Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

I find that the Appellant is entitled to a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension starting November 2016.

Overview

[1] The Minister received the Appellant’s CPP disability pension application on August 28, 2017.^{Footnote 1} The Appellant is 63 years old and has a Grade 8 education. She argued that she was disabled by Parkinson’s disease. She also mentioned having asthma, a sinus problem, macular degeneration, and pain in the lower back and left hip. She had to leave her job as a day labourer in June 2009 because the company closed, and the Minister denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. The Appellant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal. In response to new evidence, the Minister found that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability in accordance with the CPP eligibility criteria and was entitled to benefits.

[2] To qualify for a CPP disability pension, the Appellant must meet the requirements set out in the CPP.^{Footnote 2} More specifically, the Appellant must be found disabled as defined in the CPP on or before the end of the minimum qualifying period (MQP). The calculation of the MQP is based on the Appellant’s contributions to the CPP. I note that the Appellant’s MQP ends on December 31, 2020. Normally, when the MQP date is in the future, I must decide whether it is more likely than not that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability on the date of the decision. However, in this appeal, the Appellant has been receiving a retirement pension since March 2017. According to the CPP, to qualify for a disability pension, the claimant must not be receiving a retirement pension. A person can apply to cancel their retirement pension in favour of a disability pension if the person is found to be disabled before the month the retirement pension became payable. Given that the Appellant has been receiving a retirement pension since March 2017, she must have been found disabled as defined in the CPP on or before February 28, 2017.^{Footnote 3}

Issues

[3] Can the Appellant’s physical conditions be considered a severe disability that prevented her regularly from pursuing any substantially gainful occupation on February 28, 2017?

[4] Can the Appellant’s physical conditions be considered a prolonged disability?

Analysis

[5] To be considered disabled, a person must have a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability.^{Footnote 4} A person is considered to have a severe disability if they are incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. A disability is prolonged if it is long continued and of indefinite duration or likely to result in death. The disability must be not only severe but also prolonged for a person to be able to be found disabled within the meaning of the CPP.

Severe disability

i. Medical reports

[6] The progress notes from Dr. Dupuis, family physician, in July 2016 indicate that Appellant reported trembling in the right upper extremity at rest.^{Footnote 5}

[7] On November 8, 2016,^{Footnote 6} Dr. Darwich, neurologist, made a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. He observed that the Appellant had trembling in the right upper extremity at rest, slowness of movement, and cogwheel rigidity. Later reports by Dr. Darwich^{Footnote 7} indicate that the Appellant continued to be symptomatic despite an optimal dose of medications for Parkinson’s disease, and she did not tolerate the other medications attempted.

[8] Reports from October 2019 and January 2020^{Footnote 8} by Dr. Alvarez, neurologist, note that he was still trying to optimize the pharmaceutical treatment.

ii. Residual capacity to work

[9] The test that I must consider in determining whether a disability is severe is not whether the person has severe impairments, but whether their disability prevents them from earning a living. The determination of the severity of the disability is not based on the person’s inability to perform their regular job, but rather on their inability to perform any work, that is, any substantially gainful occupation.^{Footnote 9}

[10] Also, a real-world approach must be taken with the test for severity. This means that, when deciding whether a person’s disability is severe, I must consider factors such as age, level of education, language proficiency, and past work and life experience.^{Footnote 10}

[11] I have considered all the medical reports. Based on the evidence, the Appellant has Parkinson’s disease. It is clear from several reports of neurologists that the disease remains uncontrollable despite the several medications attempted.

[12] I have also considered the fact that the Appellant had self-employment income from 2013 to 2019. According to the self-employment questionnaire dated March 17, 2020,^{Footnote 11} the Appellant worked 20 hours a week as a babysitter from September to June. The Appellant noted that her health made it difficult for her to do her job. She worked only within her capabilities, and the child’s parents always had to have a backup available in case she was unable to babysit or perform certain tasks, such as collecting the child from the school bus. The parents were very accommodating. According to the Minister, while the Appellant had some capacity to work, her health could affect her performance, productivity, and reliability. Even though the Appellant worked after February 2017, the month before her retirement pension became payable, the Minister was of the view that without the great flexibility of the child’s parents, the Appellant had been incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation because of her health since July 2016. By the end of February 2017, she was already 60 years old and had limited formal education (Grade 8) and work experience characterized by physically demanding work. She would likely be unable to adjust to alternative work. I agree with the Minister’s position.

[13] In addition, I note that the Appellant’s income between 2013 and 2019 (below $10,000) does not show that the Appellant’s occupation can be considered “substantially gainful.” I therefore find that the Appellant had a severe disability in July 2016.

Prolonged disability

[14] The Appellant’s disability is also prolonged given the medical reports since 2016 showing that that her condition has not improved.

Conclusion

[15] I find that the Appellant had had a severe and prolonged disability since July 2016 when she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Disability pension payments start four months after the date of disability.^{Footnote 12} Payments will start as of November 2016.

[16] The appeal is allowed.