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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Dixon, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services affirming a decision to refuse a disability support pension. The applicant sought to demonstrate that she met the criteria for the pension, specifically by having conditions that were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, and that these conditions resulted in at least 20 impairment points. The applicant presented a range of conditions including lower and middle back pain, spine and hip pain, shoulder pain, recurrent urine infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), insomnia, depression, and a prolapsed uterus. The review was heard by P E Nolan SM.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's various medical conditions satisfied the requirements of section 94(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), which mandates that all criteria must be met for a continuing inability to work. This involved determining if the conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, and if they attracted the requisite number of impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables. Specifically, the court had to assess the applicant's spinal condition, COPD, mental health condition, and other reported ailments against the evidentiary requirements of the Impairment Tables.

The court found that while the applicant had diagnosed spinal conditions, the corroborating evidence of her impairment was insufficient. Reports dated after the relevant period could not be considered, and the applicant's own testimony regarding her ability to sit for extended periods on a flight, despite requiring wheelchair assistance, did not support the level of impairment required. For her COPD, there was no evidence that it was fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period. The applicant's mental health condition failed to attract points as it was not diagnosed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist as required by Table 3. Furthermore, reports detailing other conditions lacked information regarding their diagnosis, treatment, or stabilisation, precluding any impairment rating. Consequently, as no points could be awarded under the Impairment Tables, the decision under review was affirmed.