Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Appellant, M. S., 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 49 years old. She stopped working as a machine operator in April 2020 due to uterine fibroids and vaginal bleeding. This was treated with surgery. She has not returned to work due pain in her back and knees, high blood pressure, and depression.

[4] The Appellant applied for a CPP disability pension on June 15, 2021. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) refused her application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division.

[5] The Appellant says that she suffers from severe physical and mental health problems. She has a limited education, work experience, and English language skills. She would be unable to obtain a light job.

[6] The Minister says that her vaginal bleeding, uterine fibroids, and anemia were successfully treated with surgery. Although she complains of some abdominal, knee, and back pain, the medical information does not describe clinical or investigational findings that would support the presence of a severe and prolonged disability. Her blood pressure is mildly elevated and is being managed conservatively with medication.

What the Appellant must prove

For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she had a disability that was severe and prolonged by the hearing date.^{Footnote 1}

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

[8] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.^{Footnote 2}

[9] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’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 Appellant 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.

[10] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death.^{Footnote 3}

[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 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

[13] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by the hearing date.

Is the Appellant’s disability severe?

[14] The Appellant’s disability isn’t severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below.

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

[15] The Appellant has:

• History of uterine fibroids, vaginal bleeding, and anemia
• Pain in her abdomen, knees, and back
• High blood pressure
• Reactive depression

[16] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses.^{Footnote 4} Instead, I must focus on whether she had functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living.^{Footnote 5} 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 her ability to work.^{Footnote 6}

[17] I find that the Appellant doesn`t have functional limitations that affect her ability to work.

What the Appellant says about her functional limitations

[18] The Appellant says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. She worked as a machine operator from May 6, 2019 to April 29, 2020. Her duties including operating a machine for packing, picking up and dropping boxes, and moving skids of boxes. This was a standing job that involved heavy lifting.

[19] In late 2018, she starting experiencing vaginal bleeding. She was given medication, but her condition worsened over time. Her family physician advised her to stop working. She had a total hysterectomy in March 2021. This stopped the bleeding.

[20] However, in approximately August/September 2021, she started to have pain in all of her joints. Her knees were swollen. She could not bend them. She was advised to try physiotherapy and pain killers. Pain medication helps for 30 minutes to one hour. She may require surgery in the future.

[21] In approximately November/December 2021, she started to have symptoms of anxiety and depression. She gets headaches from stress. She was given medication and told to rest. She does not find medication helpful. She has not tried counselling because she does not want to talk to anyone. She is planning to see a psychiatrist in May 2023.

[22] She has constant pain throughout her body. She also has high blood pressure, which she says is not under control with medication.

[23] She spends most of her day lying on the sofa. She can sit for 10-15 minutes before she gets pain in her knees, feet, ankles, and back. She is unable to stand, walk, lift, carry, or bend. She is unable to do household chores. She is able to shower and take care of herself, but gets tired after 10-15 minutes.

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

[24] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence that supports that her functional limitations affected her ability to work by hearing date.^{Footnote 7}

[25] The medical evidence does not support that the Appellant has a severe disability. Dr. Gurpal Mand, family physician, completed the CPP Medical Report on May 10, 2021. The Appellant was noted to have symptoms of vaginal bleeding and uterine fibroids since July 2020. She is unable to work due to weakness and exertional dyspnea. Her functional capacity is impaired. Dr. Mand noted that her condition is likely to improve.

[26] The Appellant testified that this condition did improve following surgery in March 2021. This was confirmed by Dr. Rasheed Anjola who noted on April 14, 2022 that she had an uneventful post-operative recovery. Although she complains of right flank and upper abdominal pain, her abdominal exam was unremarkable. She also denied any vaginal discharge. There are no other reports on file to indicate a worsening of her condition.

[27] With respect to her depression and anxiety, Dr. Mand noted that she has reactive depression. However, there are no reports to indicate that her depression or anxiety caused functional limitations that affected her ability to work.

[28] Similarly, the Appellant testified that she has chronic pain. Diagnostic imaging from October 2022 showed that she has mild to moderate degenerative disc disease and very early, mild osteoarthritis in her knees. However, there are no reports to indicate that these conditions caused functional limitations that affected her ability to work.

[29] The Appellant testified that she has high blood pressure and headaches. In April 2022, Dr. Anjola noted that she was prescribed medications to control her high blood pressure. In November 2022, her blood pressure was noted to be 140/82. There are no reports to indicate that this condition caused her functional limitations that affected her ability to work.

[30] The medical evidence doesn’t show that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected her ability to work by the hearing date. As a result, she hasn’t proven she has a severe disability.

[31] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, the Appellant’s functional limitations must prevent her from earning a living at any type of work, not just her usual job.^{Footnote 8}

The Appellant can work in the real world

[32] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at her medical conditions and how they affect what she can do. I must also consider factors such as her:

• age
• level of education
• language abilities
• past work and life experience

[33] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that she can work.^{Footnote 9}

[34] The Appellant is 49 years old. She completed a high school education in India. She has done mainly factory work in Canada, but also worked for a short time as a baker. She is able to understand English, but does not speak it well. She is able to read and write in English.

[35] Despite her limited English language skills and work history, she is capable of attempting to return to work, looking for alternate work, or retraining for a lighter job. I find that the Appellant can work in the real world.

The Appellant didn’t try to find and keep a suitable job

[36] If the Appellant can work in the real world, she must show that she tried to find and keep a job. She must also show her efforts weren’t successful because of her medical conditions.^{Footnote 10} Finding and keeping a job includes retraining or looking for a job she can do with her functional limitations.^{Footnote 11}

[37] The Appellant didn’t make efforts to work. She did not attempt to return to her regular job or look for another suitable job. She did not retrain or attempt to improve her English language skills.

[38] Therefore, I can’t find she had a severe disability by the hearing date.

Conclusion

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

[40] This means the appeal is dismissed.