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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension by the Applicant, Mr. Brown, against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether Mr. Brown met the eligibility criteria for the pension, specifically concerning the diagnosis, treatment, and stabilisation of his medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and depression, during the relevant qualification period. The case was heard by C Edwardes M of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether Mr. Brown had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments during the qualification period. Secondly, if impairments were found, the Tribunal had to assess whether these impairments attracted ratings of at least 20 points under the relevant Impairment Tables. Finally, the Tribunal had to consider whether, assuming the impairment threshold was met, Mr. Brown had a continuing inability to work as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement that for an impairment to be assessed under the Impairment Tables, it must be permanent, meaning it must be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal found that while some conditions, such as osteoarthritis and depression, were diagnosed during the qualification period, they were not considered fully treated and stabilised. For instance, Mr. Brown was awaiting specialist pain clinic consultations for his osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, and his psychological treatment for depression had only recently commenced and was ongoing. The Tribunal also noted that the diagnosis of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome appeared to be made outside the qualification period, or at least lacked sufficient corroborating evidence within that period. Furthermore, the Tribunal indicated that even if the 20-point impairment threshold had been met, it was unlikely the application would have succeeded due to the lack of a continuing inability to work.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the previous decision, finding that Mr. Brown did not qualify for a disability support pension.