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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Ellison against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services affirming a decision to refuse him a disability support pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Ellison's impairments attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the relevant impairment tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision was made by Delegate D K Grigg M.

The legal issues before the delegate were whether Mr Ellison's diagnosed conditions were "permanent" for the purposes of the Social Security (Impairment Assessment) Determination 2011 (Cth), and if so, whether the resulting functional impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points. The delegate also considered whether Mr Ellison had a continuing inability to work. The Impairment Tables are designed to assess the functional impact of an impairment, not the condition itself, and an impairment rating can only be assigned if the condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years.

The delegate found that while Mr Ellison suffered from Charcot's Arthropathy, which was accepted as an impairment satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act, there was insufficient evidence to establish that his eye condition and hand condition were impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a). Crucially, regarding the Charcot's Arthropathy, the delegate noted conflicting medical evidence and Mr Ellison's own statements about his functional capacity. Despite medical certificates indicating significant difficulty walking and inability to work, the delegate also considered evidence from a Job Capacity Assessment which recorded Mr Ellison's ability to complete daily living activities, use public transport, and walk for limited periods. The delegate concluded that Mr Ellison's Charcot's Arthropathy impairment did not attract an impairment rating of 20 or more points.

The delegate affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Ellison did not meet the criteria for a disability support pension based on the impairment rating.