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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Chandler against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Chandler's impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under the relevant Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The decision was made by Member D K Grigg.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Chandler's diagnosed conditions were permanent, and if so, whether the resulting functional impairments attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 or more points. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine the appropriate Impairment Table to use for Mr Chandler's spinal impairment and assess the level of functional impact based on the available medical evidence and the criteria set out in the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also considered whether other diagnosed conditions, such as coronary artery disease, could be taken into account for the purposes of the application.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a condition to be considered "permanent" for the purposes of the Impairment Tables, it must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal found that while Mr Chandler suffered from a spinal impairment and a mental health impairment that met the requirements of section 94(1)(a) of the Act, there was insufficient medical evidence regarding the impact, treatment, and stability of his other conditions, such as hypertension and coronary artery disease, to consider them for the disability support pension application. The Tribunal also noted that Impairment Ratings are function-based and assess the level of functional impact, not the conditions themselves.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review, indicating that Mr Chandler's impairments, as assessed under the relevant tables and based on the available evidence, did not meet the threshold for a disability support pension.