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

This matter concerned an appeal by CPJP against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services (DSS) to refuse her claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). CPJP’s claim was assessed under section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) (the Act), which requires a person to have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that scores 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and to have a continuing inability to work. The relevant Impairment Tables were those implemented from 1 January 2012.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether CPJP met the qualification criteria for DSP. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if CPJP’s impairments, assessed under the Impairment Tables, were of 20 points or more. If this threshold was met, the Tribunal would then need to consider whether she had a continuing inability to work, as defined by section 94(2) of the Act. The Tribunal also considered the application of Schedule 2, clause 4(1) of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) and section 36(1) of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth) regarding the calculation of the claim period.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding CPJP's delayed sleep phase circadian rhythm disorder, depression, and back pain. While the Tribunal accepted that CPJP suffered from these conditions and that her sleep disorder could be assessed under Table 7 of the Impairment Tables, it found that the descriptors for a severe impairment (20 points or more) under that table, which require frequent assistance from another person, were not met. CPJP stated she did not require daily assistance from her housemates. The Tribunal also noted that CPJP felt her condition might align better with Table 5 (Mental Health Function), and that a single condition could be assessed under multiple relevant tables. However, because CPJP’s claim failed to satisfy the requirement of a 20-point impairment under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal concluded it was unnecessary to consider the "continuing inability to work" criteria.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision that CPJP was not qualified for DSP during the claim period. Despite expressing sympathy for CPJP's debilitating condition and encouraging her to obtain a contemporary diagnosis for any future claims, the Tribunal found itself bound by the requirements of the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011*.