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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension, with the applicant, Ms. Cotter, seeking to establish a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services opposed the claim, arguing that the applicant's condition had not been fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for an impairment rating under the Social Security legislation.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's mental health condition was "fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised" for the purposes of assigning an impairment rating. This required consideration of whether the condition had been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, what treatment or rehabilitation had occurred, whether treatment was continuing or planned, and whether the condition was stabilised. The Tribunal also had to consider whether there was a compelling reason for the applicant not to undertake reasonable treatment, drawing on established legal principles regarding the interpretation of such provisions.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a mental health condition to be considered fully diagnosed, it must be diagnosed by a psychiatrist or include evidence from a clinical psychologist. The evidence indicated that the applicant had refused prescribed medication on multiple occasions, creating a barrier to a full assessment by her treating doctors. Furthermore, while the applicant had engaged in some counselling and review with a mental health nurse, the current status of this support was unclear, and planned treatment was not definitively established. The Tribunal noted that a condition is stabilised if no significant functional improvement is expected, or if there is a compelling reason not to undertake reasonable treatment. Applying the principles from *Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Jansen*, the Tribunal considered whether there was a reason that compelled the applicant not to undertake treatment, acknowledging that this involved elements of both objective and subjective considerations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's mental health condition had not been fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period. Consequently, no impairment rating could be assigned, and the decision under review was affirmed.