Chapter 2
The Disability Support Program’s review of Graham Burke’s application for a mobility assistive device hit a brick wall in the kangaroo court on Friday. The Provincial Review Commission was comprised of nothing but managers and supervisors of the DSP. Despite Mr. Graham’s obviously need, he had little hope of equitable treatment from the review. (Note: Graham has allowed us to write about his story to publicize problems with the DSP.)
Graham Burke is a 57 year-old diabetic and stroke victim left with paralysis on his right side. Under the DSP, he has a mobility disability of a long-term nature and qualifies for a mobility assistive device. This could be a scooter or an electric wheelchair. Scooters are used by 90,000 Canadians with a mobility disability and electric wheelchairs by 47,000 mobility impaired Canadians (Table 1.1)
From August 2006 onward, Graham met with his Occupational Therapist, an employee at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Seating Clinic. Occupational therapists are listed in the DSP regulations as qualified to prescribe wheelchairs and other assistive devices. They settled on a scooter with a tiller front handle to accommodate Graham’s paralyzed arm. We presented the 4 memos, which DSP already had.
At this point the DSP supervisor interrupted Graham and asked
‘Wouldn’t the OT just give you what you ask for? Aren’t they influenced by the client request?’
‘We take exception to the comment about OT’s.’ I replied. ‘OT’s are a recognized profession with education, experience requirements, certification and a code of ethics. They are board certified on PEI and in this case employees of the Health Department. They are listed as qualified professionals under the DSP regulations. Like any medical professional they listen to the patient but their diagnosis, prognosis and prescription is determined by their professional knowledge. The comment by the DSP supervisor is blatantly self-serving, a cheap attempt to discredit 4 months of work by the OT with Mr. Burke. I am sure the Provincial body that regulates OT’s would be interested in the poor opinion the DSP has of their members.’
The DSP was writing internal memos, some of which they handed us on the way in the door. Their memo’s seem to parallel the OT’s memo’s discussing the scooter, which scooter etc.
Then on November 29, the whole thing turned around. The mobility device became a transportation device according the the DSP, “public transit” and Graham was declined. We did not know about this and 26 other pages of information until the hearing. Where are the rules of evidence, meant to protect people? Thrown out the window in a Kangaroo Court.
Desperate for some help with his walking, Graham went back to the OT’s and they gave him a 2nd opinion in February for an electric wheelchair. That’s not a bad second choice which costs about the same as a scooter. However, Graham has neuritis in his feet and has little feeling there. An electric wheelchair would put Graham’s feet ahead of the chair frame where they could be injured. A simple bruise can develop into gangrene for Graham.
We also demonstrated that motorized scooters are a generally accepted assistive device for mobility disabilities. In Ontario they are listed specifically. In the report at Table 1.1 they are listed. The Province signed off on the report and carries it on the DSP website.
Tomorrow, the government’s case.
Leave a Reply