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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a review application by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services concerning Ms. Carroll's eligibility for a disability support pension. The dispute centred on the impairment rating attributed to Ms. Carroll's lumbar spine condition, which arose from a motor vehicle accident in 2012. While the existence of her symptoms was not in dispute, the core issue was whether these symptoms met the eligibility threshold of 20 impairment points as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).

The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate impairment rating for Ms. Carroll's lumbar spine condition during the period under review. This involved assessing whether her reported symptoms and functional limitations, particularly in relation to overhead activities, neck movement, bending, and sitting tolerance, translated to the requisite 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of evolving medical diagnoses, specifically the shift from L4/5 facet joint arthropathy to L4/5 spondylolisthesis, and how this affected the assessment of her impairment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the medical opinions and treatment plans had largely been dictated by the initial diagnosis of L4/5 facet joint arthropathy. However, it was bound to assess Ms. Carroll's eligibility based on the evidence presented and the legal requirements of the Act, including the principles established in *Re Bobera*. Based on Ms. Carroll's own evidence at the hearing, where she affirmed her symptoms had remained stable since 2013, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate impairment rating for the period under review was 10 points. This assessment was made in accordance with Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, with specific consideration given to the criteria for performing overhead activities. The Tribunal noted that the rules for applying the Impairment Tables require an activity to be performable normally and on a repetitive or habitual basis, not just occasionally.

The Tribunal determined that Ms. Carroll did not meet the eligibility requirement of 20 impairment points. Consequently, she was not found to have a continuing inability to work as defined by section 94(2) of the Act for the purposes of qualifying for a disability support pension during the relevant period.