Chisholm and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 671
•12 April 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Chisholm and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 671
[2019] AATA 671
12 April 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Chisholm against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to cancel his Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Mr Chisholm's various medical conditions, specifically ischaemic heart disease, major depressive disorder, and gout, were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, as required by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining these issues.
The legal questions before the Tribunal were whether Mr Chisholm had one or more impairments, and if so, whether these impairments, when assessed against the Impairment Tables, warranted a total rating of at least 20 points. Crucially, for an impairment to be considered in the assessment, it needed to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised. The Tribunal had to assess each of Mr Chisholm's identified conditions against these criteria.
The Tribunal found that Mr Chisholm had both physical and psychiatric impairments, satisfying the first limb of the eligibility criteria. However, regarding the requirement for conditions to be fully treated and fully stabilised, the Tribunal made specific findings. While Mr Chisholm's knee and back conditions were fully diagnosed, he had not adequately investigated or pursued available treatment options, meaning they were not considered fully treated or stabilised. His gout, though episodic, was found to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, as it was managed with medication. Similarly, his ischaemic heart disease was clearly understood, under regular medical supervision, and treated with medication and dietary advice, leading the Tribunal to find it fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised.
Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Chisholm's DSP, as not all of his impairments met the stringent criteria of being fully treated and fully stabilised to warrant the necessary points under the Impairment Tables.
The legal questions before the Tribunal were whether Mr Chisholm had one or more impairments, and if so, whether these impairments, when assessed against the Impairment Tables, warranted a total rating of at least 20 points. Crucially, for an impairment to be considered in the assessment, it needed to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised. The Tribunal had to assess each of Mr Chisholm's identified conditions against these criteria.
The Tribunal found that Mr Chisholm had both physical and psychiatric impairments, satisfying the first limb of the eligibility criteria. However, regarding the requirement for conditions to be fully treated and fully stabilised, the Tribunal made specific findings. While Mr Chisholm's knee and back conditions were fully diagnosed, he had not adequately investigated or pursued available treatment options, meaning they were not considered fully treated or stabilised. His gout, though episodic, was found to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, as it was managed with medication. Similarly, his ischaemic heart disease was clearly understood, under regular medical supervision, and treated with medication and dietary advice, leading the Tribunal to find it fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised.
Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Chisholm's DSP, as not all of his impairments met the stringent criteria of being fully treated and fully stabilised to warrant the necessary points under the Impairment Tables.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0