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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Mr Fardell, against a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to refuse him a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for the pension, specifically concerning the severity of impairment and the stability of his conditions. The case was heard by Deputy President Sosso of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant's medical conditions attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, and whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised, and permanent. The Tribunal was required to assess these factors in accordance with the legislative requirements for a disability support pension, considering the evidence available at the time of the initial application.

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent conceded the Applicant had impairments for the purposes of the Act. The Applicant's upper limb conditions, specifically chronic pain in his shoulders, neck, and back stemming from a 2004 motor vehicle accident, were accepted as fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised, and permanent. Medical reports from Dr Max Ellis and Dr Sophia Lahz supported this, detailing the Applicant's ongoing pain and functional limitations. However, the Tribunal found that it could not be satisfied that the Applicant met the requirement of having a continuing inability to work, as stipulated in section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

Consequently, as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant had met all the necessary requirements for the disability support pension, it was not necessary to consider the further question of his continuing inability to work. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the pension, was therefore affirmed by the Tribunal.