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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Aeso against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to affirm a decision that he did not qualify for a Disability Support Pension. The central dispute was whether Mr Aeso suffered an impairment totalling 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the claim period, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine the extent of Mr Aeso's impairments, particularly concerning his spinal function, lower limb function, and upper limb function, in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding Mr Aeso's chronic pain, his ability to perform daily activities, and medical reports from various specialists. Regarding his lumbar spine, the Tribunal accepted that the condition was permanent and assigned a rating of 5 points under Table 4, acknowledging some impairment but finding insufficient corroborating medical evidence for a higher assessment. However, for his cervical spine, the Tribunal found that the claimed severity of symptoms was inconsistent with MRI findings, and the cause of pain was not fully diagnosed or treated during the claim period, meaning it was not permanent and therefore not eligible for a rating under Table 4. For upper limb function, the Tribunal noted scarring and contractures on his right hand from a childhood burn, and shoulder pain, but found insufficient evidence to assess whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised to allow for a rating under the Impairment Tables.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, based on the available evidence, Mr Aeso's impairments did not total 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, he did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the relevant Act and was therefore not eligible for a Disability Support Pension. The decision under review was affirmed.