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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Farrell against the cancellation of his Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Farrell, who was 58 years old, had initially been granted a DSP in 2008 due to chronic lower back pain and depression stemming from a workplace injury. Following an allegation of fraudulent activity, which was not pursued by Centrelink, a review of his entitlement was initiated. A Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) conducted in May 2016 found that his spinal condition attracted 10 points under the Impairment Tables, his depression was not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised, and his gout was not fully treated or stabilised. Consequently, Centrelink notified Mr Farrell that his DSP was cancelled as his impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. An internal review affirmed this decision.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine three key issues: whether Mr Farrell had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment; whether these impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The parties accepted that Mr Farrell suffered from chronic back pain, depression, and gout, thus satisfying the first requirement of having an impairment. The central dispute revolved around the assessment of his impairments against the Impairment Tables and the definition of a "continuing inability to work" under the Social Security Act 1991.

The Tribunal considered the evidence regarding Mr Farrell's chronic lower back pain, noting that previous JCA reports had awarded 20 points for spinal function. However, the most recent JCA report, conducted by telephone, awarded only 10 points, finding a moderate functional impact. The Tribunal also noted that while gout was diagnosed, Mr Farrell's intermittent non-compliance with medication meant it was not fully treated or stabilised, precluding any points being awarded for this condition. Regarding depression, the JCA found it was not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised, meaning no impairment rating could be assigned. Crucially, the Tribunal found that Mr Farrell's chronic lower back pain, when assessed against Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, attracted 20 points. This finding meant that Mr Farrell satisfied the requirement of having impairments that rated 20 points or more.

Having determined that Mr Farrell met the 20-point threshold for his chronic lower back pain, the Tribunal then considered whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Farrell's work opportunities were limited by his lack of education and training, as well as his remote location and the available job market. However, it was clarified that these factors were not to be considered in the determination of a continuing inability to work, which focused solely on whether the impairment itself was sufficient to prevent him from doing any work or undertaking training activities within the next two years, independently of any support programs. The Tribunal's decision was that Mr Farrell's chronic lower back pain attracted 20 points under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, thereby satisfying the criteria for a DSP.