I was away working yesturday and I would like to share this case with you. I am deliberately being vague with where I was because I would like to share information with you on the down low! 

This case was a reassessment case - the Minister's representative came from the reassessment department who advised me that this department is really grown in staff and workload which indicates to me that the Feds are reviewing a lot more  CPP disability claimants.  Now do not get me wrong - I am all for kicking off people who are working under the table and claiming disability - if you follow  this blog - you know that I get angry when I hear that people play the system as there are so many legitimate people who are denied and really struggle financially and with the appeals process - sometimes at very great costs to their personal lives. So if you think you are pulling a fast one on the Feds - you best start watching your back - some people have contacted me with overpayments in the 50K range.

By the same token, I can also understand with the current CPP benefit rates, why some people feel they have no choice but to supplement their CPP benefit - that is why the Feds have the allowable earnings provision - also just FYI - in this case that I am going to talk about - the allowable earnings provision was not applied to the overpayment because the client did not advise CPP disability that he was working.  Apparently, (I am not 100% sure on this one but I will find out for you) - if you do not advise the Feds you are doing some work then the allowable earnings amount will not be applied to reduce any overpayment.

I also recently had a email from a man let's call him Sean  who asked some questions about Vocational Rehabilitation services offered by CPP and suggested that I blog about this topic.

Okay my client let's call him Ken. Ken was a rural man and supplemented his self-employment by working in construction.  In 2005, he was diagnosed with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis. After diagnosis he applied for CPP disability and was approved at reconsideration.  After diagnosis, Ken who had always been the "go-to-guy" in his community, fell into a depression.  His doctor thought that if Ken tried to get out in the community and find something he could do, his mood would improve. So Ken decided he was going to contact CPP disabiity and ask them about vocational services. Ken advised that the CPP staff who called him on this program were extremely rude to him and he felt immediately anxious as to the continuing status of his benefit.  After some time and no support from CPP, Ken made  use of the rehabilitation services of his provincial disability organization. They tried to get him typing and had him do some job shadowing - but based on his limitations - they felt that he should be referred on to an agency that found supportive employment and subsidized positions for people with disabilities.  Now this agency was able to find a couple of different positions for Ken and ultimately he was successful in securing a position. 

Now Ken was very happy - he felt he had a purpose - and he felt he was being useful - his self-esteem improved and he was really trying to keep on going.  However, four months into this position (which was entirely sedentary) his health began to decline rapidly - but Ken wanted to keep going so he relied on medication to keep him alert, medication to reduce his pain, and this dependancy became a viscious circle - he could not sleep, he could not concentrate - he could not keep up with the productivity and accuracy level demands of his position, and what started as a good thing for Ken - wound up costing his health dearly.  But all Ken wanted to do was keep on working.  His lack of clarity into the decline in his health and the dependence on medication and the personal costs to his family became secondary to trying to keep on working.  Finally, some 12 months after starting his work experience Ken had no choice but to quit due to medical reasons.

Okay, side story to this case, Ken tried to get in touch with CPP to advise them about his work trial - for some reason the Feds did not get with the program - and Ken kept receiving disability benefits.  After his frustration with dealing with the Feds, Ken contacted his provincial MS Society who told him that CPP and Revenue Canada are connected, so CPP would indeed know about his work activity.  So Ken thinks that CPP must know and he kept receiving his disability benefit.  Okay the MS Society got it partially wrong - yes the Feds can find out through Revenue Canada if a disabiity recipient reports income, this information is not received until you file your taxes - so the Feds do not instantly know that someone is working - which is why Ken had an overpayment - and also why the allowable earnings provision was not applied to the overpayment. He had a bad experience all around - there was lack of information, and to be frank he received some bad advice.

So I attended his Review Tribunal yesturday.  I think the hearing went well - once you heard Ken's story you could understand how this all went down - and I get so annoyed that all the information is available to the adjudicators in the reassessment department if only they would ask - if only they would conduct a review of the file that does not just rely on the reporting of  T4 income - if only they just read the information in this file -  all of this stress and hardship could be avoided - instead it appeared to me that all this "reassessment" was, was another attempt to get another person off the "payroll" The facts were all available to me, I just took the time to find them out. Sometimes I think I am being really harsh on the Feds, but I am not telling you anything that is not the truth, and I think there are good people in the program - but why are there so many good Canadian people getting the run around and all this hassle?

The gentleman who recently emailed me and asked me if CPP provided meaningful rehabilitation services - take what you get from this blog and think hard. To be fair, I only hear the problems and not the good things about any programs and services that work well. If any one has had a good experience I would really love to hear from you.

