Bennett and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2016] AATA 899
•14 November 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bennett and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 899
[2016] AATA 899
14 November 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the cancellation of their Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant, who was 22 years old and diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Level 1, subtype Asperger’s syndrome, contended that their impairment attracted at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables and that they had a continuing inability to work or undertake a training activity for 15 hours or more per week within the next two years. The respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, had cancelled the DSP. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a qualifying impairment and whether they met the criteria for a continuing inability to work.
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant possessed a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Specifically, the Tribunal examined the applicant's intellectual impairment, Asperger's syndrome, and determined if it was fully treated, diagnosed, and stabilised as at the date of cancellation. The Tribunal also assessed the applicant's capacity to work or engage in training activities, considering whether any such participation would enable them to work independently of a support program within two years of the DSP cancellation.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had an intellectual impairment, Asperger's syndrome, which was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised on 17 March 2015, and that this impairment attracted sufficient points under Table 7 of the Impairment Tables. While acknowledging a potential future capacity to work 15 hours per week with interventions, the Tribunal found that this would likely take longer than two years from the cancellation date. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had a continuing inability to work on 19 March 2015. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a decision that the applicant was qualified for the disability support pension on that date.
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant possessed a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Specifically, the Tribunal examined the applicant's intellectual impairment, Asperger's syndrome, and determined if it was fully treated, diagnosed, and stabilised as at the date of cancellation. The Tribunal also assessed the applicant's capacity to work or engage in training activities, considering whether any such participation would enable them to work independently of a support program within two years of the DSP cancellation.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had an intellectual impairment, Asperger's syndrome, which was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised on 17 March 2015, and that this impairment attracted sufficient points under Table 7 of the Impairment Tables. While acknowledging a potential future capacity to work 15 hours per week with interventions, the Tribunal found that this would likely take longer than two years from the cancellation date. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had a continuing inability to work on 19 March 2015. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a decision that the applicant was qualified for the disability support pension on that date.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Bennett and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 899
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
1