Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The Claimant is not entitled to a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension.

Overview

[2] The Claimant stopped working in April 2016 because of his symptoms of back pain and diabetic neuropathy. The Claimant successfully completed post-secondary education in 2014 when he was off work. The Minister received the Claimant’s application for the disability pension on July 20, 2017. The Minister denied the application initially and on reconsideration. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal.

[3] To qualify for a CPP disability pension, the Claimant must meet the requirements that are set out in the CPP. More specifically, the Claimant 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 Claimant’s contributions to the CPP. I find the Claimant’s MQP to be December 31, 2013.

Issue(s)

[4] Did the Claimant’s conditions of back pain and diabetic neuropathy result in the Claimant having a severe disability, meaning incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation by December 31, 2013?

[5] If so, was the Claimant’s disability also long continued and of indefinite duration by December 31, 2013?

Analysis

[6] Disability is defined as a physical or mental disability that is severe and prolonged^{Footnote 1}. A person is considered to have a severe disability if incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. A person must prove on a balance of probabilities their disability meets both parts of the test, which means if the Claimant meets only one part, the Claimant does not qualify for disability benefits.

Severe disability

The Claimant did not have a severe disability as of December 31, 2013

[7] The Claimant’s MQP is December 31, 2013 and the Claimant continued to work until April 2016 when he stopped due to his conditions. The Claimant’s conditions are back pain and diabetic neuropathy. The Claimant has type 1 diabetes. In the Claimant’s application for CPP disability benefits he indicated that he was 49 years old, had been working as a grocery store manager and was doing light duties for the last 7 previous months. The Claimant reported that he had functional limitations with sitting, standing, walking, lifting/carrying, reaching, bending, personal needs and household chores due to his pain. The Claimant also indicated that he had memory, concentration and sleeping due to medication although he continued to drive. The Claimant had worked at the grocery store from 2007 to 2016 and indicated that he could no longer work due to his medical conditions as of April 2016.^{Footnote 2}

[8] The Claimant testified at the hearing that he was separated from his spouse in 2007 and the stress caused his blood sugar levels to go high. The Claimant testified that he was having burning sensations in his feet and his doctor signed him off work right away. The Claimant did not immediately get a diagnosis and he returned to work in December 2014 because his wages were going to be cut off and he had no money.

[9] The Claimant testified that he was diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy. The Claimant was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when he was 6 years old and was insulin dependent. His blood sugar had always been a little on the high end because he tended to limit his insulin due to fear that he would take too much. The Claimant further testified that he was able to control his diabetes with insulin and diet, eating home cooked meals and low sugar foods. The Claimant found that over the past 5-7 years it became much more difficult to control his blood sugar as he cannot exercise much. The Claimant testified that he has good days and bad days where, on good days, he can do small jobs.

[10] The Claimant testified that his neuropathy became really bad as of December 2013 when he had difficulty brushing his teeth at times and could not stand for more than 25 minutes. The Claimant testified that he continues to experience symptoms to the present day. The symptoms include that his feet are always cold and he sometimes cannot feel his legs. The Claimant has increased his insulin using both long and short acting insulin. He also takes Gabapentin to treat his neuropathy but it makes him feel like a zombie. He takes 900mg daily. The Claimant also uses cannabis to help him sleep and to ease the pain.

[11] The Claimant testified that in 2013 he lived on his own and his parents moved in with him for 1.5 to 2 years in 2014. He could wash dishes and use a dishwasher, did small chores around the house but his parents helped as did his partner and friends. The Claimant testified that he was enrolled full-time at X in a social work program. He drove to and from the college daily although it was only a 3-minute drive from his house. The Claimant did school work on a computer and found it was manageable if he used size 12-font size as he has eye problems that were not diagnosed at that time.

[12] The Claimant testified that he regularly attended his classes in the college program he was enrolled in. If he felt sick he was able to login from home and attend class remotely. The Claimant testified that he had back pain and had to stand periodically during class. He attended daily from 9:00am to 2:30pm. The Claimant testified that he did consider dropping out of the program at one point but was able to manage with lots of support from his classmates and the school.

