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

Case

[2022] AATA 1237

17 May 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Blazeski and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 1237 [2022] AATA 1237 17 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Blazeski, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to affirm a decision that he did not qualify for a Disability Support Pension. The applicant's claimed conditions included cardiomyopathy, hypertension, chronic lower back pain, and hearing loss.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of section 94(1)(b) and section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's impairments were of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and whether he had a continuing inability to work during the qualification period.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant suffered from the claimed medical conditions and that these conditions had a profound and painful effect on his life. However, it found that suffering from such conditions was not sufficient to meet the specific requirements of section 94(1)(b). While the respondent conceded that the applicant's cardiac condition, including hypertension, was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, it was also conceded, and the Tribunal agreed, that this condition only warranted 10 impairment points under the Tables. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not participated in a program of support and therefore, for section 94(1)(b) to be satisfied, at least one medical condition must have had a serious functional impact evident during the qualification period. The Tribunal also expressed doubt as to whether the applicant would have satisfied section 94(1)(c) regarding a continuing inability to work during the qualification period.

Consequently, as the applicant failed to meet the requirement in section 94(1)(b) of the Act, he was found to have no entitlement to a Disability Support Pension. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Standing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0