Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

The Claimant, K. N., is not eligible for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal.

Overview

[1] The Claimant last worked as a full-time support assistant for X with the City of Toronto in October 2017. She indicated that she could no longer work as of that time because of depression and anxiety.

[2] The Claimant applied for a CPP disability pension on November 1, 2018. The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada (the Minister) refused her application because her symptoms improved with treatment, and they were intermittent in severity, frequency, and duration. She also declined returning to work after discussing it with her family doctor. The Claimant appealed the decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal.

What the Claimant must prove

[3] For the Claimant to succeed, she must prove that she had a disability that was severe and prolonged on or before the date that I heard her appeal.^{Footnote 1}

[4] A disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. It is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death.^{Footnote 2}

The reasons for my decision

[5] The Claimant did not prove that she had a severe and prolonged disability by the time of the hearing. I reached this decision by considering the following issues.

Is the Claimant’s disability severe?

The Claimant has functional limitations, but they do not preclude all work

[6] My decision about whether the Claimant’s disability is severe is not based on her diagnoses. It is based on whether she has functional limitations that prevent her from working.^{Footnote 3} I have to look at her overall medical condition and think about how her health issues might affect her ability to work.^{Footnote 4}

[7] The Claimant lives with her husband and her adult son stays with them a few days each while he is working. Her husband is a retired police officer. He is dealing with substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder. That is where the majority of the Claimant’s symptoms stem from.

[8] The Claimant argues that her anxiety and depression limits her memory, concentration, sleep, and driving ability. At home, she feels like she is walking on eggshells because her husband’s behaviour is so unpredictable. The Claimant does the majority of the cooking, laundry, grocery shopping, and some cleaning around the house. She drives, but not very much. She spends time reading, listening to the television, walking her dogs, and preparing meals.

[9] The medical evidence from Dr. Yip and Dr. Katz does not support the Claimant’s argument. In September 2017, Dr. Katz, psychiatrist, reported the Claimant was seen because of poor family dynamics at home and guilt. He anticipated an improvement with therapy and medications and did not arrange for any further follow-up. In December 2018, Dr. Yip, the Claimant’s family doctor, reported that although she had depression and anxiety, her prognosis was positive for a return to regular duties at work. In January 2019, he reported that her depression was stable and that she was doing well with anti-depressant medications. In February 2019, Dr. Yip did not note any abnormal mental status findings.

[10] I recognize that there was a period of time in 2019 when Dr. Yip reported that the Claimant was unable to work because of difficulties with her husband at home. However, in his most recent September and November 2019 clinical notes, he discussed the importance of the Claimant returning to work.

[11] I accept that poor family dynamics at home has led to secondary mental health limitations for the Claimant. However, the medical evidence does not show that those limitations precluded her ability to work by the time of the hearing. As a result, the Claimant has not proven that she has a severe disability.

The Claimant has work capacity

[12] When I am deciding if the Claimant is able to work, I must consider more than just the medical conditions and their effect on functionality. I must also consider the Claimant’s age, level of education, language proficiency, and past work and life experience. These factors help me to decide if she can work in the real world.^{Footnote 5}

[13] I find that the Claimant retains some work capacity. She is 59 years old and fluent in English. She completed high school and a college diploma as a legal secretary. She has both extensive experience working in public service administration and computer skills that are transferable. Despite her limitations, the medical evidence supports that she is a candidate for accommodated work or re-training.

[14] The Claimant has had depression for many years with limited treatment. It got significantly worse because of the situation at home with her husband. That is what led her to stop working in October 2017. She had been commuting over 1 hour each way and was working full-time hours. She took more than 10 sick days in the year leading up to October 2017 because of her anxiety and depression. The Claimant reported that she had difficulty coping with stress and dealing with co-workers, but there was never any issue with the quality of her work.

The Claimant did not try to obtain and maintain employment

[15] If the Claimant has some work capacity in the real world, she must show that she tried to obtain or maintain a job. She must also show that the attempts to work did not succeed because her health condition.^{Footnote 6}

[16] The Claimant submitted that her last job with the City of Toronto could not have been modified, but there was no discussion about the possibility of being transferred or accommodated in another position. Since October 2017, the Claimant has not attempted to return any type of work, despite the medical recommendation to do so. She has not looked for jobs closer to home that would not involve commuting, re-training, part-time work, or less demanding work.

[17] The Claimant is still considered an employee of the City of Toronto and receives long term disability benefits. She submitted that she would not officially resign from the City of Toronto just to go to work somewhere like Walmart. That would just increase her anxiety.

[18] The Claimant’s limited work efforts have failed to demonstrate that her health condition precludes her from obtaining or maintaining work, and not just the job she was previously doing.

The Claimant has made reasonable efforts to follow recommended treatment

[19] The Claimant has made reasonable effort to follow treatment, but it has been conservative and not exhaustive.^{Footnote 7} She takes Wellbutrin and Prozac medications. She was assessed by a psychiatrist once in 2017.

[20] Apart from 6 weeks of group therapy to work on coping strategies, she has not had any other counseling. She follows up with her family doctor every few months for prescription renewals, but she is not followed by any other specialists or mental health professionals. The Claimant submitted that her current medications are not helping as much as they used to. She plans on discussing other treatment options with Dr. Yip in the near future.

The Claimant’s disability is not severe

[21] The Claimant’s disability was not severe by the time of the hearing. Her treatment has been conservative and not exhaustive. There have also been no attempts to return to any type of work despite medical recommendations to do so. This means that I do not need to decide whether the Claimant’s disability is prolonged.

Conclusion

[22] I am dismissing this appeal.