De Jong and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2016] AATA 503
•19 July 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
De Jong and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 503
[2016] AATA 503
19 July 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Ms de Jong against the cancellation of her Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Department of Social Services was the respondent. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Ms de Jong met the criteria for qualification for a DSP under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth).
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms de Jong had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether she had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal considered evidence regarding Ms de Jong's long-standing diagnosis of epilepsy, including the frequency and nature of her seizures, her medication regime, and her educational and employment history. It also considered a recent diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder with early depression and anxious personality traits, made by a psychiatrist.
The Tribunal found that Ms de Jong satisfied the criterion of having a physical impairment under section 94(1)(a) of the Act due to her epilepsy. However, based on the evidence presented at the time of the cancellation of her DSP, the Tribunal determined that her epilepsy attracted an impairment rating of only 10 points under Table 15 of the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal further noted that her claimed anxiety and depression had not been diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist at that time, and therefore could not attract an impairment rating. Consequently, Ms de Jong did not meet the threshold of 20 points or more required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act, and her DSP had been correctly cancelled. While a diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder had since been made, and further treatment for her epilepsy was being considered, these developments did not alter the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the cancellation date. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms de Jong had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether she had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal considered evidence regarding Ms de Jong's long-standing diagnosis of epilepsy, including the frequency and nature of her seizures, her medication regime, and her educational and employment history. It also considered a recent diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder with early depression and anxious personality traits, made by a psychiatrist.
The Tribunal found that Ms de Jong satisfied the criterion of having a physical impairment under section 94(1)(a) of the Act due to her epilepsy. However, based on the evidence presented at the time of the cancellation of her DSP, the Tribunal determined that her epilepsy attracted an impairment rating of only 10 points under Table 15 of the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal further noted that her claimed anxiety and depression had not been diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist at that time, and therefore could not attract an impairment rating. Consequently, Ms de Jong did not meet the threshold of 20 points or more required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act, and her DSP had been correctly cancelled. While a diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder had since been made, and further treatment for her epilepsy was being considered, these developments did not alter the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the cancellation date. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
De Jong and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 503
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0