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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Ms Evans and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning Ms Evans' claim for a disability support pension. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Evans' medical conditions met the criteria for a severe impairment under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), specifically whether her impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Evans had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment during the relevant period, and if so, whether these impairments, individually or in combination, attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. Crucially, the Tribunal had to determine if Ms Evans' conditions were permanent, fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years, as required by the Impairment Tables Rules.

The Tribunal considered reports from Ms Evans' treating doctor, specialists including neurologists and a pain management specialist, and a Job Capacity Assessment. While the Secretary accepted that Ms Evans suffered from several impairments, including hemiplegic migraine, scoliosis, depression, urinary incontinence, and asthma, the core of the decision rested on the application of the Impairment Tables Rules. The Tribunal noted that for an impairment to be considered fully stabilised, a person must have undertaken reasonable treatment, and any further reasonable treatment must be unlikely to result in significant functional improvement enabling them to undertake work in the next two years. Despite evidence of ongoing treatment and specialist opinions suggesting potential future improvements with new treatments, the Tribunal found that Ms Evans' conditions were not fully stabilised in accordance with the Rules.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Evans did not have a "severe impairment" as defined by the Act. As this threshold was not met, the Tribunal did not need to consider other provisions related to participation in support programs.