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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Applicant, Mr Boccaccio, against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The Applicant's claim for DSP, lodged on 24 January 2018, listed several medical conditions including lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spondylosis, hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), depression with anxiety, and iron deficiency. A subsequent Job Capacity Assessment found that only HAVS was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and that it attracted zero impairment points. The Applicant's claim was rejected, and this decision was affirmed on review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The central legal issues before the AAT were whether the Applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised (FDTS) during the qualification period, and whether these conditions attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points according to the relevant Impairment Tables under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension 2011) Determination 2011. To qualify for the DSP, the Applicant needed to demonstrate a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment attracting a rating of 20 impairment points, a continuing inability to work, and potentially participation in a program of support if the impairment was not severe.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's oral evidence regarding his functional impairment at the time of his DSP application was unsatisfactory due to poor memory, and he could not differentiate between his impairment then and his current condition. The Tribunal emphasised that self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient for impairment assessment; a diagnosis by a qualified medical practitioner and corroborating evidence of impairment are required. While the Applicant clearly suffered from a degenerative spine condition, the medical evidence presented was not directed to the specific date of the DSP application or the qualification period, nor did it sufficiently establish the extent of functional impairment or whether the condition was FDTS at that relevant time.

Ultimately, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the Applicant met the criteria for a DSP, specifically regarding the requirement for a diagnosed and corroborated impairment rating of 20 points or more during the qualification period. The Applicant's reliance on his statement and his inability to provide specific evidence of his impairment at the relevant time meant the necessary evidentiary threshold was not met.