Appeal Number 2022-0254 Part C – Decision Under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (“ministry”) reconsideration decision dated October 5, 2022, in which the ministry found the appellant was not eligible for designation as a Person with Disabilities (“PWD”) under section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (“EAPWDA”). The ministry found the appellant met the age and duration requirements but was not satisfied that:
• the appellant has a severe mental or physical impairment;
• the appellant’s impairment, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricts the ability to perform daily living activities (“DLA”) either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and
• as a result of restrictions caused by the impairment, the appellant requires an assistive device, the significant help or supervision of another person, or the services of an assistance animal to perform DLA.
The ministry also found that the appellant was not 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 (“EAPWDR”). As there was no information or argument provided for PWD designation on alternative grounds, the panel considers that matter not to be at issue in this appeal.
EAAT (26/10/22)
2
Appeal Number 2022-0254 Part D – Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, section 2 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, section 2
The relevant legislation is included in Appendix A.
EAAT (26/10/22)
3
Appeal Number 2022-0254 Part E – Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration included:
•
•
• •
• • •
• •
Two PWD Applications. Both applications comprised of the appellant’s self report (“SR”), a medical report (“MR”) completed by the appellant’s family physician (“the GP”) and an assessor report (“AR”) completed by the appellant’s GP. PWD #1 is the initial application from July 18, 2022. A Request for Reconsideration (RFR) submitted on October 12, 2022 included: o A second PWD application (PWD #2) dated September 24, 2022. o A lab report dated June 7, 2022. o A medical imaging report dated July 11, 2022. A work search report for March 2022. A Consent to Disclosure of Information form dated March 23, 2022, giving consent for the ministry to release information to a community agency on the appellant’s behalf. A Facility/Residence Admittance, Transfer or Discharge form which shows the appellant was admitted to a treatment facility on February 16, 2022. An Application for Assistance form dated March 23, 2022. A Shelter Information form dated March 6, 2022, which shows the appellant resides at a Group Living Facility. A copy of the appellant’s resume. The ministry’s PWD Designation Summary dated August 30, 2022.
PWD Applications
PWD #1 was completed by the appellant’s GP on July 18, 2022. PWD #2 was completed by the appellant’s GP on September 24, 2022. The GP indicated they had seen the appellant two to ten times in the past twelve months. The GP completed both the AR and MR portions of both applications.
Diagnoses
PWD #1 – Alcoholism with date of onset 2007
PWD #2 – Osteoarthritis of hands and hips with date of onset July 2022
Physical Impairment
PWD #1
In the SR, the appellant reported:
EAAT (26/10/22)
4
• • • • • •
•
Appeal Number 2022-0254 She is constantly in pain due to osteoarthritis, disc degeneration, right side hip replacement, a fall seven years ago where she broke her collar bone and has also broken her wrist twice. Hands are constantly swollen so it is difficult to write, type or do repetitive movements. Her bones are very brittle. She cannot use her left side to reach items above her head. She cannot kneel and cannot sit for long periods of time. She is afraid she will slip in the shower, and it is challenging for her to wash her hair as she cannot keep her hands up for long periods of time. She sleeps in a small bed because if she rotates too much her hip hurts.
In the MR, Part B Health History, the GP wrote: • Patient unable to work due to alcohol dependence. • Unable to keep up with work, losing ability to fulfill basic responsibilities.
In the MR, Part C Degree and Course of Impairment, the GP answered Yes to the question “Is the impairment likely to continue for two years or more?” and commented: • Patient has failed previous rehabilitation programs in the past fifteen years.
