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.