed by a general practitioner
(GP) who has known the appellant for 1 year and has seen the appellant 11 or
more times in the past year.
•
An Assessor Report (AR) dated 02 August 2019, completed by the same GP.
2.
Th
e appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, dated 08 October 2019, in which the
appellant provides reasons.
In the MR, the GP provides the following diagnoses related to the appellant’s impairment:
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), borderline personality traits, and cannabis use (daily).
The GP indicates the onset of these conditions is uncertain.
In th
e AR, the GP describes the appellant’s impairment as PTSD, with the impairment impacting
ability to manage DLA as “Anxiety impairs social interaction, affecting concentration.”
Th
e 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
Phy
sical impairment
MR:
Regarding functional skills, the specialist indicates that the appellant can walk 4+ blocks
unaided on a flat surface, can climb 5+ steps unaided, and that there are no limitations
regarding lifting or remaining seated.
The GP indicates that the appellant has not been prescribed medication and/or treatments that
interfere with the ability to perform DLA, noting that the appellant “declines pharmacological
treatment.”
AR:
Respecting mobility and physical ability, the GP assesses the appellant as independent for all
listed areas of mobility and physical ability: walking indoors, walking outdoors, climbing stairs,
standing, lifting, and carrying and holding.
Mental impairment
MR:
Under Health History, the GP writes:
“Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
•Reflecting on past trauma as child, previously living on streets
APPEAL NUMBER
•Daily symptoms of anxiety
•Intermittent social isolation
•Intermittent thoughts of self-harm
B
orderline Personality Disorder Traits
•Struggles to connect with people, interaction limited and of short duration
Gender Dysphoria
•Currently in transition
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
•Distractibility and restlessness
C
annabis Use Disorder, Previous Methamphetamines
•Uses daily (smokes marijuana)
•Intermittent auditory hallucinations
Above based on assessment by Psychiatrist, [name], on 19 May 2019. I do concur
these findings.”
U
nder Additional Comments, the GP writes, “I am hopeful that, with medication and
psychotherapy, [the appellant] will be able to function in the open labour market. [The appellant]
is currently in counselling.”
T
he GP indicates that the appellant has no difficulties with communication.
T
he GP indicates that the appellant has significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function
in the areas of psychotic symptoms, emotional disturbance and attention or sustained
concentration. The GP comments, “No current features of psychosis.”
AR:
The GP assesses the appellant's ability to communicate as good for speaking, reading,
writing, and hearing.
The GP assesses the degree to which the appellant’s mental impairment impacts daily
functioning as follows:
•
Major impact: emotion.
•
Moderate impact: impulse control, insight and judgment, attention/concentration, and
memory.
•
Minimal impact: executive and motivation.
•
No impact: bodily functions, consciousness, emotion, motor activity, language,
psychotic symptoms, other neuropsychological problems, and other emotional or
mental problems.
Under Additional Information, the GP writes, “Started an antidepressant today. We shall continue
with close follow-up.”
APPEAL NUMBER
Ability to perform DLA
MR:
The GP reports that appellant’s ability to perform DLA is restricted as follows:
•
Not restricted: personal self-care, meal preparation, management of medications,
basic housework, daily shopping, mobility inside the home, ability outside the
home, use of transportation, and management of finances.
•
Restricted on a periodic basis: social functioning.
.
The GP explains restrictions with social functioning by writing, “Difficulty in establishing
relationships. Symptoms of anxiety make socializing difficult.”
As an additional comment, the GP writes, “Able to work as [tradesperson] at times.”
AR:
The GP provides the following assessments of the assistance the appellant requires in
performing DLA:
•
Personal care – independent for all tasks.
•
Basic housekeeping – independent for all tasks.
•
Shopping – independent for all tasks.
•
M
eals – independent for all tasks.
•
Pay rent and bills – independent for all tasks
•
Medications – independent for all tasks.
•
Transportation – independent for all tasks.
T
he GP comments, “[The appellant] feels that interacting with others is difficult. Hypervigilance –
e.g. noises and clock ticking will distract and disturb [the appellant]}.” And “intermittent poor
impulse control.”
