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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Bariesheff and the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The applicant sought a Disability Support Pension (DSP), and the central dispute concerned whether her various medical conditions qualified her for the pension during a specific "Relevant Period" in 2016. The applicant presented evidence of a spine condition, mental health issues, fibromyalgia, asthma, and epilepsy.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain if the applicant's impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised within the Relevant Period. Secondly, the Tribunal had to assess whether these conditions, individually or in combination, resulted in a functional impairment attracting an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. If a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single table was not met, the Tribunal also needed to consider if the applicant had completed a Program of Support. Finally, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from multiple impairments, including a long-standing spine condition, the critical question was whether these impairments attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. After reviewing the medical evidence, particularly the reports from Dr. Tadros detailing the applicant's severe and persistent back pain, the Tribunal noted that the respondent accepted the spine condition was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. However, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the applicant did not achieve a total of 20 or more impairment points under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the requirement under section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991.

As the applicant failed to meet the threshold of 20 or more impairment points, the Tribunal determined it was unnecessary to consider the further criterion of a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension was not successful on these grounds.