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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension, brought by the Applicant against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, a prerequisite for satisfying subsection 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), presided over by Senior Member Mrs J C Kelly, was tasked with determining the Applicant's eligibility for the pension based on their medical condition during a specific qualification period.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's various impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, and consequently, whether these impairments resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented, including medical reports and oral testimony, to ascertain the status of the Applicant's conditions at the relevant time, noting that subsequent changes in health were only relevant insofar as they illuminated the position during the qualification period.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an impairment rating to be assigned under the Impairment Tables, the condition must be permanent. Permanence, as defined by the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, requires the condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised. The Tribunal found that none of the Applicant's conditions met these criteria for permanence during the qualification period. Specifically, a diagnosed psychotic illness was not considered fully diagnosed within that period, and the adjustment disorder with depression and dysthymia, while diagnosed, was not considered fully treated and stabilised, with a treating psychiatrist indicating an expectation of future improvement. As a result, no impairment points could be assigned, and the Applicant's impairment rating was determined to be nil.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The reviewable decision of the Department was therefore affirmed.