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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mrs Clacy, who cited fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) as her health conditions. Following an initial rejection by the Department of Social Services and affirmation by an Authorised Review Officer, Mrs Clacy sought review by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal. This hearing represented a second-tier review of the Tribunal's previous decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mrs Clacy possessed a physical, psychological, or mental impairment that attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables, and whether she had a continuing inability to work. Crucially, for an impairment to be assigned a rating, it must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal was required to assess each of Mrs Clacy's cited conditions against these criteria and the relevant Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Clacy's fibromyalgia was fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, with medical evidence from a specialist rheumatologist supporting this conclusion. However, the Tribunal noted that impairments could only be assigned under one Impairment Table. While the Job Capacity Assessment recommended assigning points for fibromyalgia under Table 3 (Lower Limb Function) and Table 2 (Upper Limb Function), the Tribunal determined that the medical evidence did not support assigning a rating under Table 13 (Continence Functions) due to a lack of corroborative evidence regarding her continence issues, despite anecdotal mention by her husband. Similarly, her diabetes mellitus was considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, but no functional impairment rating was assigned under Table 1, as it was assessed as not impacting her physical exertion or stamina.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Social Security Act 1991 had been correctly applied. The outcome was that Mrs Clacy did not meet the criteria for a DSP.