Abbas and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension by Mr Abbas, with the Secretary of the Department of Social Services as the respondent. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Abbas met the eligibility criteria for the pension, specifically concerning the severity and stability of his impairments.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Abbas’ impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether he suffered a severe impairment as defined by the relevant legislation. This involved assessing whether his conditions, including cerebral palsy, asthma, and vision issues, resulted in a continuing inability to work, as required for the disability support pension. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence against the criteria set out in the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Abbas’ cerebral palsy had a significant impact on his functioning, the available medical evidence was incomplete, superficial, and inconsistent, relying heavily on self-reporting without independent assessment. Consequently, the severity of this impairment could not be meaningfully determined, although a total rating of 20 points under Tables 2, 3, and 8 was considered appropriate. However, there was insufficient corroborative evidence to establish a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table. Regarding his asthma, the evidence indicated it was not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the claim period, precluding a rating. Similarly, for his vision, the lack of evidence regarding his visual acuity with corrective glasses meant a rating under Table 12 could not be assigned.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Abbas did not have a severe impairment as defined by the Act during the claim period. Furthermore, as he had not actively participated in a Program of Support, he did not demonstrate a continuing inability to work. Therefore, he did not satisfy section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 and did not qualify for the disability support pension. The decision under review was affirmed.