[13] A letter from the Claimant’s family physician, Dr. Cortens dated December 29, 2014 to Blue Cross provides that the Claimant had: (i) Adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression; (ii) diabetic neuropathy; and (iii) chronic mechanical lower back pain. Dr. Cortens provided that the Claimant was treated with medication (Crestor, Cipralex, Voltaren, Gabapentin, Altace, Humalog and Insulin Glargine) as well as regular counselling. Dr. Cortens concluded that the Claimant was able to manage activities of daily living and there was a good chance he would return to work sometime in the future. Dr. Cortens wrote that the Claimant was not capable of physical activity and would only be capable of light or sedentary duties. Further, Dr. Cortens provided that the Claimant was not able to return to work in any capacity, including on a partial basis, as of the date of the letter because of physical and mental restrictions.^{Footnote 3}

[14] The diagnostic documents filed with the Tribunal regarding the Claimant’s back do not show a serious back issue. A CT of the Claimant’s lumbar spine from July 2016 shows that he has no disc herniation, no high-grade stenosis and mild, background degenerative changes.^{Footnote 4}

[15] A Mortgage Disability Insurance Claim from BMO filed with the Tribunal and completed by Dr. Cortens provided that the Claimant first became incapacitated to work on April 7, 2016. The diagnosis listed is diabetes with severe diabetic neuropathy with a secondary diagnosis of lower back pain and subjective symptoms of paraesthesias and lower back pain.^{Footnote 5} The objective findings were decreased range of motion of lumbar spine and altered sensation of feet.^{Footnote 6} The treatment was insulin, Cymbalta, Gabapentin, Ibuprofen and physiotherapy.

[16] When I consider all of the evidence before me, I cannot find that the Claimant had a severe disability as of December 31, 2013 and continuously thereafter. I accept the Claimant’s testimony that he had back pain and neuropathy as of his MQP. However, the Claimant was enrolled full-time in a college program that he regularly attended and successfully completed. This is evidence that the Claimant had capacity to work as of his MQP. The Claimant’s own application and Dr. Cortens’ documentation cited April 2016 as the date by which the Claimant could no longer work due to his medical condition. This date is well past the Claimant’s last possible date to show he had a severe disability as of December 31, 2013.

The Claimant had capacity to work

[17] I must assess the severe part of the test in a real world context^{Footnote 7}. This means that when deciding whether a person’s disability is severe, I must keep in mind factors such as age, level of education, language proficiency, and past work and life experience. The Claimant was 49 years old at the time of his CPP application. He had many years work experience and had achieved success in previous roles including as a technical director with 8 staff reporting to him when he worked at X. More recently the Claimant enrolled in a full-time college course in 2013/2014 that he graduated from and the Claimant as a grocery store manager as of April 2016 when he stopped working due to his medical conditions. The Claimant maintains a valid driver’s license and he is fluent in English. In light of the full-time education the Claimant was able to complete, his relatively young age and the work he returned to after he completed college, I find that the Claimant had capacity to work as of his MQP in December 2013.

[18] The measure of whether a disability is “severe” is not whether the person suffers from severe impairments, but whether the disability prevents the person from earning a living. It’s not a question of whether a person is unable to perform their regular job, but rather the person’s inability to perform any substantially gainful work^{Footnote 8}. Although Dr. Cortens did not think the Claimant could return to any type of physical work, he did anticipate that the Claimant would be able to return to employment in a sedentary job. However, Dr. Cortens provided this prognosis after the Claimant’s MQP. Dr. Cortens spoke specifically to the Claimant’s previous work in the grocery store and did not comment on the Claimant’s ability to enroll in full-time post-secondary education in 2013/2014. As of July 2017 Dr. Cortens’ prognosis was that the Claimant’s ability to return to the workforce was poor and, if he did return, it would have to involve an occupation that does not require much physical exertion.^{Footnote 9} The evidence before me does not show that the Claimant was incapable of performing any work, including schooling, as of his MQP.

[19] I must assess the Claimant’s condition in its totality, which means I must consider all of the possible impairments, not just the biggest impairments or the main impairment^{Footnote 10}. The medical evidence does not show that the Claimant’s back pain and neuropathy were significant issues as of December 31, 2013. In a letter from Dr. Cortens dated February 14, 2018, Dr. Cortens provided that the Claimant had diabetic neuropathy that developed over the last 6 or 7 years and noted that it was mentioned when the Claimant was assessed in March 2013. Further, Dr. Cortens noted that the Claimant’s CT scan of his back in July 2016 showed mild background degenerative changes.^{Footnote 11} The evidence does not show, even when all the Claimant’s conditions are considered, that he had a severe disability as of December 31, 2013 or that he lacked capacity.

[20] The Claimant’s testimony and the medical evidence show that the Claimant was experiencing difficulty in his personal life in 2013 with the breakdown of his marriage and child custody issues. Dr. Cortens’ notes reflect that the Claimant was continuing to have problems with anxiety, depression, mechanical back pain and neuropathy. However, no severe disability is indicated. Further, Dr. Cortens also noted that the Claimant was enrolling in a 2-year full-time course in social work at college.^{Footnote 12} This shows capacity to work.

[21] Where there is evidence of work capacity, a person must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful because of the person’s health condition^{Footnote 13}. The Claimant completed his college program and returned to work until April 2016, stopping work well after his MQP.

[22] Having found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability as of his MQP, I do not need to consider whether he had a prolonged disability.

Conclusion

[23] The appeal is dismissed.