Darcy and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2017] AATA 1618
•5 October 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Darcy and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1618
[2017] AATA 1618
5 October 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by the applicant for a disability support pension (DSP) following a review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The applicant's claim for DSP was assessed based on multiple impairments, and the central dispute revolved around whether these impairments, when assessed under the Impairment Tables, reached the threshold of 20 points or more, and whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The case was heard by Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments, as assessed under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, rated at 20 points or more. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a continuing inability to work, a key criterion for DSP eligibility under section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The assessment period for these criteria was from the date of claim, 2 December 2015, to 2 March 2016.
The Senior Member reasoned that the Impairment Tables are function-based and require assessment of what a person can do, provided the condition is permanent. Permanence is defined as a condition that is fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. The Senior Member considered the evidence regarding the applicant's medical conditions, treatment history, and prognosis. Based on this assessment, the Senior Member was satisfied that the applicant met all the eligibility requirements for the DSP as at the date of her claim.
Consequently, the decision under review was set aside. In substitution, the Tribunal decided that the applicant satisfied the requirements of section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and was therefore granted a Disability Support Pension with effect from 2 December 2015.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments, as assessed under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, rated at 20 points or more. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a continuing inability to work, a key criterion for DSP eligibility under section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The assessment period for these criteria was from the date of claim, 2 December 2015, to 2 March 2016.
The Senior Member reasoned that the Impairment Tables are function-based and require assessment of what a person can do, provided the condition is permanent. Permanence is defined as a condition that is fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. The Senior Member considered the evidence regarding the applicant's medical conditions, treatment history, and prognosis. Based on this assessment, the Senior Member was satisfied that the applicant met all the eligibility requirements for the DSP as at the date of her claim.
Consequently, the decision under review was set aside. In substitution, the Tribunal decided that the applicant satisfied the requirements of section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and was therefore granted a Disability Support Pension with effect from 2 December 2015.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Darcy and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1618
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2012] AATA 922
Nitesh Kumar and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 442