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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Arkell against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a decision of the Department of Social Services to reject her application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core dispute revolved around whether Ms Arkell met the criteria for a DSP, specifically concerning the severity of her impairments and her capacity to work.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Arkell suffered from physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments, and if so, whether these impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to determine if Ms Arkell had a "severe impairment" as defined by the Social Security Act 1991, which, if not met, required her to have actively participated in a program of support and be unable to work 15 hours or more per week.

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration Act 1999, along with the Impairment Tables Determination. The Determination requires that for an impairment to be considered permanent and eligible for a rating, it must be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for two years. The assessment is based on functional capacity rather than diagnosis alone, and self-reported symptoms require corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that multiple conditions causing a combined impairment should be assessed under a single table to avoid double-counting. Ms Arkell’s evidence indicated she managed her conditions, including diabetes and multiple sclerosis, with coping strategies, and had been working full-time until shortly before her claim.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that while Ms Arkell's impairments could attract 20 impairment points, they did not constitute a "severe impairment" under the Act. Furthermore, she had not met the requirement to actively participate in a program of support. Consequently, Ms Arkell did not qualify for the DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the AAT's decision to reject her application.