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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the rejection of Ms Blake's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Ms Blake had lodged her claim on 3 March 2017, listing conditions including anxiety disorder, panic attacks, osteoarthritis, and medication side effects. The Department initially rejected her claim, a decision affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer, and subsequently by the AAT. Ms Blake then sought review of the AAT's decision in this Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Blake met the qualification criteria for a DSP as stipulated in section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (the Act). Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Blake had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, if this impairment attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and if she had a continuing inability to work, all assessed as at the date of her claim (3 March 2017) or within the subsequent 13-week qualification period.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a DSP claim to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate a fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised condition within the qualification period. It noted that any subsequent progression of a medical condition after the qualification period cannot be used to directly award a DSP, and if such progression occurs, a new application is necessary. In Ms Blake's case, the Tribunal found that the weight of the medical evidence indicated only a mild functional impact from her mental health condition, attracting an impairment rating of 5 points under Table 5. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Blake did not have any fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised conditions during the qualification period, and therefore no impairment rating could be assigned. As she did not satisfy the requirement of an impairment rating of 20 points or more under section 94(1)(b) of the Act, it was unnecessary to consider the criterion of a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.