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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to reject her claim for a Disability Support Pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for receiving this pension, specifically concerning the severity of her impairments and her capacity to work. The case was heard by P J Clauson Am SM.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether the applicant had physical, intellectual, or psychiatric conditions that were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period. Secondly, the Tribunal had to assess if these conditions warranted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. If a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single table was not established, the Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant had completed a program of support. Finally, the Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work.

In its consideration, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had impairments for the purposes of the relevant legislation. However, the respondent contended that these impairments did not attract the required 20-point rating. The Tribunal examined the applicant's upper limb function, specifically her right shoulder, noting extensive medical evidence from treating practitioners. Reports indicated a lack of post-operative improvement, anticipated lifelong pain, limited movement, and lifting restrictions. The applicant required assistance with personal care, dressing, and feeding, and was dependent on others for bathing. Similar difficulties were noted for her left shoulder. Despite these findings, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the applicant did not meet all the qualification requirements for the Disability Support Pension during the qualification period.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision to reject the applicant's claim.