Al-Khaled and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to affirm a decision that Mr Al-Khaled did not qualify for a disability support pension (DSP). The applicant, Mr Al-Khaled, contended that he had a severe impairment due to a combination of hemiparesis, a spine condition, and mental health issues. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Al-Khaled suffered a severe functional impairment in accordance with the relevant Impairment Tables under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding Mr Al-Khaled's physical and mental health conditions, including reports from medical professionals and occupational therapists, as well as his own account of his functional capacity. The central legal issue was whether the evidence established a "severe" impairment as defined by the Act, specifically concerning Impairment Tables 1, 2, or 3. The Tribunal had to weigh the applicant's self-reported symptoms against objective evidence and the assessments provided by various professionals.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Al-Khaled had suffered significant impairment from his hemiparesis and lumbar spine condition, the evidence did not consistently demonstrate a severe functional impact during the claim period. The Tribunal placed little weight on a report by Dr Alameddin which indicated severe functional impact, noting that the doctor appeared to misunderstand the application of the Impairment Tables and that Mr Al-Khaled's dominant right limb functioned normally. The Tribunal concluded that the available evidence, including Mr Al-Khaled's ability to travel independently overseas for extended periods, did not support a finding of severe impairment.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Al-Khaled did not meet the criteria for a severe impairment under the Act, and therefore did not qualify for a disability support pension. The decision under review was affirmed.