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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of his disability support pension. The applicant had a history of spinal and lower limb conditions. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services had cancelled the pension on the basis that the applicant's impairment rating, assessed under the Impairment Tables, was less than the required 20 points. The review was conducted under section 27 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), meaning the Impairment Tables as in force on 5 November 2015 were to be applied.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's combined impairment rating from his spinal condition and right leg pain met the threshold of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate point allocation for the applicant's thoracic back condition and his right leg pain, and whether the evidence supported a rating sufficient to maintain his disability support pension.

The court accepted that the applicant's spinal condition attracted 10 points under Table 4 (Spinal Function), reflecting a moderate functional impact. However, the court found that the evidence regarding the applicant's right leg pain was insufficient to attract the necessary 10 points under Table 3 (Lower Limb Function). While the applicant described needing assistance with stairs, the court determined that using a handrail did not constitute "assistance" as contemplated by the legislation, which generally refers to help from another person. The court noted a significant lack of detailed evidence from the applicant, his treating doctors, or observers regarding the functional impact of his leg condition, which prevented it from attributing a 10-point rating. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant's total impairment rating was less than 20 points.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The court noted that it was open to the applicant to seek further medical evidence and reapply for the disability support pension.