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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Alicier against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether Mrs Alicier's medical condition constituted a "severe impairment" for the purposes of section 1218AAA(1)(b) of the relevant social security legislation. The case was heard by Deputy F J Alpins P.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mrs Alicier's impairment met the threshold of a "severe impairment" as defined by section 1218AAA(1)(b), and specifically, whether her visual function, brain function, or mental health function impairments warranted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table. The court was required to assess the evidence presented, including medical reports and Mrs Alicier's own testimony and demonstrations, to determine if the qualifying circumstances under section 1218AAA(1) were met.

The court reasoned that while Mrs Alicier had received Disability Support Pension (DSP) and it was not disputed that her impairment was of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables generally, the critical question was whether this rating applied to a single table. The court considered the evidence relating to visual function under Table 12, brain function under Table 7, and mental health function under Table 5. After reviewing the medical evidence and Mrs Alicier's submissions, the court concluded that an impairment rating of 10 points was warranted under Table 5 for her mental health condition, reflecting moderate difficulties. However, the court was not satisfied that the evidence established an impairment rating of 20 points or more under any single Impairment Table, nor that her condition was "permanent" for the purposes of the Determination.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied that Mrs Alicier's impairment constituted a "severe impairment" within the meaning of section 94(3B) of the Act, as required by section 1218AAA(1)(b). As all qualifying circumstances under section 1218AAA(1) must be met conjunctively, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mrs Alicier's maximum portability period for DSP would not be an unlimited period.