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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which affirmed the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to reject the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant sought review of the AAT's decision, asserting ongoing pain in her arms, shoulders, and lower back due to osteoarthritis and sciatica.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment(s) during the qualification period, which was the date of her claim (1 May 2019) and the subsequent 13 weeks. If an impairment was found, the court had to consider whether the applicant's condition(s) were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and whether these conditions resulted in an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. Finally, the court needed to assess if the applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined by the Social Security Act 1991.

The court found that while the applicant's impairments, including back pain and osteoarthritis, an upper limb condition, and left ankle pain, were fully diagnosed during the qualification period, they were not fully treated and stabilised. Evidence indicated that the applicant had not proceeded with recommended chronic disease management for her back pain and osteoarthritis, and her upper limb and ankle conditions were still undergoing treatment or had not had proposed treatments pursued. Consequently, the impairments did not attract the required impairment rating under the Impairment Tables.

As the applicant's impairments did not meet the criteria for a 20-point impairment rating, she did not qualify for the DSP during the relevant qualification period. Therefore, the decision under review was affirmed. The court noted that the applicant could lodge a further claim based on her current circumstances, which would be assessed against a new qualification period.