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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the appeal of an applicant seeking a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant listed several conditions including an above-knee amputation, cardiac ischemia, lumbar fusion, double bypass surgery, and dyslexia. A decision had previously been made to reject the DSP claim on the basis that the applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables. An Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed this decision, finding that while some conditions were permanent, they were not fully treated and stabilised, and therefore could not be assessed under the tables, resulting in a nil impairment rating. The Social Services & Child Support Division (SSCSD) subsequently affirmed the ARO's decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, whether these impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The Impairment Tables, established under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, are designed to assess the functional impact of impairments rather than the diagnoses themselves. Crucially, the Tables can only be applied after a person's medical history in relation to the condition has been considered, and self-reported symptoms require corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991, several of his conditions, including peripheral vascular neuropathy, his right above-knee amputation, spine, and heart conditions, were not fully treated or stabilised during the relevant period. Consequently, these conditions could not be considered permanent for the application of the Impairment Tables, and no points could be assigned. The applicant's diabetes was found to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised with minimal functional impact, attracting 0 points. His right finger amputation and dyslexia were also found not to be fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, precluding the assignment of impairment points. As the applicant's impairments did not attract more than 20 points under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.