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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension by Ms Ashley against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether Ms Ashley met the legislative criteria for the pension, specifically concerning the severity of her impairments and her continuing inability to work. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the delegate's decision to affirm the refusal of the pension.

The Tribunal was required to determine three key legal issues. Firstly, whether Ms Ashley possessed any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment at the time of the qualification period. Secondly, if such impairments existed, whether they attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the relevant Impairment Tables. Finally, the Tribunal had to assess whether Ms Ashley had a "continuing inability to work" as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. It noted that impairments must be assessed based on functional capacity, not on what a person chooses to do or what others do for them, and that conditions must be permanent, fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The Tribunal considered medical reports, including one from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon which stated that Ms Ashley did not appear to be suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and suggested a degree of overreaction to her symptomatology. Another report indicated a permanent impairment of 15% of her right leg at or above the knee, but crucially, noted the absence of muscle wasting, a sign usually accompanying significant long-term symptoms. The Tribunal also highlighted that symptoms reported by a person can only be taken into account if there is corroborating evidence.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that it was highly unlikely the application would have succeeded, even if the 20-point impairment threshold had been met. Consequently, the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the disability support pension, was affirmed.