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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Barbuto against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his claim for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Barbuto's multiple physical and psychiatric medical conditions, including Crohn's disease, were permanent as at the qualification period, and whether these conditions, when assessed under the Impairment Tables, indicated a continuing inability to work. The case was heard by K. Parker M.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Barbuto had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments as at the qualification period, and if so, whether these conditions were permanent. Permanence required an assessment of whether the conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. The court also needed to determine if these impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and consequently, whether Mr Barbuto had a continuing inability to work. Finally, if a severe impairment was not found, the court had to consider if he had satisfied program of support requirements.

The court applied the principle that an applicant's entitlement must be considered as at the date of their claim and a subsequent period thereafter, with any later changes being irrelevant unless they shed light on the position at the relevant time, as established in *Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations*. The court found that Mr Barbuto's medical conditions resulted in a loss of functional capacity affecting his ability to work, thus satisfying the requirement of having an impairment. Furthermore, the court determined that Mr Barbuto had a "continuing inability to work" as defined under the Act as at the qualification period.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a new decision finding that, as at the qualification period, Mr Barbuto met the eligibility requirements under subsections 94(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act.