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

This matter concerned an appeal by Miss Arber against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services concerning her eligibility for a disability support pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Miss Arber suffered from a severe functional impairment due to a cervical spine condition, as required to qualify for the pension. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining the extent of her functional impairment.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Miss Arber had a severe functional impairment of spinal function, warranting a rating of 20 points under Impairment Table 4, and whether this impairment, combined with other factors, qualified her for a disability support pension under section 94(1)(b) and (c) of the relevant Act. The Tribunal also considered the impact of her opiate dependence on her claimed impairment and whether her medical condition was fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the available medical evidence against the descriptors in Impairment Table 4. It noted that while Miss Arber experienced chronic pain and limitations, her ability to drive for extended periods daily as a casual driver for disabled children, and her admission that she could perform most activities of daily living, were inconsistent with a severe functional impairment. The Tribunal found that her opiate dependence complicated the assessment of her claimed impairment, and recent improvements in her sleep following medication changes suggested her condition was not fully stabilised during the qualification period. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence supported a moderate functional impact, equating to 10 points under Impairment Table 4, which did not meet the threshold for a severe functional impairment.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that Miss Arber did not satisfy the requirements for a disability support pension under section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The decision under review, which affirmed the denial of the pension, was therefore affirmed.