Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The appeal is allowed. The General Division made an error when it failed to fully consider a significant medical report. I am giving the decision that the General Division should have given and finding the Claimant disabled as of October 2019.

Background

[2] The Claimant is a 41-year-old former processing clerk for the federal government. He hasn’t worked since March 2019 because of depression and anxiety.

[3] The Claimant has applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension twice.^{Footnote 1} The Minister refused the Claimant’s first application, submitted on November 14, 2017. The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s appeal of that refusal after a hearing held on March 19, 2019.

[4] The Minister also refused the Claimant’s second application, submitted on August 19, 2019. Once again, the Claimant appealed to the General Division and, once again, the General Division dismissed the appeal. This time, the General Division found that the Claimant did not have a severe a prolonged disability that started between March 19, 2019 (the date of the first General Division hearing) and December 31, 2019 (the date on which the General Division found that the Claimant’s coverage for the CPP disability pension ended).

[5] The Claimant then requested leave, or permission, to appeal from the Appeal Division, alleging that the General Division made various errors in coming to its decision. One of my colleagues on the Appeal Division granted the Claimant permission to appeal because she thought the Claimant had an arguable case. I held settlement conference divided over two days^{Footnote 2} to see if there was common ground on which the parties might come to an agreement.

[6] The parties did reach an agreement, and its terms were read into the record at the end of the settlement conference.^{Footnote 3} The parties have asked me to prepare a decision that reflects that agreement.

Agreement

[7] At the second settlement conference, the Minister conceded that the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact, made without regard for the record. Specifically, the Minister agreed that the General failed to consider the Claimant’s restrictions, as identified by a nurse practitioner in an October 2019 report.

[8] The Minister offered to find the Claimant disabled as of October 2019 and pay him a CPP disability pension as of February 2020.

[9] The Claimant accepted the offer.

Analysis

[10] I am accepting the parties’ agreement.

[11] I am satisfied that the General Division failed to consider restrictions identified by the nurse practitioner in her report dated October 3, 2019.^{Footnote 4} In that letter, the nurse practitioner said that the Claimant was unable to work due to fatigue and an inability to concentrate, among other problems.

[12] Although the General Division is presumed to have considered all available evidence,^{Footnote 5} this assumption may be rebutted if a particular item of evidence is highly relevant. The General Division mentioned the nurse practitioner’s October 2019 report but did not discuss how the Claimant’s problems would affect his capacity to regularly work at any substantially gainful job. On the other hand, the General Division placed more weight on an August 2019 report^{Footnote 6} from the same source, even though it was more distant from the end of the Claimant’s coverage period and, unlike the October 2019 report, did not directly assess his ability to work in the context of the CPP’s definition for disability. 

[13] The fact that the General Division did not discuss such an important piece of evidence in any detail suggests that it failed to truly grapple with its implications.

Remedy

[14] When the General Division makes an error, the Appeal Division can fix it by one of two ways: (i) it can send the matter back to the General Division for a new hearing or (ii) it can give the decision that the General Division should have given.^{Footnote 7}  

[15] The Tribunal is required to proceed as quickly as fairness permits. The parties were given enough opportunity to make their cases, and there is enough information on file to allow me decide this matter myself. I have reviewed the entire case file, and I am satisfied that the Claimant developed a severe and prolonged disability as of October 2019.

[16] The Claimant has been diagnosed with major depression and severe anxiety. His employer provided him with significant accommodations at work, but he ultimately could not sustain his white-collar job. He has received counselling, tried numerous psychoactive medications, and otherwise done everything reasonably possible get better, although to limited effect. He was relatively young at the end of his coverage period, but I don’t see how he would be able to pursue a regularly substantially gainful occupation in his condition.

Conclusion

[17] The appeal is allowed in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Claimant became disabled as of October 2019. His pension therefore starts four months later^{Footnote 8} —as of February 2020.