Social functioning
The GP assesses the appellant as requiring periodic support/supervision in the following areas,
along with the GP’s comments:
•
Making appropriate social decisions – “Assisted by [12-step groups]. Has alcohol;
counselor.”
•
Developing and maintaining relationships – no comments.
•
Interacting appropriately with others – “Therapist at [ charitable organization].”
•
Dealing with unexpected demands – no comments.
•
Securing assistance from others – “Paranoid at times.”
The GP assesses the appellant's relationship with both immediate and extended social
networks as “marginal.”
The GP also comments, “Intermittent history of suicidal ideation (nil currently.)”
APPEAL NUMBER
Help provided/required
MR:
The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids to compensate for
impairment.
AR:
The GP does not indicate that the appellant requires the use of an assistive device.
The GP indicates that the appellant does not have an assistance animal, while commenting,
“Expressed interest in getting therapy dog.”
The GP indicates that assistance is provided by community service agencies, referring to the
comments provided above regarding assistance with social functioning.
Self Report
I
n the SR, the appellant provides the following disability description:
“S
ocial trauma from being physically assaulted. Anxious to where I have physical
discomfort.
Traumatic experiences in my life have impacted me. Therapy is suggested.
I am a victim of child abuse physical, sexual and emotional.
I am hypersensitive and hyperactive. There are 5/7 days a week I have trouble leaving the
house or getting out of bed.
I get mental flashbacks every day of traumatic events that have happened all my life. I use
the bathroom a lot due to stress and emotion.
M
usic and meditation therapy help but organizing my day or having ability to interact is a
daily struggle.
Flashbacks and having an “emotion” stomach leaves me with not enough energy to focus on
feeling calm.”
The appellant then describes the impact of the disability as follows:
“My disability affects my life in the way that I have less time and courage to communicate in
public. This makes working on advancing hard. I find it hard to support myself financially
without food and personal hygiene products. These barriers make it hard to stick to a routine
or have good mental health to interact with the public.
There have been a lot of times where I feel despair feeling lost and overwhelmed with flash
backs and negative emotions.
APPEAL NUMBER
Eating and resting is hard with a daily mental state of anxious feelings and on edge from
being afraid of violence.
With not being able to focus my attention I miss opportunities, or I have setbacks due to
anxiety/trauma.
When I am in public, I sweat a lot and when interacting with anyone for too long I feel
trapped and can’t breathe. When I have an appointment or meeting, I feel as though I will
pass out/lose consciousness, nausea with diarrhea. When I am expected to be somewhere
at a specific time, I get confused and overwhelmed, stressed and panicked. After being in
the public I wash my hands often from germs. Loud noises bother me.”
Request for Reconsideration
T
he appellant provides the following reasons for requesting a reconsideration:
“After having a second diagnosis from [the psychiatrist] (documents being forwarded), she
has recommended a reconsideration.
I have problems concentrating because of extreme ADHD. My IBS from my diagnosis
of anxiety makes me go to the bathroom regularly and on myself on a daily basis. Also, my
PTSD makes me have trouble concentrating and breathing to the point of panic. With my
personality disorder interacting with others makes me not be able to breathe and regress
into a state of panic and withdrawal. Daily activities are affected, and I am in need of
assistance, so I am not homeless and without help.
Everyday is hard to get out of bed or follow routine.”
[In the reconsideration decision, the ministry noted that as of the time of writing of the decision,
it had not received any documents from the psychiatrist.]
Not
ice of Appeal
In submitting the Notice of Appeal, dated 30 October 2019, the appellant wrote under Reasons
for Appeal, “I have supporting documents.”
The hearing
The
appellant did not attend the hearing. After confirming that the appellant was notified of the
hearing, the hearing proceeded in accordance with section 86(b) of the Employment and
Assistance Regulation
The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration.
APPEAL NUMBER
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 the appellant’s ability to perform daily living activities
(DLA) either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and,
(ii)as a result of those restrictions, the appellant requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other criteria of having reached 18 years
and the impairment continuing for at least 2 years.
T
he 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)
i
n the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years, and
(b)
i
n 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)per
iodically for extended periods, and
(ii)as a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities.
