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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed a decision to reject the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant, born in 1962, lodged his claim on 7 September 2016, citing visual impairment, left lower limb impairment, and mental health conditions stemming from a work-related incident in 2012 and an assault in 2013. The relevant period for assessing qualification and impairment was between 7 September 2016 and 7 December 2016. An initial rejection of the claim was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer, and subsequently, the AAT1 found the applicant did not meet the DSP criteria, leading to the present review by the AAT2.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, during the qualification period, the applicant’s conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised; whether these conditions attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables; and whether the applicant had completed a program of support and had a continuing inability to work, or was exempt from the program of support and had a continuing inability to work. The applicant understood that he had not completed a program of support and therefore needed to demonstrate either a severe impairment and continuing inability to work, or a total impairment rating of at least 20 points, exemption from the program, and a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's mental health conditions were fully diagnosed, they were not fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period. The applicant's left knee and ankle condition attracted 5 points under Table 3, and his vision condition attracted 5 points under Table 12, resulting in a total impairment rating of 15 points. As this total impairment rating was less than the required 20 points, and the applicant could not be assessed as having a continuing inability to work under section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991, the applicant did not qualify for the DSP.

The decision under review was affirmed.