CH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

CH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

The claimant did not prove a severe disability by December 31, 2016 because contemporaneous medical and functional evidence indicated capability to perform sedentary or accommodated work; recommended treatments had not been exhausted and significant deterioration occurred after the MQP and was therefore irrelevant; consequently the appeal was dismissed without deciding prolonged status.

Citation
2021 SST 432
Parties
Appellant (claimant): C. H.; Respondent (minister): Minister of Employment and Social Development
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan Disability / General Division – Income Security Section Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Pension Eligibility, Severe and Prolonged Test, Functional Capacity Assessment, Treatment Compliance and Exhaustion
Source Language
English
Social Security Administrative Law Canada Pension Plan Disability Disability Pension Eligibility Severe and Prolonged Test Functional Capacity Assessment Treatment Compliance and Exhaustion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. H.

Appellant (claimant)

Minister of Employment and Social Development

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan Disability / General Division – Income Security Section Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a severe disability by the minimum qualifying period (December 31, 2016)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's disability was prolonged
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's functional limitations precluded regularly pursuing any substantially gainful occupation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not prove a severe disability by December 31, 2016 because contemporaneous medical and functional evidence indicated capability to perform sedentary or accommodated work; recommended treatments had not been exhausted and significant deterioration occurred after the MQP and was therefore irrelevant; consequently the appeal was dismissed without deciding prolonged status.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed