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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Collins 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 Collins' 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 Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine this issue.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Collins' diagnosed conditions were permanent, and whether the resulting impairments were more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal also had to consider how Impairment Ratings were assessed, noting that they are function-based and not designed to assess conditions themselves. A condition is considered "permanent" for these purposes if it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and is likely to persist for more than two years.

The Tribunal reasoned that an Impairment Rating could only be assigned if there was corroborating medical evidence of the impact of Mr Collins' conditions on his functional capacity. While Mr Collins self-reported various difficulties, including pain affecting his ability to perform daily tasks and manipulate objects, the Tribunal found a lack of sufficient corroborating evidence for many of these claims. For instance, while Mr Collins reported difficulty bending and straightening, there was no corroborating evidence for this. Similarly, his self-reported impact of a hernia operation on his ability to urinate lacked corroborating evidence. The Tribunal concluded that impairments could not be assigned an Impairment Rating based on self-report alone.

The Tribunal found that Mr Collins suffered from chronic pain impairment, mental health impairment, and tinnitus impairment. However, due to the lack of corroborating evidence regarding the functional impact of these conditions, and the insufficient information concerning his liver condition, the Tribunal determined that Mr Collins' impairments did not attract an impairment rating of 20 or more points. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.