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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Barrington against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether Mr Barrington's various medical conditions, including Meniere's disease, hearing loss, obesity, and a mental health condition, qualified him for the DSP. The case was heard by Ms Anna Burke AO, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Barrington suffered from a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment; whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to continue for at least two years; whether his conditions attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to assess these elements in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including medical reports and assessments. While accepting that Mr Barrington suffered from impairments, the Tribunal found that at the time of his application, his conditions did not attract the required 20 impairment points under the Impairment Tables. Specifically, regarding Meniere's disease, despite a presumptive diagnosis by an ENT surgeon and ongoing treatment, the Tribunal noted that the condition was not considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised to meet the criteria. Similarly, while obesity was diagnosed, it was not considered fully treated and stabilised due to the potential for significant improvement with planned gastric surgery. Hearing loss was considered permanent but did not attract a higher rating due to a lack of significant functional impact.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It concluded that Mr Barrington did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991. Although the Tribunal considered the issue of continuing inability to work for completeness, it found it unnecessary to make a determination on this point as Mr Barrington had already failed to meet the impairment rating requirement.