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

This matter concerned a review of a decision regarding Ms Athurugiriya's eligibility for a disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether her impairments met the criteria for a permanent condition attracting a sufficient impairment rating under the Social Security legislation. The case came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Ms Athurugiriya's diagnosed conditions resulted in functional impairments that were permanent. Secondly, if the conditions were permanent, whether these impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the relevant Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the definition of "permanent" for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. It noted that a condition is considered permanent only if it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and is more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal considered the available medical evidence, including reports from Dr Borja-Erece and Dr Sumanasekera regarding Ms Athurugiriya's foot pain and difficulty with weight bearing, and a report from Mr Gerhardt concerning her mental health. The Tribunal found that while Ms Athurugiriya suffered from spinal, mental health, and plantar fasciitis impairments, the evidence did not establish that these conditions were fully treated or stabilised to the extent required by the legislation to attract a permanent impairment rating. The Tribunal applied the principles that self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient and that corroborating evidence of functional impact is necessary.