In the MR, Part D Functional Skills, the GP indicated: • Able to walk two to four blocks unaided • Able to climb 5+ stairs unaided • No limitations in lifting • No limitation in length of time to remain seated
In the MR, Part E the GP answered Yes to the question “Does the impairment directly restrict the person’s ability to perform DLA?” The GP answered Yes and Periodic to all the listed DLA’s and provided as explanation: • If Periodic: “Alcoholism” • If Social Functioning Impacted: “Alcohol related” • Additional Comment: “Severe”, “Substance Abuse”, “Related Episodes”
In the AR, Part B the GP wrote “episodic substance abuse”
PWD #2
In the SR, the appellant reported the same (as above in PWD #1) and added: • She doesn’t want to take pills for another addiction. • Hard to find a job that requires computer skills, writing and standing. • She is unable to open a jar to eat and cannot use a can opener. • She cannot lift or walk far.
EAAT (26/10/22)
5
Appeal Number 2022-0254 In the MR, Part B Health History, the GP wrote: • Patient with mild to moderate OA at both hands and hips. • Xrays attached (worse over CMC joints) • Previous right hip anthroplasty. • Mild OA right hip (attached) • No medications prescribed that will interfere (history of alcoholism)
In the MR, Part C Degree and Course of Impairment, the GP answered Yes to the question “Is the impairment likely to continue for two years or more?”
In the MR, Part C Functional Skills, the GP indicated: • Able to walk one to two blocks unaided • Able to climb two to five stairs unaided • No lifting “with hands” • Able to remain seated two to three hours
In the MR, Part E the GP answered Yes to the question “Does the impairment directly restrict the person’s ability to perform DLA?” The GP indicates the following restrictions in managing DLA: • Meal preparation • Basic housework • Mobility inside and outside the home
The GP added Additional Comments: “patient lost her job recently due to poor ROM and pain in both hands”
In the AR, Part B, the GP wrote the appellant has moderate OA at both hands.
Mental Impairment
PWD #1
In the SR, the appellant wrote: • Her disability has gotten in her way of leading a productive life. • She tries to numb the pain with alcohol as she does not like taking medications. • Her disability has affected her relationship with people. • Due to the constant pain, she self-isolates and avoids interactions with others. • She does not want to be a burden to society.
In the MR, Part D Functional Skills, the GP answered Yes to the question “Are there any significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function?” The GP indicated Yes to all areas listed in this area and wrote: “All related to substance abuse episodes.”
EAAT (26/10/22)
6
Appeal Number 2022-0254
In the AR, Part B, the GP indicated the appellant’s level of ability to communicate is “good” with speaking, reading, writing, and hearing and commented “Only affected if intoxicated.” In response to the impacts on the appellant’s daily cognitive and emotional functioning, the GP noted Major Impact in all these areas. No additional comments written.
In the AR, Part D, the GP noted the mental impairment impacts the appellant’s relationship with her immediate social network as “very disrupted functioning” and comments “substance abuse related”. The GP noted the mental impairment impacts the appellant’s relationship with extended social networks as “marginal functioning”.
PWD #2
In the SR, the appellant wrote: • She is on her own and feels like she needs more grooming, so she isolates. • She likes to sleep and drink so she doesn’t have to deal with the pain or embarrassment.
In the MR, Part D Degree and Course of Impairment, the GP answered No to the question “Are there any significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function?” and commented “none related to her hand OA”.
In the MR, Part E Daily Living Activities, the GP indicated No, in response to whether social functioning is restricted.
In the AR, Part B (4), the GP crossed out the section enquiring about how the degree of the appellant’s mental impairment restricts or impacts functioning.
Restrictions in the Ability to perform DLA
PWD #1
In the SR, the appellant reported: • Due to OA both hands are constantly swollen, and it is very difficult to write, type or do repetitive movements with her hands. • Her disability has affected her food preparation as she cannot open food cans or lift heavy pots. • Showering is affected because she is afraid she will slip, and because she cannot keep her hands up for long periods of time it is challenging to wash her hair. • She is not able to clean her belongings and home. • She struggles to purchase food as she cannot lift heavy bags or walk for long periods of time.
EAAT (26/10/22)
7
Appeal Number 2022-0254
In the MR, Part E Daily Living Activities, the GP responded Yes to the question “Does the impairment directly restrict the person’s ability to perform DLA?” and answered Yes and Periodic to all the areas listed under DLA’s. For the explanation of “periodic” the GP wrote “alcoholism”. For the explanation of whether social functioning is impacted the GP wrote “alcohol related”. The GP commented “severe” regarding the degree of restriction.
