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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a review of decisions made by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services concerning a claim for a disability support pension and a mobility allowance. The applicant, Mr Caelho, had his claim for a disability support pension rejected, and the Tribunal was asked to determine whether his conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, and if they attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points. Additionally, the Tribunal reviewed the decision regarding the mobility allowance, specifically whether the applicant was unable to use public transport without substantial assistance, and whether he was engaged in voluntary work for at least 15 hours per week or undertaking job search activities.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a disability support pension, which involved assessing the diagnosis, treatment, and stabilisation of his medical conditions, and the severity of his impairments. For the mobility allowance, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's inability to use public transport without substantial assistance was established, and if he met the work or job search requirements. The Tribunal also considered whether any exemption from participation in a program of support applied.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant's conditions were not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant qualification period for the disability support pension. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the medical evidence did not establish an impairment rating of at least 20 points. Regarding the mobility allowance, the Tribunal noted contradictory medical evidence concerning the applicant's ability to use public transport without substantial assistance, and found that the applicant had not demonstrated engagement in voluntary work for at least 15 hours per week or active job search activities. No participation exemption was established. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.