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

Case

[2018] AATA 1461

31 May 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Edwards and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 1461 [2018] AATA 1461 31 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the applicant, who claimed to suffer from various physical and psychiatric conditions including PTSD, anxiety disorders, social phobias, arthritis, and thyroid issues. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for a DSP as at 6 September 2016, or within the subsequent 13 weeks. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services was the respondent.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether, during the relevant period, the applicant's impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised; whether these impairments resulted in a functional impairment attracting an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The governing legislation was the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which requires, among other things, that a person have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that rates 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's various medical conditions, accepting that she suffered from several mental health conditions, including stress-related anxiety, depression, general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. However, after reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that it was unable to assign any Impairment Rating Points to the applicant under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the requirement under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

As the applicant failed to meet the threshold of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to consider whether she had a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Jurisdiction

  • Standing

  • Statutory Construction