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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Dawe and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant claimed to have several medical conditions, including inflammatory myopathy, vestibular neuropathy, and gastro-oesophageal reflux disorder (GORD), which he argued rendered him unable to work. The central dispute was whether these impairments met the criteria for a DSP, specifically whether they resulted in a functional impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether the applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant period, which extended from the date of claim (9 August 2016) up to 13 weeks thereafter (8 November 2016). Secondly, the Tribunal had to assess if these conditions, during that period, caused a functional impairment that attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. If this threshold was met, the Tribunal would then consider whether the applicant had a severe impairment or had completed a Program of Support, and finally, whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement for impairments to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised to attract an Impairment Rating. While the applicant's inflammatory myopathy was diagnosed within the relevant period, the medical evidence indicated that it was not fully treated or stabilised. Reports from treating physicians noted that the underlying aetiology remained unclear, there had been limited response to corticosteroids, and a muscle biopsy was pending. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was unable to assign any Impairment Rating points under the Impairment Tables for this condition.

As the applicant failed to meet the threshold of a 20-point impairment rating under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal concluded that he did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991. Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider the further issue of whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the DSP, was upheld.