Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] Y. Y., the Appellant, isn’t eligible for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Appellant is 57 years old. He has a university degree and two certificates (program for post-secondary instructors, February 2008; and train-the-trainer program, May 2009). He stopped working as a supervisor in December 2018 in Saudi Arabia. He applied for a CPP disability pension on May 23, 2019.^{Footnote 1} The Appellant says he hasn’t been able to work since 2012. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division.

[4] The Appellant bases his application for disability benefits on serious mobility problems, poor balance due to one leg being three centimetres shorter than the other, chronic muscle pain, diabetes, dizziness, chronic migraines, breathing difficulties, depression, and side effects related to his blood pressure.

[5] The Minister says that, although the Appellant has some limitations, the evidence hasn’t shown any severe pathology that would have affected his ability to work within his limitations. Diagnostic imaging from before his minimum qualifying period date showed no serious abnormalities and, so far, his treatments have been conservative. Even though he was diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure, this diagnosis dates back to 2012, after the last date he qualified, and his family doctor said that his patient’s medical conditions were under control thanks to his pharmacological treatment. He was also diagnosed with depression. The Minister tried to get more information, but the information it got didn’t show any serious medical conditions by the last date the Appellant qualified, in December 2008. In addition, the Appellant continued working within his limitations in Saudi Arabia until December 2018, well after the last date he qualified.

What the Appellant must prove

[6] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he had a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2008. This date is based on his contributions to the CPP.^{Footnote 2}

[7] The Canada Pension Plan defines “severe” and “prolonged.”

[8] A disability is severe if it makes a claimant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.^{Footnote 3}

[9] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his ability to work. I also have to look at his background (including his age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether his disability is severe. If the Appellant is able to regularly do some kind of work that he could earn a living from, then he isn’t entitled to a disability pension.

[10] A disability is prolonged if it is long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death.^{Footnote 4}

[11] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time.

[12] The Appellant has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities.

Matter I have to consider first

[13] I gave the Appellant the opportunity to make submissions after the hearing because he hadn’t had the chance to review the Minister’s submissions. He could not open the documents electronically. The Appellant had until September 27, 2021, to file submissions, but he didn’t submit anything.

[14] Also, at the hearing, the Appellant asked me to show some compassion and consider the human side of his situation. Unfortunately, I can’t apply the principles of fairness or consider specific circumstances to override the requirements in the Canada Pension Plan. I have to interpret and apply the provisions as they are set out in the Canada Pension Plan.

Reasons for my decision

[15] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven he had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2008.

Was the Appellant’s disability severe?

[16] The Appellant didn’t have a severe disability by December 31, 2008. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below.

The Appellant’s functional limitations don’t affect his ability to work

[17] The Appellant has several medical conditions. However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses.^{Footnote 5} Instead, I must focus on whether he had functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living.^{Footnote 6} When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affect his ability to work.^{Footnote 7}

[18] I find that the Appellant didn’t have functional limitations by December 31, 2008.

What the Appellant says about his functional limitations

[19] The Appellant says that his medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. He says he has had one leg shorter than the other since birth. So, he has always had to work harder than others to complete his tasks. Over time, this condition has caused him health problems in his back, legs, neck, and other places. But, he was able to manage his health until 2006. He then had to stop working because of his medical conditions and, in 2007, when he was feeling better, he started looking for a job. However, the job market was difficult in Canada, and he wasn’t able to find a job. But, an opportunity came up in 2007 in Saudi Arabia (teaching English and preparing an English-language training curriculum for professionals in various fields, such as finance and management). He left Canada in November 2007 on a three-month visa. He then returned to Canada for the hiring process at the embassy in Ottawa. This process took about three months, and he went back to Saudi Arabia with a long-term contract starting in April or May 2008. The contract was renewable every two years. The Appellant also says that he declared himself a non-resident during his time working in Saudi Arabia.

[20] He got renewals from 2008 to 2018. He worked full-time until 2016, and then part-time until July 2018. In 2016, his medical conditions got worse, so his employer offered him part-time work. He stopped working in 2018 because of his medical conditions and also because his employment contract hadn’t been renewed.

[21] From 2016, his medical conditions gradually worsened: pelvic pain, spinal pain, neck pain, cervical migraines, vision problems. He took medications, and he went to physiotherapy for long periods. His doctor started imposing periods off work. His absences caused him problems with his employer.

What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations

[22] Based on his testimony, the Appellant genuinely believes that his functional limitations affect his ability to work. But, the Appellant must provide medical evidence that shows that his functional limitations affected his ability to work by December 31, 2008.^{Footnote 8}

[23] According to the medical evidence on file, the Appellant had neck pain, knee pain, and mobility problems between 2003 and 2008.^{Footnote 9}

[24] Magnetic resonance imaging from November 30, 2005,^{Footnote 10} showed multilevel cervical spondylosis.

[25] Diagnostic imaging of the knees from October 3, 2008, showed mild abnormalities, but there were no signs of fractures or of an acute dislocation.

[26] In a report dated May 31, 2019,^{Footnote 11} Dr. Chaudhary, family doctor, indicated that the Appellant’s lower limbs had been of uneven length since birth. His left leg was shorter than his right, which caused him neck, back, and knee pain. The Appellant had been diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and gastroesophageal reflux disease in 2012. The Appellant also had migraines. According to Dr. Chaudhary, these medical conditions affected the Appellant’s ability to function and work.

[27] A report by Dr. Fong,^{Footnote 12} chiropractor, dated January 10, 2020, indicates that the Appellant had regular treatments between 2004 and 2007. Diagnostic imaging in December 2019 showed moderate cervical disc abnormalities. He noted that the Appellant was undergoing chiropractic adjustment treatment that would probably help relieve his neck and low back pain.

[28] A report by Dr. Ahmad Abdulmajid Mohieddeen^{Footnote 13} dated December 22, 2019, indicates that the Appellant was a patient at Al Manaa hospital in Saudi Arabia from 2008 to 2019. He had chronic pain, migraines, diabetes, depression, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia.

[29] Although the medical evidence shows that the Appellant had medical conditions, it doesn’t show that he had functional limitations that affected his ability to work by December 31, 2008. The Appellant showed the ability to work from 2007 to 2018. As a result, he hasn’t proven he had a severe disability by December 31, 2008.

[30] When I am deciding whether a disability is severe, I usually have to consider a claimant’s personal characteristics.

[31] This allows me to realistically assess a claimant’s ability to work.^{Footnote 14}

[32] I don’t have to do that here because the Appellant’s functional limitations didn’t affect his ability to work by December 31, 2008. This means he didn’t prove his disability was severe by then.^{Footnote 15}

The Appellant can work in the real world

[33] I find that the Appellant can work in the real world.

[34] At the hearing and in his application for disability benefits,^{Footnote 16} the Appellant said that he had found a job in Saudi Arabia. He worked from November 2007 until December 2018.The Appellant might have been able to benefit from his years of contributions in Saudi Arabia if there had been a social security agreement between Canada and that country; there is no agreement and, in any case, he declared himself a non-resident when he was working in Saudi Arabia.

[35] Therefore, I can’t find that the Appellant had a severe disability by December 31, 2008.

Conclusion

[36] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a CPP disability pension because his disability isn’t severe. Because I have found that his disability isn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it is prolonged.

[37] This means the appeal is dismissed.