(3)
F
or 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)a
n 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)
pr
epare own meals;
(ii)manage personal finances;
(iii)
s
hop 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;
APPEAL NUMBER
(vii)perform personal hygiene and self care;
(viii)manage personal medication, and
(b)
i
n relation to a person who has a severe mental impairment, includes the following activities:
(i)
m
ake decisions about personal activities, care or finances;
(ii)relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively.
(2)F
or the purposes of the Act, "prescribed professional" means a person who is
(a)authorized under an enactment to practise the profession of
(i
)
m
edical practitioner,
(ii)
registered psychologist,
(iii)
registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse,
(iv
)
occupational therapist,
(v)
p
hysical therapist,
(vi)
social worker,
(vii)
chiropractor, or
(viii)
nurse practitioner, or
(b)ac
ting 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)a person who has at any time been determined to be eligible to be the subject of payments m
ade
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 t
o
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
P
lan (Canada).
Analysis
Severity of impairment
Preliminary Considerations
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 submitted by the independent and
professional medical practitioner and prescribed professional (in this case the GP) completing
the application provides the minister with sufficient information on the nature and extent of the
impacts of the person's medical conditions on daily functioning. As the legislation requires the
minister to make determinations regarding the degree of impairment, the degree of restrictions
in the ability to perform DLA and the resulting degree of help required, it is therefore important
APPEAL NUMBER
that the MR and the AR include explanations, descriptions or examples in the spaces provided
so that the minister has the information needed to make these determinations. Significant
weight must also be placed on the evidence of the applicant, unless there is a legitimate reason
not to do so. Such information provided by the applicant, while optional in the Application form,
may be helpful in fleshing out the general picture provided by the medical practitioner/prescribed
professional. The reconsideration process provides the opportunity for the prescribed
professionals and applicant to clarify or add to the information provided on application, and the
panel hearing an appeal must consider any information provided on appeal, as long as the
panel finds it admissible.
P
hysical impairment
The GP has not diagnosed the appellant with any medical condition that would restrict physical
functioning. In the Request for Reconsideration, the appellant mentions IBS [irritable bowel
syndrome], but attributes that to his diagnosis of anxiety. As the ministry noted in the
reconsideration decision, in the MR the GP assessed the appellant as not being restricted in
terms of physical functional skills (can walk 5+ blocks unaided, etc.) and in the AR as being
independent in managing activities requiring mobility and physical ability (walking indoors and
outdoors, etc.). The GP also indicated that the appellant does not require an assistive device for
any impairment of his physical functioning.
Panel finding
Considering the lack of evidence that would point to any restriction in physical functioning, the
panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that a severe physical impairment
has not been established.
Mental impairment
The panel understands from the Request for Reconsideration that the appellant had seen the
psychiatrist subsequent to the GP’s completion of the MR and AR, and that as a result
documents from the psychiatrist were being forwarded to the ministry. The position of the
appellant would appear to be that the information provided in such documents would establish
the appellant having a severe mental impairment. In referring to the content of such
documentation, the appellant refers to a number of mental health conditions with impacts on
daily functioning:
•
“extreme” ADHD with resulting problems with concentration and anxiety resulting in IBS
and frequent bathroom visits,
•
PTSD with trouble concentrating and breathing to the point of panic, and
•
personality disorder so that interacting with others causes not being able to breathe and
regressing into a state of panic and withdrawal.
Unfortunately, as the ministry noted in the reconsideration decision, no documentation from the
psychiatrist was provided to the ministry or to the panel.
The position of the ministry, as set out in the reconsideration decision, is that the information
provided by the appellant in the PWD application does not demonstrate a severe impairment of
APPEAL NUMBER
mental functioning.
In reaching this conclusion, the ministry first reviewed the information in the MR and AR
regarding cognitive and emotional functioning. The ministry noted that in the MR, the GP
diagnosed the appellant with PTSD, borderline personality disorder and cannabis use (daily),
did not identify any difficulties with communication, and identified significant deficits to the
appellant’s cognitive and emotional functioning in the areas of psychotic symptoms, emotional
disturbance and attention or sustained concentration. The ministry then noted the GP’s
assessments in the AR of the impacts to the appellant’s cognitive and emotional functioning,
with a major impact to emotion and moderate impacts to impulse control, insight and judgment,
attention/concentration, and memory. The ministry also found that the GP’s assessments to
manage DLA does not demonstrate any impairment in the ability to make decisions about
personal activities, care or finances.
