Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

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

Overview

[3] The Claimant was 46-years-old when she stopped working as a retail sales clerk (decorator) at a paint and wallpaper store in October 2014. The Claimant had right eye surgery in February 2006 and eventually lost vision in the right eye. The Claimant returned to work as a retail sales clerk in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The Claimant chose not to work in 2009 and 2010. The Claimant then returned to work as a retail sales clerk in 2011, 2012, and 2014. The Claimant has not worked at any employment since October 2014. 

[4] The Claimant applied for a CPP disability pension on January 29, 2020. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) refused her application. The Claimant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division.

[5] The Claimant says by the end of 2010 she suffered from migraines, depth perception problems, disorientation, depression, digestive issues, and sciatica pain.

[6] The Minister says the Claimant may have had a progression of eye disease and required further eye surgery in 2021. However, the Minister says at the Claimant’s  MQP date (and possible prorated date) there was no severe disabling eye impairment as she would have had good vision from her left eye and her glaucoma was in the early stages in 2013 (past her MQP date).

What the Claimant must prove

[7] For the Claimant to succeed, she must prove she had a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2010. This date is based on her contributions to the CPP.^{Footnote 1}

[8] The Claimant had earnings in 2011 that were considered by the Minister for the purpose of proration. If the Claimant was not disabled when her MQP ended in December 2010, then she must prove she became disabled by the prorated date of June 30, 2011.^{Footnote 2}

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

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

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

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

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

[14] The Claimant has to prove she has a severe and prolonged disability. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that she has to show that it is more likely than not she is disabled.

Reasons for my decision

[15] I find the Claimant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2010, or her prorated date of June 30, 2011.

Was the Claimant’s disability severe?

[16] The Claimant’s disability wasn’t severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below.

The Claimant’s functional limitations didn’t affect her ability to work by her MQP date or prorated date

[17] The Claimant had a right retinal detachment in 2006 and surgery in February 2006. The Claimant was further assessed to have a right eye traumatic cataract for which she had laser eye surgery in 2008. However, I can’t focus on the Claimant’s diagnosis.^{Footnote 5} Instead, I must focus on whether she had functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living.^{Footnote 6} When I do this, I have to look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affect her ability to work.^{Footnote 7}

[18] I find the Claimant didn’t have disabling functional limitations by her MQP date of December 31, 2010, and her prorated date of June 30, 2011.

What the Claimant says about her functional limitations

[19] The Claimant says her medical conditions resulted in functional limitations that affected her ability to work. She says when she worked in the paint store she had to leave early some days owing to migraines. She further says that lifting became a problem because of back pain. Also, the Claimant says she had some visual issues and depth perception difficulties.

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

[20] The Claimant must provide medical evidence that shows that her functional limitations affected her ability to work by December 31, 2010, or the prorated date of June 30, 2011.^{Footnote 8}

[21] The medical evidence doesn’t support what the Claimant says for the following reasons:

[22] First: Dr. Igbinovia diagnosed the Claimant in February 2020 with chronic lower back pain, anxiety, depression, migraine, and gastroesophageal reflux (GD2-278 to GD2-282). However, Dr. Igninova documented these conditions were all symptomatic since 2017-2018. I realize the Claimant explained that she was in a Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) in 2017 and her health condition worsened. Nevertheless, the MVA occurred approximately six-and-a-half years past the Claimant’s MQP date and prorated date.

[23] Second: Dr. Tong (Ophthalmologist) did not report the Claimant had a disabling impairment because of her right eye surgery in 2006. Furthermore, the Claimant returned to work after her eye surgery in 2006, 2007, and 2008. I recognize the Claimant testified that she struggled with visual and depth perception issues after her surgery in 2006. I also realize this was a difficult time for the Claimant. Still, the medical reports support the Minister’s submission that the Claimant had reasonably good vision in her left eye and her glaucoma was in the early stages in 2013 (which was past her MQP date). Also, Dr. Tong reported in January 2013 that the Claimant was healthy (GD2-192).

[24] Third: Dr. Gerber (Psychiatrist) diagnosed the Claimant in September 2017 with a major depressive disorder (single episode) and a pain disorder associated with both psychological and a general medical condition. Dr. Gerber specifically explained the Claimant’s MVA in June 2017 caused her chronic pain, anxiety and depression (GD2-67 to GD2-108). I do recognize the Claimant’s medical condition worsened after her MVA. Nevertheless, the Claimant’s MVA in June 2017 occurred well past the Claimant’s MQP and possible prorated date.

[25] In summary, the evidence doesn’t show that the Claimant had functional limitations that affected her ability to work by December 31, 2010, or her prorated date of June 30, 2011. As a result, she hasn’t proven she had a severe disability.

[26] When I am deciding whether a disability is severe, I usually have to consider a claimant’s personal characteristics. This allows me to realistically assess a claimant’s ability to work.^{Footnote 9} I don’t have to do that here because the Claimant’s functional limitations didn’t affect her ability to work by December 31, 2010, or the prorated date of June 30, 2011.

[27] This means the Claimant didn’t prove her disability was severe by her MQP date or the prorated date.^{Footnote 10}

Additional submissions from the Claimant

[28] I realize the Claimant had a challenging time returning to her retail sales job in 2006. The Claimant’s testified she struggled with migraines, visual issues, lifting items, and depth perception. Still, the Claimant continued to work and earn income in 2006, 2007, and 2008 (GD3-5). Furthermore, the Claimant worked past her MQP date (and prorated date). For example, the Claimant worked as a retail sales clerk in 2012 (and earned $10,725.00). Also, the Claimant returned to work again in 2014. However, the Claimant testified she was let go by the employer at that point because there were not enough English-speaking customers for her to serve.

[29] I further recognize the Claimant did not show any earnings for the years 2009 and 2010. During the hearing, the Claimant was forthright on this matter when she explained she made a personal decision to stay home in 2009 and 2010. The Claimant did not state she couldn’t work at employment in 2009 and 2010. Instead, the Claimant explained that owing to personal circumstances she made the decision to stay home at that point.

[30] I also realize the Claimant explained the circumstances surrounding her employment as a sales clerk ending in October 2014. The Claimant testified that she didn’t leave her employment at that point, but was advised by the employer that her job was redundant and there were not enough English-speaking customers for her to serve. Furthermore, the Claimant explained that in September 2014 her spouse’s health situation had worsened and she made the decision to stay home and become his “unpaid caregiver.”

[31] Finally, I wish to address the Claimant’s testimony that she objected to the “time limit” placed on her to show she had a severe and prolonged disability. Specifically, the Claimant explained that it was “not right” that her MQP date was 2010 and she objected on principle. I recognize the Claimant was displeased and upset about her MQP date. Nevertheless, the Claimant did not indicate the Minister’s calculation was incorrect only that it was not fair for applicants. In short: The Claimant did not specifically dispute the MQP date, but only objected to the unfairness for applicants that wait to apply for the CPP disability pension.

[32] Finally, I commend the Claimant on her forthright testimony during the hearing. Specifically, the Claimant explained that she made a personal decision not to work in 2009 and 2010. Furthermore, the Claimant was forthright that in October 2014 she made a personal decision to stay home and become her spouse’s unpaid caregiver.

Conclusion

[33] I find the Claimant isn’t eligible for a CPP disability pension because her disability wasn’t severe by her MQP date of December 2010 and prorated date of June 2011. Because I have found that her disability wasn’t severe by her MQP date (and prorated date), I didn’t have to consider whether it is prolonged.

[34] This means the appeal is dismissed.