Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

Decision 1623 21
2021-12-16
G. Dee (FT)
  • Board Directives and Guidelines (attendance allowance)
  • Health care (attendance allowance)

The worker lost all of the vision in her right eye and most of the vision in her left eye as a result of a workplace accident in 2017, for which she had a NEL award of 85%. She received a Personal Care Allowance (PCA) of four hours per day. As a result of her eye injuries, the worker had fallen a number of times and had other accidents in which she sustained injuries. The worker appealed an Appeals Resolution Officer decision denying an increase in her PCA.

The appeal was allowed in part.
The worker was not entitled to a retroactive increase in her PCA as there was no claim being made for payment or reimbursement for past services. Such payment would not contribute to the worker's receipt of better health care services in the past.
The worker's request for 18 hours of attendant care per day was denied. Her request for care during all of her waking hours was not related to the need for assistance with activities of daily living during those hours, but instead because the worker might hurt herself if unsupervised. There was no medical evidence to support that the worker required constant supervision to avoid self-harm, or to indicate that the worker was incapable of making appropriate decisions about her own safety.
However, the worker was entitled to an increase in her PCA to include an attendant when travelling by taxi or Uber to visit her mother. One of the objectives of the PCA is to assist seriously impaired workers with being mobile, and that mobility should include a reasonable level of social and physical activity outside the home. Neither the Independent Living Allowances policy nor the Escorts policy dealt with the potential need for a seriously impaired worker to have an attendant while travelling for social or physical activities. That need was appropriately dealt with under the PCA policy.
The worker was also entitled to attendant care assistance in the evening. She was currently receiving care only in the morning and afternoon, leaving a lengthy period from 4:00 p.m. until the next morning when she did not have care. The worker should not have to forgo many of the activities of daily living that required assistance from 4:00 p.m. until the next morning.