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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Dewis against a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on whether Mrs Dewis met the criteria for a disability support pension, specifically whether she had an impairment rating of 20 points or more and a continuing inability to work during the relevant qualification period. The case was heard by Ms L Rieper, Member.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Mrs Dewis had an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the qualification period. Secondly, if such an impairment rating was established, whether she had a continuing inability to work as defined by section 94(2) of the relevant Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement that for an impairment rating to be assigned, the relevant impairment must have been fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years during the qualification period. The qualification period was identified as the 13 weeks commencing on 7 August 2018. The Tribunal found that neither Mrs Dewis' vaginal prolapse nor her right shoulder impairment met this criterion. Regarding the vaginal prolapse, despite a long history of symptoms and multiple surgeries, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the condition was not fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period, as Mrs Dewis was undergoing rehabilitation. Similarly, for the right shoulder impairment, while some recovery occurred by March 2019, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period, finding the contemporaneous evidence inconsistent with later statements.

As the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mrs Dewis' impairments were fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period, it could not proceed to consider an impairment rating. Consequently, the Tribunal did not make an impairment rating and therefore did not consider the second limb of the test regarding her continuing inability to work.