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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Djuric against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to cancel his disability support pension. The dispute arose because Mr. Djuric had applied for portability of his pension to Serbia, which triggered a review of his eligibility. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Mr. Djuric continued to meet the criteria for receiving the disability support pension.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Djuric's impairments rated 20 or more points according to the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to assess the functional impact of Mr. Djuric's spinal condition, considering evidence from both Mr. Djuric and his treating general practitioner, Dr. Tomka, against the relevant Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr. Djuric's spinal condition was diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, the assessment of its functional impact was critical. The Secretary contended for a rating of zero points under Table 3 and five points under Table 4. Mr. Djuric, supported by Dr. Tomka, argued for higher ratings, including 30 points under Table 4 and 20 points under Table 5. The Tribunal applied the rules for the Impairment Tables, which stipulate that multiple impairments from a single condition must be assessed under the relevant tables without double-counting. After considering the evidence, including Mr. Djuric's own testimony about his daily activities and travel, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Djuric could only be allocated a total of five impairment points under Table 4.

As Mr. Djuric's conditions did not meet the threshold of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables on the date his disability support pension was cancelled, he did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the pension. Consequently, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to determine whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision under review was affirmed.