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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed Services Australia's rejection of the Applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension. The Applicant sought review of the AAT's decision, arguing that his conditions, including a bilateral shoulder condition, left knee pain, and depression, should have attracted an impairment rating sufficient to qualify for the pension.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), and if so, whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and resulted in impairments attracting a rating of at least 20 points under the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011* for the purposes of section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal also considered whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work under section 94(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the Impairment Tables are function-based and assess the functional impact of an impairment, not the condition itself. For an impairment rating to be assigned, the underlying 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 AAT had previously found the Applicant's bilateral shoulder condition was diagnosed but not fully treated or stabilised, his left knee condition was not fully treated, diagnosed, or stabilised, and it had not considered his depressive condition. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's evidence, including a report from a consultant psychiatrist, in its assessment.

The Tribunal affirmed the AAT's decision, finding that the Applicant's conditions did not meet the criteria for being fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and therefore did not attract the required 20-point impairment rating. Consequently, the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements for a Disability Support Pension.