Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Reasons and decision

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal the decision of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, dated December 9, 2016, is refused.

Overview

[2] The Applicant, A. M., applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension. The Respondent, the Minister of Employment and Social Development, refused his application because, while the Applicant had certain restrictions due to his medical condition and may not have been able to work at the time of his application, the information did not show that these restrictions prevented him from performing alternate work.

[3] The Applicant submits that dizziness, vomiting, gastro-intestinal issues and poor eyesight making it difficult to read prevent him from working.

[4] The Applicant appealed the Respondent's decision to deny him disability benefits. The General Division found that the Applicant did not have a severe disability on or before his minimum qualifying period (MQP) date of December 31, 2000, because there was no medical report showing that his medical conditions prevented him from performing any kind of occupation.

[5] The Applicant argues in his application for leave to appeal that the General Division failed to consider relevant and objective evidence from the medical documents.

[6] The appeal has no reasonable chance of success because all the medical evidence dates from 2009—several years after the Applicant's MQP.

Issue

[7] Is there an argument that the General Division ignored relevant evidence from the medical documents?

Analysis

[8] An applicant must seek and obtain leave to appeal a General Division decision. The Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal, and an appeal may be brought only if leave to appeal is granted.^{Footnote 1}

[9] Before I can grant leave to appeal, I must decide whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. In other words, is there a ground of appeal on which the appeal could succeed?^{Footnote 2}

[10] Leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success^{Footnote 3} based on a reviewable error.^{Footnote 4} The only reviewable errors are the following: the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; it erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or it based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

Is there argument that the General Division ignored relevant evidence from the medical documents?

[11] According to the Applicant, the General Division made serious errors in its findings of fact because it failed to consider certain evidence contained in the appeal file.

[12] However, on reading the General Division's decision, I find that it did take the evidence on file into consideration and did not ignore any evidence.

[13] The main challenge in this case is the lack of medical evidence during or around the time of the MQP.

[14] The Applicant does not contest that his MQP ended on December 31, 2000. Furthermore, there is no evidence on file that could establish another MQP.

[15] Regarding the medical evidence, the first reports in chronological order date from 2009.^{Footnote 5} The Applicant's MQP ended eight months prior to these reports. Furthermore, no medical document contains information on the Applicant's medical condition or its impact on his capacity to work in 2000.

[16] The Applicant contests the date on which he stopped working. The General Division noted that he stopped working in January 1990. The Applicant submits that he stopped working in 1999. I note that in 2009, Dr. Neidert wrote that the Applicant was still working (for a restaurant and doing vehicle restoration).^{Footnote 6} In any case, the date on which the Applicant stopped working is not determinative here. There is simply insufficient evidence to establish a severe and prolonged disability on or before December 31, 2000.

[17] I also reviewed the evidence on file. Nothing indicates that the General Division either overlooked or misconstrued important evidence. There is no suggestion that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or that it otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction in coming to its decision. The Applicant has not identified any errors in law or any erroneous findings of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[18] While the Applicant is dissatisfied with the conclusions of the General Division, the General Division did not fail to consider relevant evidence.

[19] In light of this, I find that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[20] Leave to appeal is refused.