In the AR, Part C Daily Living Activities, the GP indicated the appellant is independent in all areas of personal care, basic housekeeping, meals, paying bills, medication, and transportation. The GP indicated the appellant is independent in all areas of social functioning.
PWD #2
In the SR, the appellant wrote: • I have problems with my hands to open a jar and can’t use a can opener. • I’m on my own and feel like I need more grooming. • I can’t lift or walk far.
In the AR, Part C, the GP noted the appellant requires periodic assistance from another person with: • Bathing • Laundry • Basic housekeeping • Going to and from stores • Carrying purchases home • Food preparation • Cooking • Getting in and out of a vehicle (“occasional assistance”) The GP made an additional comment, “assistance from another person or helper”.
Need For Help
PWD #1
In the SR, the appellant wrote: • She self-isolates and avoids interactions with others. • She does not want to be a burden to society.
In the MR, Part B (4) the GP noted the appellant does not require any prostheses or aids for her impairment.
EAAT (26/10/22) 8
Appeal Number 2022-0254 In the AR, Part D Assistance Provided for Applicant the GP noted, “Community Service Agencies”.
PWD #2
In the SR, the appellant wrote: • I need help but have no one to help me.
In the MR, Part B, the GP answered No to the question “Does the applicant require any prostheses or aids for his/her impairment?”
In the AR, Part D Assistance Provided for Applicant, the GP noted in response to the type of assistance provided by other people: “Friends”. In response to whether help is required, but none is available, the GP wrote “Health and Community Services”.
In the AR, Part D Assistance Provided Through the Use of Assistive Devices, the GP indicated: • Cane • Splints • Braces The GP commented “as above” in response to providing details on any equipment or devices used by the applicant.
The GP answered No to the question “Does the applicant have an Assistance Animal?”
Additional Information Submitted after Reconsideration
On the Notice of Appeal form (NOA) dated October 25, 2022 the appellant wrote: “Please reconsider, I am getting worse every day.”
At the hearing, the appellant explained that her previous physician, who she had known for twenty-five years, retired. She met with her new GP, who she has seen about four times over the past year, to complete the first PWD application. The main discussion was regarding her alcoholism, and she believes he did not have sufficient time to ask her the relevant questions to complete the application. During the meeting, the GP wrote on his laptop and did not have the PWD application in front of them. The GP explained to the appellant that he had about eighteen applications before he could process hers. The GP completed the first PWD application based on that meeting and his laptop notes. After completing the first PWD application her file records were received by the new GP, she had x-rays completed on her hands, and another appointment with the GP where he was more thorough. The GP acknowledged to her that she had more issues than he had initially known about, so a second PWD application was completed with the OA diagnosis.
EAAT (26/10/22)
9
Appeal Number 2022-0254
The appellant stated because she had been over-medicated with pain relievers several years ago while hospitalized, and nearly perished, that she has no tolerance for pain medication. As a result, she uses alcohol as a pain reliever on a daily basis. The appellant admits to being an alcoholic and has been in various treatment facilities five times.
The appellant discussed her willingness to continue working, as she wants to contribute to society and not be a burden, however because of her OA she is no longer able to continue in her profession as she cannot grip or lift anything in her left hand. She has been seeking work in other areas that do not require lengthy sitting or standing, but finds she is not able to use computer systems very well, which is what is now required. She believes she will be able to work four-hour shifts at basic reception work.
The appellant believes her mental health is affected by both her alcoholism and OA because she is depressed. She used to be so active and vibrant dealing with people, and now she isolates because she can hardly walk and doesn’t want to be a burden to others.
When asked about her daily routine and how she manages, she explained that she takes a little while to get going every morning, but she can dress by herself. With regards to eating, she states she does not cook any more and finds buying ready-made food from the deli gets her by. She states she cannot remove snow from her car and that another person who parks near her sweeps off her car. The appellant stated she has a friend who comes by to help her out two or three times per month.
