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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mrs Franklin and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning her application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mrs Franklin sought a review of the Department's decision that she did not qualify for the DSP, a decision that had been affirmed by an authorised review officer and previously by the AAT. The core of the dispute was whether Mrs Franklin met the legislative requirements for DSP qualification as of her application date, 13 May 2015, or within the subsequent 13-week period.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mrs Franklin possessed a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, and if so, whether this impairment attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the relevant Impairment Tables. Furthermore, it needed to assess if she had a continuing inability to work, defined as working for at least 15 hours per week. The Impairment Tables to be applied were those implemented from 1 January 2012, as set out in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Franklin did have a physical impairment, specifically osteoarthritis of the right hand, which was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. However, when assessing the impairment rating under Table 2 – Upper Limb Function, the Tribunal applied Rule 6(3) of the Impairment Tables, which requires the condition causing the impairment to be permanent and the resulting impairment to be more likely than not to persist for more than two years. Despite acknowledging the progressive nature of osteoarthritis, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish that Mrs Franklin's condition met the threshold for a 20-point rating under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, as the requirement of a 20-point impairment rating was not met, Mrs Franklin did not qualify for the DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the original decision.