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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Battaia against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Battaia's medical conditions, specifically a spinal impairment and a vision impairment, were permanent and resulted in a functional impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. The case was heard by Member D K Grigg.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Battaia's spinal impairment and vision impairment were permanent, and if so, whether these impairments attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 or more points as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The assessment of these impairments was to be conducted using the Impairment Tables, which are designed to measure the functional impact of a condition rather than the condition itself.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented for each impairment. For the spinal impairment, the Tribunal found that while Dr Brits' report indicated pain and restricted neck movement, there was insufficient corroborating evidence to meet the criteria for a 20-point rating, which requires inability to perform specific activities such as overhead movements or bending without trunk movement. The Tribunal did, however, assign a 10-point rating for the spinal impairment, noting its deteriorating nature. Regarding the vision impairment, the Tribunal accepted the medical evidence, including Dr Brits' report, that Mr Battaia was legally blind and that this condition was permanent and likely to persist for at least two years, thus satisfying the criteria for an Impairment Rating under Table 12.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Battaia's vision impairment attracted an Impairment Rating under Table 12. While the spinal impairment was also recognised, it did not meet the threshold for a 20-point rating based on the available evidence. The decision under review was affirmed, though it was noted that Mr Battaia had since been receiving the disability support pension following a new claim.