At the hearing, the ministry reviewed the reconsideration decision and emphasized that there was conflicting information from the GP on the PWD applications such that they could not determine the severity of the appellant’s condition.
With regards to a physical impairment, the ministry pointed out on the second PWD application that although the GP noted the appellant required ongoing assistance with self-care and periodic assistance in other areas when alcohol is involved, however there was no narrative to explain the frequency or duration of these episodes. The second PWD application indicated the appellant had mild to moderate OA and was independent in most areas and required periodic assistance in other areas. However, the GP did not identify how often these restrictions arise, so the ministry was not able to determine the severity of the impairment. The information provided by the GP was indicative of a moderate condition rather than a severe one.
With regards to a mental impairment, the ministry notes that the GP did indicate a significant/major impact in many areas when using alcohol, however there were no comments to explain the frequency or duration so a determination that the impairment is severe could not be made.
EAAT (26/10/22) 10
Appeal Number 2022-0254
The ministry emphasized that the appellant’s level of ability to manage DLA’s and no difficulty managing day to day interactions with others is not indicative of either a severe physical or mental impairment.
When asked about what is “Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers” (PPMB), which the ministry had referenced in the RD, the ministry explained this is another category of assistance for persons who have a medical condition that limits their ability to work and is based on a different form completed by the appellant and a GP. PPMB removes the requirement to seek employment, provides a higher support allowance and allows the person to work part-time, with a monthly earnings exemption limit, without it affecting their income assistance. The appellant was not aware of this designation, and it was suggested she contact the ministry to review this option further.
Admissibility of Additional Information
The panel accepted the appellant’s NOA statement and oral testimony as evidence under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act, which allows for the admission of evidence reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all matters related to the decision under appeal.
EAAT (26/10/22)
11
Appeal Number 2022-0254 Part F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant was ineligible for designation as a PWD. The ministry determined the appellant did not meet all the required criteria for PWD designation set out in the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, Section 2. Specifically, the ministry determined the information provided did not establish that:
• the appellant has a severe impairment;
• the appellant's DLA are, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricted either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and,
• as a result of these restrictions, the appellant requires the significant help or supervision of another person, the use of an assistive device, or the services of an assistance animal to perform DLA.
Analysis
Severe mental or physical impairment
To be eligible for PWD designation, the legislation requires several criteria to be met including the minister being satisfied that the applicant has a severe mental or physical impairment. The ministry found the appellant was not eligible for PWD because not all of the five criteria were met. Neither the terms “impairment” nor “severe” are defined in the EAPWDA. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “impairment” in the medical context to be “a medical condition which results in restrictions to a person’s ability to function independently or effectively” and defines “severe” as “causing very great pain, difficulty, worry, damage, etc.; very serious”. A diagnosis of a severe impairment does not in itself determine PWD eligibility.
In the appellant’s circumstance, the ministry found that she had met the age criteria and that she had a medical condition that is likely to continue for at least two years however they do not consider her impairment to be severe or that it affects her ability to manage her DLA directly and significantly. The panel agrees that the age and duration requirements of the legislation have been met and will consider the remaining requirements by reviewing each of them individually.
Mental Impairment
To assess the severity of a mental impairment, the ministry considers the extent of any impact on daily functioning as evidenced by limitations/restrictions with mental functions and emotion.
EAAT (26/10/22) 12
Appeal Number 2022-0254 The ministry does not only look at the diagnosis o r a medical practitioner’s comment that the condition is “severe” but considers the bigger picture including whether there are restrictions to DLA requiring mental/social functioning and whether significant help is required to manage DLA. The panel finds that an assessment of severity based on mental and social functioning and restrictions to DLA is a reasonable interpretation of the legislation.
The appellant’s position is she suffers from depression and self-isolation because she is no longer able to interact with others the way she used to and anticipates it will become worse as her condition deteriorates.
