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

This matter concerned an application for a second tier review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by an authorised review officer (ARO) to affirm the refusal of a disability support pension (DSP). The applicant had initially applied for the DSP on 5 February 2014, which was refused on 28 February 2014, and this decision was affirmed by an ARO on 15 May 2014. The applicant subsequently requested a review of the ARO decision on 9 November 2020, leading to a first tier review by the AAT which affirmed the ARO's decision on 5 February 2021. The applicant then sought a second tier review by the General Division of the AAT.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant suffered from conditions causing physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment during the qualification period for her 2014 DSP claim, and if so, whether these impairments were permanent and attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. This required the Tribunal to assess if the applicant's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, which commenced on 5 February 2014 and ended on 7 May 2014. The Tribunal also had to consider the weight to be given to evidence of the applicant's conditions, particularly given the significant time elapsed since the qualification period.

The Tribunal reasoned that a decision on a DSP claim must be made based on the applicant's condition during the qualification period, and evidence of conditions subsequent to this period is only relevant to the weight given to prognostications made during that time. The Tribunal noted that self-reporting of symptoms alone is insufficient and must be corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, evidence based on observations made at or around the qualification period should be given greater weight than later recollections. The Tribunal also considered a preliminary argument by the respondent that there was no utility in determining the review due to the operation of Item 8 of s 147 of the Administration Act, which could deem the ARO decision to have taken effect on the date of the AAT review application, potentially limiting the Tribunal's ability to alter the applicant's entitlement to an earlier date.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the ARO's decision. It found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the grant of a DSP during the qualification period. Specifically, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during that period, nor that they attracted the necessary impairment rating under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also found that the respondent's preliminary argument regarding the utility of the review was not determinative of the substantive issues.