The ministry then reviewed the information in the MR and AR regarding social functioning,
including the GP’s assessment in the MR that the appellant is restricted in the ability to manage
social functioning periodic basis and in the AR that the appellant requires periodic
support/supervision with the 5 listed social functioning abilities (making appropriate social
decisions, etc.) and related commentary the type of such support/supervision (e.g. 12-step
groups, counselor, therapist). (See section E above for details). The ministry held that the
assessments provided by the GP suggests that the restrictions and need for support/supervision
with social functioning are episodic in nature. However, the GP does not describe the frequency
or duration of these episodes, thus making it challenging to determine whether the restrictions
and the support/supervision required are significant and demonstrated a severe impairment.
The ministry acknowledged that the appellant has limitations with social functioning related to
the medical conditions diagnosed by the psychiatrist. However, the ministry found that the
assessments of the appellant’s social functioning as provided by the GP demonstrates that the
appellant has a moderate impairment of ability relating to, communicating or interacting with
others effectively.
Panel finding
The GP has diagnosed the appellant with PTSD, borderline personality traits, and cannabis use
(daily). The GP has also indicated concurrence with the psychiatrist’s additional diagnoses of
gender dysphoria (in transition) and ADHD. However, as the ministry noted in its decision, the
diagnosis of a serious medical condition or conditions does not in itself determine PWD eligibility
or establish a severe impairment. An “impairment”, as defined by the ministry in the MR and AR,
is a loss or abnormality of psychological, anatomical or physiological structure or function
causing a restriction in the ability to function independently, effectively, appropriately or for a
reasonable duration. The panel finds this definition of impairment to be reasonable, given the
emphasis in the legislation on restrictions and help required. To assess the severity of
impairment, the ministry must consider the nature of the impairment and the extent of its impact
on daily functioning.
In terms of impacts on daily functioning, the GP assessed one major impact – with emotion –
and moderate impacts in four areas: impulse control, insight and judgment,
attention/concentration, and memory. However, the GP has not provided much descriptive
APPEAL NUMBER
information as to how, to what extent, or under wha
t circumstances these impacts arise that
would enable an assessment of the degree to which these conditions restrict the appellant’s
ability to function independently, effectively, appropriately or for a reasonable duration. For
example, the GP commented, “[The appellant] feels that interacting with others is difficult,”
without any description of the context and frequency of such interactions and the result for the
appellant. Similarly, with the GP’s comments, “Hypervigilance – e.g. noises and clock ticking will
distract and disturb [the appellant],” and “Intermittent poor impulse control,” there is no
explanation of the context and consequences of such hypervigilance or poor impulse control.
With regard to the GP’s reporting of the psychiatrist’s findings, little detail is given that would
assist in assessing the degree of restriction in daily functioning. For example, the GP mentions
“intermittent” social isolation, thoughts of self-harm and auditory hallucinations without providing
any information on the frequency, duration and consequences of these intermittent events.
I
n the SR, the appellant describes mainly feelings: “I have less time and courage to
communicate in public,” “ I find it hard to support myself…,” “ to feel despair feeling lost and
overwhelmed…,” “Eating and resting is hard with a daily mental state of anxious feelings…,”
and “when interacting with anyone for too long I feel trapped and can’t breathe.” While such
information is helpful in understanding the nature of the appellant’s mental state, it does not
explain the frequency and duration to which the diagnosed mental conditions restrict the ability
to perform day-to-day tasks effectively or independently.
Similarly in the Request for Reconsideration, the appellant provides little detail regarding context
and consequences: “I have problems concentrating because of extreme ADHD,” without any
explanation as to under what circumstances this occurs (e.g. when shopping?, cooking?
meeting with counselor?, at a 12-step meeting?) and how this impacts the appellant’s life on a
daily basis.