The ministry’s position is although the physician indicates there is significant impact in many areas and a major impact when alcohol is involved, there were no comments to explain the frequency or duration of the impacts. The GP did not elaborate on how the impairment significantly restricts the appellant’s DLA.
Panel Decision
The appellant indicates she suffers from depression because she is no longer able to do her previous job, which involved working with people, which she really enjoyed. Now, because of the pain from her OA and alcoholism, she self-isolates and avoids contact with people. The appellant is still actively seeking part-time work as a receptionist and she felt confident, after the first interview, that she would be successful in obtaining the position. This indicates to the panel that the appellant communicates and interacts with others. During the hearing, the appellant clearly communicated her position, and commented that she has a good head for numbers, which is indicative that she can manage her own finances.
The GP indicates the appellant has significant deficits in all areas of communication when affected by substance abuse episodes, however, does not indicate the frequency or duration of these episodes. Although a diagnosis of alcoholism would appear, on its face, to be an arguably severe mental impairment, the appellant does not address how often she is incapacitated with alcohol, such that she cannot perform DLA. She indicates she uses alcohol to alleviate pain, however the panel found no evidence to confirm the frequency of how often the appellant is significantly restricted with DLA to determine whether her alcoholism severely impacts her mental functioning. The GP also notes the appellant has no significant deficits with cognitive and emotional function as it relates to her hand OA. Therefore, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable in applying the legislation to find that a severe mental impairment under section 2(2) of the EAPWDA was not established on the evidence.
Physical Impairment
EAAT (26/10/22) 13
Appeal Number 2022-0254 To assess whether the applicant has a severe physical impairment, the ministry considers information on the degree of restrictions to physical functioning, restrictions to DLA involving movement, and whether the applicant requires significant help or any assistive devices to manage DLA. The panel finds that the assessment of severity based on daily physical functioning is a reasonable interpretation of the legislation.
The appellant’s position is the swelling and pain in her hands, hips, neck does not allow her to sit or stand for any length of time. She is not able to manage some household tasks or cook for herself because she cannot hold or lift heavy items.
The ministry’s position is there was insufficient information to determine the severity of the impairment because the GP did not specify how frequently the appellant was restricted in her DLA, or how often she periodically required help.
Panel Decision
The GP confirmed the appellant does suffer with OA and ticked off the boxes indicating she required periodic assistance from another person. However, they did not indicate how frequently this happens, or specifically what assistance was required. The GP also confirmed the appellant suffers from severe alcoholism and when she is having episodes requires continued assistance to manage DLA, however, they did not specify how frequently these episodes occur. The appellant wrote, and spoke to, how her OA limits her ability to manage some DLA. However, although it seems she has difficulty with washing her hair, she does not indicate she is not able to manage her overall personal care, it just takes her a little longer. The appellant mentioned being a single person it is hard to cook for herself, and because she cannot lift heavy items, she manages her meals by purchasing ready-made or easy to make foods. Although the appellant is limited with her OA, her ability to manage most DLA is not indicative of a severe physical impairment. Therefore, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable to determine the appellant does not have a severe physical impairment.
Direct and Significant Restrictions in the ability to perform DLA Subsection 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA requires the ministry to be satisfied that, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, a severe impairment directly and significantly restricts a person’s ability to perform DLA either continuously, or periodically for extended periods. This means that restrictions to DLA must be confirmed by the appellant’s doctor or one of the practitioners named in the legislation such as a psychologist or occupational therapist.
The term “directly” means that the severe impairment must cause or result in restrictions to activities. The direct restriction must also be significant. This means that being unable to do DLA
EAAT (26/10/22)
14
Appeal Number 2022-0254 without a lot of help or support will have a large impact on the person’s life. Finally, there is a time or duration factor: the restriction may be either continuous or periodic under the legislation. Continuous means that the activity must generally be restricted all the time. The ministry views a periodic restriction as significant when it occurs frequently or for longer periods of time; for example, the activity is restricted most days of the week, or for the whole day on the days that the person cannot do the activity without help or support.
