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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Bee and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant claimed to have several conditions, including a spinal condition, fibromyalgia, a mental health condition, inflammatory bowel disease, and haemorrhoids, and sought to establish eligibility for the DSP as of 22 December 2016, or within 13 weeks thereafter.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, and if so, whether the applicant met the criteria for a continuing inability to work under section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had impairments, the crucial question was their severity and stability for the purposes of the DSP qualification.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement that conditions must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised to attract impairment points under the Impairment Tables. Evidence, including a Job Capacity Assessor's report and statements from the Secretary, indicated that the applicant's fibromyalgia and mental health conditions were not considered fully diagnosed or stabilised, as treatment had primarily been through a General Practitioner rather than specialists. Furthermore, regarding the spinal condition, while acknowledged as chronic, the Secretary contended that ongoing investigations and treatment during the relevant period suggested it was not fully stabilised. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not achieve a total of 20 or more impairment points under the Tables.

Consequently, as the applicant failed to meet the threshold of 20 impairment points under the Impairment Tables, he did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that it was unnecessary to consider the criterion of continuing inability to work. The decision under review was affirmed.