Bye for now. Allison

I must apologize - it's been a while since I have had the time to blog. I have been travelling doing appeals out here in the West. In late May I attended four appeals - all men - and all different types of back injuries. Chronic Pain, Mechanical Back Pain, Low Back Pain, whatever you want to diagnose it as - has its challenges when trying to establish disability under the legislation.  The appellants were all different - the circumstances all unique - but the underlying issues were that none of them could work due to the pain and limited mobility they experienced.

Often times, there is argument by the Feds, that there is no objective information to substantiate the appeal.  Sometimes, they argue a Pension Appeals Board case that states that Back Pain is due to activity intolerance, or deconditioning.  This seems to be a favourite case of the Fed's that I have been presented at the various levels of appeals - http://www.pab-cap.gc.ca/english/docs/2007/cp24738e.web.pdf

Now keep in mind that this is only one case - and as we all know - there are cases that can support a claim for chronic back pain. I would just like to post this case so that you can be prepared  - as this seems to be the case de jour at the moment.

I will agree that chronic back pain, or myofascial pain, or chronic pain syndrome are challenging cases to establish eligibility.  The most successful appellants have done all that they can to mitigate their disability - they have gone to chronic pain clinics, they have tried to return to work in some capacity - if some residual capacity exists - they have tried everything they can think off to get back on their feet and back to work.

In these cases, The Feds will argue that there is no objective evidence - but remember objective evidence - is only one part of the overall picture.  Subjective evidence can be considered in the totality of the evidence presented to the Feds.  Credibility of the appellant goes a long way when assessing the weight of subjective evidence.  Also, chronic pain is often diagnosed in the absence of objective evidence. Here are some of the cases that I have been involved that may help:

http://www.pab-cap.gc.ca/english/docs/2009/cp26006e.web.pdf

http://www.pab-cap.gc.ca/english/docs/2009/cp26189e.web.pdf

http://www.pab-cap.gc.ca/english/docs/2005/cp22721-e.pdf

http://www.pab-cap.gc.ca/english/docs/2008/cp25115e.web.pdf

If you have any questions, please contact me at info@dcac.ca

When an appellant has a disability condition such as chronic pain, chronic fatigue, or depression, it is difficult to describe the subjective symptoms that one may experience. 

I recently had a case with a client who has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.  This client, let's call him John, was in his late forties and had been unable to work due to his condition for approximately four years.  He had gone through a process of elimination with his physicians and specialists to see if there was an alternative illness causing his chronic fatigue which all came up negative. 

He was also referred to a Psychiatrist who specialized in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia.  The reason why I am blogging about his particular case is due to this medical report

Saying one is simply fatigued does not really describe the condition - and this doctor quoted five variants of fatigue as identified in a recent scholarly article by Jason et al.  I did a google search and found a link to this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20185398?dopt=Abstract

When presenting a chronic fatigue case to a Review Tribunal it might be helpful to discuss each of these five variants of fatigue.  These are some of the examples we used in John's case -

Post-exertional Fatigue  - the more that John did, the longer it takes for him to recover, he has to pace himself with his activities, if he does an activity he has to rest after this activity. I often hear clients say if they do something they will "pay" for it later. I think it is probably better to give examples - like how does one "pay" - increased fatigue, increased pain, would be a more appropriate way to describe this.

Brain Fog Fatigue - John described this type of fatigue as being in the "twilight zone" - he was unable to take in information or react to outside stimulus - he talked about how hard it was to him to follow a story line in a book, and how it was difficult to arrange his thoughts.  When he was experiencing this type of fatigue he was unable to focus on anything.

Flu-like Fatigue - John described this type of fatigue as that he "just feels ill"

Energy Fatigue - this was described by John as him feeling okay and then something happens to "pull the plug" and he feels his energy draining away.  If this happens, his need to rest is immediate.

Wired Fatigue - John described this aspect of fatigue as not really making sense to him in that when he seems to get really really tired, he gets "wired" by which he meant he was hyper - and that this was the hardest aspect of his fatigue to manage.

Some of the other ways that John described his condition was that he was irritable, and that he could not tolerate noise especially in the morning, that he ability to deal with money and numbers is impaired, that more than two people at a time is too stressful for John to manage.

John was successful with his appeal and the Panel considered the following factors - he was credible, he had a strong work history and attachment to the work force, that John's evidence at Review Tribunal gave them a clear idea as to the severity of his condition, that the Panel was impressed with John's diligence to  find the appropriate diagnosis and treatment (efforts at mitigation) and that he had pursued treatment options that were recommmended by all the physicians to whom he was referred to, that it was not reasonable for him to try alternative employment (Inclima - if evidence of work capacity) and that his symptoms are unpredictable, which would make regular attendance at a place of employment either difficult or impossible - there was no evidence of functional overlay (ie: malingering, secondary gain). 

I hope this helps clients who have any subjective symptoms to understand the importance of trying to quantify these symptoms to help the Panel gain a clear idea of the severity of your condition.

