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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Conroy against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding the cancellation of his Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core dispute revolved around whether Mr Conroy met the eligibility criteria for DSP, specifically concerning the severity and permanence of his impairments. The case was heard by Mr Conrad Ermert, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Conroy suffered from physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments, whether these impairments attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. A key preliminary issue was determining the relevant date for assessing Mr Conroy's qualification for DSP, with the Respondent arguing it should be the date of cancellation, a position supported by the Tribunal by reference to the Federal Court decision in *Freeman*.

The Tribunal considered Mr Conroy's evidence regarding his psychiatric condition, including his treatment history and his views on medical assessments. It was noted that Mr Conroy had been diagnosed with OCD, depression, and adjustment disorder, and the Respondent conceded this constituted a psychiatric impairment. However, the Tribunal found that for an impairment rating to be assigned under the Impairment Tables, the condition must be permanent, meaning it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and is likely to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Conroy's mental health condition could not be assigned an impairment rating because it did not meet the criteria for permanence, specifically that it had not been fully treated or stabilised.

As Mr Conroy's impairment did not attract the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables, he failed to satisfy a cumulative requirement for DSP eligibility. Consequently, the Tribunal did not need to consider his continuing inability to work. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Conroy was not qualified for DSP at the relevant date.