The panel views the ministry’s interpretation of the legislation as reasonable. Accordingly, where the evidence indicates that a restriction arises periodically, as with the appellant’s hand pain or alcohol episodes, it is appropriate for the ministry to require information on the duration and frequency of the restriction as well as details about the help or support that is needed. With that information, the ministry can assess whether the legislative requirement is met.
DLA are defined in section 2(1) of the EAPWDR and are also listed in the MR, with additional details in the AR. Therefore, the doctor or other practitioner completing these forms has the opportunity to indicate which, if any, DLA are significantly restricted by the applicant’s impairments either continuously or periodically for extended periods and to provide additional details.
Panel Decision
The legislation requires that the appellant’s severe physical impairment must directly affect her daily living activities and be confirmed by a medical practitioner. DLA’s are listed in the legislation as:
(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
In the AR, DLA’s are listed as major categories with minor subheadings: Personal Care (dressing, grooming, bathing, etc); Basic Housekeeping (laundry, etc); Shopping; Meals; Pay Rent and Bills; Medications; and Transportation
As discussed above in both Mental Impairment and Physical Impairment, the appellant has identified she is somewhat restricted in preparing her own meals, personal care and doing
EAAT (26/10/22)
15
Appeal Number 2022-0254 housework, which was confirmed by the GP in the MR and AR. However, she stated she does manage to do these things by herself, it just takes a little longer for her to get going each day. The panel finds this is more indicative of someone who is experiencing pain and taking a bit longer to complete some DLA, rather than being significantly restricted. The appellant has described how her swollen fingers has limited her ability to work at the type of work she would like to continue to do, however the legislation does not identify work as a DLA.
Although the appellant has indicated she is self-isolating more because of depression, she continues to seek out employment opportunities which is indicative of an ability to manage in social settings. There was no evidence to suggest she requires assistance to manage her finances. Although the appellant stated she does not take medications and that she does use alcohol as a pain reliever there was no evidence to indicate the frequency of how often she was under the influence of alcohol to such an extent that she was restricted with her DLA. Although the appellant indicates she finds it difficult to brush snow off her car, she continues to be able to drive herself. For these reasons the panel finds there is insufficient evidence to determine the appellant is significantly restricted in managing DLA.
The evidence seems to indicate that there is an arguably severe mental impairment, a substance related disorder, which, when an episode occurs, can be completely debilitating. There does not appear to be clear evidence on how frequently and for how long these episodes occur.
Therefore, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant’s impairment does not directly and significantly restrict her ability to perform DLA either continuous, or periodically for extended periods as required under subsection 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA.
Help with DLA
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.
Panel Decision
Given that confirmation of direct and significant restrictions with DLA is a precondition of the need for help criterion and because the panel found the ministry reasonably determined that direct and significant restrictions in the appellant’s ability to perform DLA have not been
EAAT (26/10/22)
16
Appeal Number 2022-0254 established, the panel finds the ministry reasonably concluded that it cannot be determined the appellant requires help to perform DLA as required by section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA.
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, and therefore confirms the decision. The appellant is not successful on this appeal.
EAPWDA
APPENDIX A RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Persons with disabilities 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 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),
EAAT (26/10/22)
17
Appeal Number 2022-0254 (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.
EAPWDR
Definitions for Act 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
EAAT (26/10/22)
18
Appeal Number 2022-0254 (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.
Part 1.1 — Persons with Disabilities 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).
EAAT (26/10/22)
19
Part G – Order The panel decision is: (Check one)
APPEAL NUMBER 2022-0254
☒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) ☐ Section 24(2)(a)☒ or Section 24(2)(b) ☐
Part H – Signatures Print Name Janet Ward Signature of Chair
Print Name John Pickford Signature of Member
Print Name Joe Rodgers Signature of Member
EAAT (26/10/22)
Date (Year/Month/Day) 2022 November 16
Date (Year/Month/Day) 2022 November 16
Date (Year/Month/Day) 2022 November 16
Signature Page