If you are denied CPP disability benefits please make sure that you appeal within your 90 day period.

For initial denials to Canada Pension Plan when you are requesting a reconsideration, I would suggest the following:

I have received your letter dated _________ denying my application for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.  I wish to request a reconsideration of this decision.  I do not agree with your decision and believe I do meet the legislative criteria of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.

Additional information may be forthcoming.

This will advise the Feds that you are wanting to appeal - Make sure you include your Social Insurance Number.

The same letter can be sent to the Review Tribunal office. 

If these appeal letters are sent, it will allow you time to collect additional information to support your appeal and also to have a professional review your file.

If you have been denied at Review Tribunal and have to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board this is slightly more complicated. Please contact a professional for further information.

Please people maintain your 90 days.

Another common reason why HRSDC denies Canada Pension Plan disability benefits is to do with the Late Applicant Provision.

When a person who becomes disabled and does not apply for CPP disability soon after they become disabled, they may not meet the four out of six year contribution test. However, there is a Late Application Provision which can be applied in these types of situation. 

The late application provision helps people who did not apply for CPP disability because HRSDC will look at their contributions to CPP to see when they last paid in  enough to qualify for benefits.  For example, if someone has enough contributions to the plan from 1988 - 2002 (but not after that date) the Minimum Qualifying Period rules would state that under the Late Application Provision they would need to be found disabled by December 31, 2004.

Yes it is complicated, but I want you to get the jist of what this means.

In this situation, you would have to establish that you have been disabled according to the legislative criteria since December 31, 2004 and continuously to present.

Now sometimes the Feds say, you have a MQP of December 2004 but you have earnings after this date.  Often clients try to return to work and perhaps this attempt fails, but you have earnings listed in your Record of Earnings, or sometimes clients might try to remain at work but their earnings are not substantially gainful, but still the Feds will say that you have contributions after your Minimum Qualifying Period - therefore you are denied.  There might be dangling years - say one time you might try to work and only last six months - many years after you have become disabled.

I hope you get the message here that just because you have some earnings after your MQP that this does not automatically disallow your claim.  This issue needs to be flushed out by someone with the knowledge to do so - do not just rely on the determination of HRSDC.

A typical denial letter using the Late Application Provision will state - "While you have not been able to return to your previous work, we have concluded that you should have been able to do some type of work since December 2004."

This happened to a client of mine - let's call her Sally.  Sally had chronic depression and her doctor noted that in 2005 after months of treatment, decided she would try to return to working a day or two a week. Sally was only able to last at this work for five months before she decompensated and the stress of work exacerbated her recovery.  She was denied because the Feds said she worked after her Minimum Qualifying Period date of December 2004, therefore she showed capacity.  Yet she stopped working in 2002, she went through years of treatment, she tried to return to work one time and failed, and she was still disabled to present. We won this appeal, but you can see how if you are not aware of these technical rules it can cause confusion and acceptance of a denial that might not be valid.

So if you are facing this type of situation please get it checked out by a professional who knows the rules of the game. Bye for Now.

One of the tenants of the Canada Pension Plan definition of disability is that the Appellant must be "incapable of regularly pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.

Remember this - Predictability is the essence of Regularity.

My client Bill had chronic fatigue.  The Tribunal in their decision found that Bill's evidence was credible and sincere.  The Review Tribunal accepted that he could no longer work due to the multiple effects of chronic fatigue, arthritic pain, and a general lack of energy.

The Minister argued that he still had capacity to work because he had "some good days".

The Review Tribunal found that the Appellant having "good days and bad days" did not equate to his ability to seek and maintain employment because he would not be predictable.

Chandler v. MHRD CP 4040 stated that "despite brief periods of work capacity, the unpredictability of the Appellant's chronic fatigue and pain flare-ups and his need for frequent rests, rendered him incapable of regularly maintaining any substantially gainful occupation in the real world."

I have received a lot of calls surrounding the issue of reassessment. These are CPP disability recipients who are being reassessed by HRSDC to see if they still qualify for disability benefits.

Unfortunately, I receive a lot of calls in my office from individuals who have been working while collecting a CPP disability benefit, who are now facing significant overpayments, and who want me to do something about it.  Nothing frosts me more. Believe me, if you are working at a significant level while collecting CPP disability eventually you will be caught - word to the wise. 

And then there are individuals who try to do some work and they are cut off. My client let's call her Sue comes to mind.

Sue had been in receipt of CPP disability for approximately 10 years. She lived in cottage country. She had a large plot of land and she had a garden plot in which she grew vegetables in season. Over the summer months - she put a stall at the end of her driveway and she sold new potatoes and vegetables to the cottage crowd. She also was an artisan and as a hobby over the winter months she painted. She also sold some of these crafts at the end of her driveway.

