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

Case

[2019] AATA 3270

5 September 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
English and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 3270 [2019] AATA 3270 5 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by an applicant who listed several conditions including a neck injury, constant headache, neck and back pain, shoulder pain, depression, and anxiety. The applicant's claim for DSP was initially rejected on the basis that her impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. This decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and subsequently by the Social Services Second Review (SSCSD). The applicant sought review of the SSCSD's decision before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether she had a continuing inability to work. Central to this determination was the requirement that any condition considered for impairment rating must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and be more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal considered the applicant's neck condition, mental health condition, and shoulder condition in light of these criteria.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's mental health condition was fully diagnosed, it was not fully treated or stabilised during the relevant period, and the applicant herself agreed with this assessment. Similarly, the applicant's neck condition, though fully diagnosed, was not considered fully treated and stabilised. The applicant's shoulder condition was also found not to be fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised. Consequently, none of these conditions could be considered permanent for the purposes of applying the Impairment Tables, and no impairment points could be assigned.

As the applicant's impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal concluded that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant's continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant was not entitled to a DSP.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Standing

  • Statutory Construction

  • Appeal