Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The Claimant is B. W.. She applied to rescind or amend a Social Security Tribunal decision of September 11, 2019. I am dismissing her application. These are my reasons.

Overview

[2] The Claimant applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension in October 2017. The Minister denied the application, and the Claimant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal. I heard the appeal in August 2019.

[3] On September 11, 2019, I dismissed the appeal because I decided the Claimant was not incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation on or before December 31, 2016, the end of her Minimum Qualifying Period.

[4] The Claimant filed this application to rescind or amend the September 2019 decision. I did not think a further hearing was required because I had all the information I needed to fairly consider her application. Therefore I decided the application based on the documents and submissions already filed.^{Footnote 1}

The issue in this appeal

[5] I can rescind or amend the September 2019 decision if the Claimant presents a new material fact that could not have been discovered at the time of the original hearing with the exercise of reasonable diligence.^{Footnote 2}

[6] I have to decide if the Claimant has satisfied this test.

Analysis

The Claimant has not presented a new material fact

[7] The Claimant has to prove on a balance of probabilities that the evidence filed in support of her application to rescind or amend establishes a new material fact. A new material fact is one that existed at the time of the hearing, and could reasonably be expected to have affected the result.^{Footnote 3}

[8] The Claimant says the new material fact is an MRI of her lumbar spine, dated September 22, 2019.^{Footnote 4} Because the MRI was taken just three weeks after the hearing, I will assume it shows the Claimant’s medical condition at the hearing date. So although the MRI results did not exist at that time of the hearing, the condition they revealed likely did.

[9] However, I do not think this evidence could reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the hearing. My decision in September 2019 concerned the Claimant’s ability to work when her Minimum Qualifying Period ended. I based the decision on evidence showing that, while the Claimant had back pain and degenerative changes in the lower lumbar spine, her main limitations were with standing and walking. I was not satisfied that she could not have tried sedentary work at December 31, 2016.^{Footnote 5}

[10] The 2019 MRI is the first one the Claimant had of her lumbar spine. It showed multilevel degenerative disc changes, most significantly at L4-5 where there was severe nerve root compression.^{Footnote 6} X-rays that were already in the file, which I considered when making my September 2019 decision, noted degenerative changes but not severe nerve root compression.^{Footnote 7}

[11] It is possible that if the Claimant had had an MRI before December 2016, it would have revealed nerve root compression. But that is not important. What is important is her ability to work up to December 31, 2016.^{Footnote 8} Whatever might have been wrong with the Claimant’s spine, the rest of the evidence showed that any limitations caused by her back pain did not prevent her from earning a living at some type of job up to December 31, 2016. That is why I reached the decision I did. It is why an MRI showing her condition in 2019 could not reasonably be expected to have changed the result.

Conclusion

[12] The Claimant has not presented a new material fact. As a result, I did not consider if it could not have been discovered at the time of the hearing with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

[13] The application to rescind or amend is dismissed.