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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Fishlock against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a decision by Centrelink to refuse her claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Ms Fishlock contended that her various medical conditions were not adequately accounted for in the previous assessments, and that her circumstances had changed. The critical period for determining her eligibility was between 6 July 2015 and 5 October 2015, referred to as the Qualification Period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Fishlock was eligible for a DSP during the Qualification Period. This required determining if she had a continuing inability to work, or alternatively, if she met the criteria under the Impairment Tables, specifically achieving an impairment rating of 20 points or more under one of the tables, given she had not completed 18 months of active participation in a program of support. The Tribunal was required to assess the severity of her conditions, including polycystic kidney disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic obstructive airways disease, back pain, and hypertension, and their impact on her functional capacity.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including medical reports and the applicant's own testimony. Regarding her kidney failure, while it was accepted that the condition was not fully stable during the Qualification Period, the Tribunal found insufficient corroborating medical evidence to support a 20-point impairment rating under Table 1, noting her ability to drive and perform some light shopping. For her post-traumatic stress disorder, the Tribunal assigned a 5-point rating under Table 5, finding it was generally well-managed and caused limited impact, despite her ability to manage dialysis treatment. The Tribunal found no evidence of treatment or prognosis for her chronic obstructive airways disease and back pain, and insufficient evidence for her hypertension to warrant an impairment rating.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Fishlock did not meet the threshold for a 20-point impairment rating under any of the Impairment Tables. As a result, it was not necessary to consider whether she had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.