G
iven that the GP assessed only one major impact of the appellant’s mental impairment on
daily functioning, and considering the lack of detail provided by the GP and the appellant in the
Application that would provide a clearer picture of how, how often and for how long the mental
impairment restricts to the appellant’s ability to function effectively or independently, the panel
finds that 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
The panel takes from the Request for Reconsideration that the position of the appellant is that
the ministry was unreasonable in determining that this criterion has not been met, because the
information provided by the GP clearly shows the appellant is significantly restricted in being
able to manage social functioning on a continuous basis.
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry held that the information provided does not
establish that the appellant’s ability to manage DLA is significantly restricted either continuously
or periodically for extended periods of time. In reaching this determination, the ministry had
earlier found, when addressing severity of mental impairment, that the information provided did
not establish significant restrictions in the appellant’s ability to manage the 2 social functioning
APPEAL NUMBER
DLA – make decisions about personal activities, care or finances and relate to, communicate or
interact with others effectively (see above).
In the DLA section of the decision, the ministry noted that in the MR the GP does not confirm
that the appellant has been prescribed medications that interfere with the ability to perform DLA.
The ministry also noted that when asked to provide an assessment on the ability to manage
DLA, the GP noted periodic restrictions with social functioning but otherwise indicated that the
appellant does not have any restrictions with all other DLA. Referring to the AR, the ministry
noted that the appellant was assessed as independent with all activities of DLA applicable to a
person with a severe physical or mental impairment. The ministry therefore found this criterion
has not been met.
Panel finding
T
he 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 to DLA in consideration of the opinion of a prescribed
professional, in this case the GP. This does not mean that other evidence should not be
factored in as required to provide explanation 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 or the time it takes to perform a task, in order for the ministry to determine whether
the restrictions are “significant.” Any information submitted by the applicant or others could be
useful in adding context and detail to the picture provided by the prescribed professional.
Under the legislation, there are two sets of DLA at issue in this appeal: the 8 DLA (prepare own
meals, etc.) set out in paragraph (a) of EAPWDR section 2(1), and the 2 “social functioning”
DLA set out in paragraph (b) of that section – make decisions about personal activities, care or
finances (the “decision-making” DLA) and relate to, communicate or interact with others
effectively (the “interacting with others” DLA). The panel notes that there is some overlap
between the paragraph (a) DLA and the decision-making DLA for the following abilities:
regulating diet (under personal care), making appropriate choices (shopping), meal planning
(food preparation), budgeting (pay rent and bills) and taking as directed (medications).
In the AR, the GP assessed the appellant as independent for all abilities under the paragraph
(a)DLA, including the decision-making abilities within these DLA. The GP assessed the
appellant as requiring periodic support/supervision for the 5 social functioning abilities (making
appropriate social decisions, etc.) listed in the AR. However, while the GP indicated for 2 of
these abilities the source of the support/supervision currently provided (12-step groups, alcohol
counselor and therapist), the GP did not give any description of the type or frequency of the
counselling/therapy provided or for how long these would be needed. For the other 3 abilities,
the GP has not provided a description as requested in the AR of the degree and duration of the
support/supervision required. Without such information for the 5 abilities, it would be difficult for
the ministry to determine whether the restrictions the appellant experiences in being able to
APPEAL NUMBER
manage the social functioning DLA are significant a
nd are either continuous or periodic for an
extended period.
Given that a severe impairment has not been established and considering the assessments
given by the GP reviewed above, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in
determining that the information provided does not establish that, in the opinion that a
prescribed professional, the appellant’s ability to perform DLA is significantly restricted either
continuously or for extended periods
Help required
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.
Panel finding
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.
Although the GP has indicated that the appellant benefits from the assistance of 12-step groups,
an alcohol counselor and a therapist, given that the GP did not report any detailed information
on the nature, type, frequency or duration of assistance required from another person, the use
of an assistive device or the services of an assistance animal, and 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 that 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.
APPEAL NUMBER
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)
PAR
T H – SIGNATURES
PRINT NAME
Richard Roberts
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019 November 25
PRINT NAME
David Kendrick
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019 November 25
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
PRINT NAME
Wayne Reeves
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019 November 25
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.