A disgruntled neighbour who wanted to get even over a prior neighbourhood incident -  reported that she was "working" to Canada Pension Plan.

CPP disability started to investigate Sue's earnings with Canada Revenue Agency and soon found that these earnings were insignificant - less than $1500 per year - and well below the allowable earnings provision. Okay, so legitimately they were concerned how Sue had the functional capacity to "work" a garden. Sue submitted letters from her neighbours and family members supporting that she was not responsible for any physical work. They also wondered how she was capable of sitting at a stall all day - to which Sue provided evidence stating that her "customers" were regulars - who she had known for some time - and who called on her home if she was not in the stall - and that she also heard cars as they came to her driveway.

In order to develop the file, Canada Pension Plan sent her for a Functional Capacity Evaluation. This conveniently came back stating that she was capable of sedentary work - however - the report also said that her sedentary capacity was not consistent, that she had chronic pain, and a whole host of other comments that tended to mitigate the comment that she was capable of sedentary work.

Sue ended up having to appeal to the Office of The Commissioner of Review Tribunals - some 18 months after CPP cut her off - she had her hearing. Sue had to go on Social Services in order to survive.

When there is a reassessment hearing the onus to establish a client is NOT DISABLED rests with The Minister. That means HRSDC has to establish that the CPP recipient is capable of regularly pursuing a substantially gainful occupation. HRSDC also has to establish this on the balance of probabilites using the totality of the information on file, that the appellant is no longer disabled at the time the benefits were terminated.  The Minister cannot argue that the decision to allow the CPP benefits on application was incorrect - they cannot vary a prior decision confirming a claimant's eligibility.

The Review Tribunal found in favour of Sue, it was pretty obvious really;  a no brainer. The Feds had the opportunity to review the same information as the Review Tribunal yet they still maintained their position that the client was working.

There is an allowable earnings provision for individuals who are CPP recipients - stay tuned - I will tell you all about it.

Over the years that I have been representing clients appealing CPP denials, the issues that the decision makers focus on, swing back and forth like a pendulum. When the landmark Villani decision came along it changed the CPP landscape and although this is a very significant decision, if you are solely relying on Villani to win your appeal I would caution you to think twice.

The pendulum has now swung towards mitigation issues. What is mitigation and why is it important? Mitigation - to lessen, reduce, moderate, make less severe, ameliorate, to make better, or improve. How do mitigation issues pertain to a CPP disability appeal?

Well if you are bringing yourself before a CPP decision maker you have a duty or responsibility to mitigate your appeal.  If there is evidence of work capacity you will normally be required to test this capacity - for further explanation check out the Inclima decision which is located in the FAQ section of the website.

You also have a duty to ameliorate your disability - this means that you are typically required to follow medical recommendations. Now of course there are reasons why an appellant may not have followed recommended treatment - for example financial hardship or intolerable side effects, but for the most part, you need to follow recommended treatment options.

If you have questions about mitigation, please feel free to email at info@dcac.ca

The afternoon session of the Representatives Information Session included the opportunity to hear from sitting Panel Members who shared their thoughts on effective advocacy when appearing before the Review Tribunal. The Panel consisted of British Columbia members who have been sitting for some time and who I have had the opportunity to appear before. 

Some of the tips the Review Tribunal panel members gave were - to use good time management - stick to the facts of the case, using your schedule appeal time to rant about the unfairness of the CPP legislation, or how you much you think "the Feds" suck is a complete waste of your time. Have a strong opening and closing statement and stick to the issues on appeal - use the Minister's Submission as a starting point  - written submissions are helpful, and the Panel members really want to hear from the Appellant - what's the impairment and why you cannot work.

The Review Tribunal panel members are aware of the significance of the appeal and how much their decision will affect your life. All of the Panel members have the opportunity to write the final decision. However, although panel members are empathetic to each person's situation, they are obviously bound by the CPP legislation.

This was a good opportunity to hear what the decision makers think and what they feel is effective advocacy.

On March 31, 2010 I attended a seminar for those individuals who represent CPP disability appellants before Review Tribunals. OCRT held this event in Vancouver and it was attended by the Deputy Commissioner and senior OCRT staff who provided important information on their processes, key legal issues and current initiatives. 

I have had the opportunity to attend this event on another occasion in Toronto, but because I enjoy a strong working-relationship with OCRT and because I like to keep abreast of current issues concering CPP appeals, I wanted to attend.

I felt that most of the information that was presented, although welcome, was geared toward those individuals who infrequently represented CPP appellants. I suppose the most important information that I learnt was that - The Minister requests Leave to Appeal on favourable Review Tribunal decisions 10 - 15% of the time, and that witnesses at Review Tribunal hearings will now be required to take an affirmation swearing that the evidence they shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Overall, I think that these events fostering outreach with OCRT are extremely beneficial and helpful.