Becke and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 159
•4 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Becke and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 159
[2022] AATA 159
4 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension, with the applicant, Becke, appealing a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for a disability support pension, specifically concerning the degree of impairment and the permanence of his conditions. The case was heard by D Mitchell M.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's medical conditions attracted 20 points or more under the relevant impairment tables during the specified period, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. A key element of this was determining if the applicant's conditions were "permanent" as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and its associated determinations, which required them to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, with a likelihood of persisting for more than two years.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's conditions, including transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs), atrial fibrillation (AF), peripheral neuropathy, and associated lower limb pain, were long-lasting and incurable, they did not meet the statutory definition of "permanent" for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. This was because the conditions were not considered "fully treated and fully stabilised." The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not undertaken all reasonable treatment, had not adhered to treatment recommendations, and his alcohol consumption was a contributing factor. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant's conditions, though fully diagnosed, were not fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period, thus precluding the assignment of impairment points and the granting of the disability support pension.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's medical conditions attracted 20 points or more under the relevant impairment tables during the specified period, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. A key element of this was determining if the applicant's conditions were "permanent" as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and its associated determinations, which required them to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, with a likelihood of persisting for more than two years.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's conditions, including transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs), atrial fibrillation (AF), peripheral neuropathy, and associated lower limb pain, were long-lasting and incurable, they did not meet the statutory definition of "permanent" for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. This was because the conditions were not considered "fully treated and fully stabilised." The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not undertaken all reasonable treatment, had not adhered to treatment recommendations, and his alcohol consumption was a contributing factor. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant's conditions, though fully diagnosed, were not fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period, thus precluding the assignment of impairment points and the granting of the disability support pension.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Becke and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 159
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2012] AATA 922
Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 447
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2015] FCA 1123