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

This matter came before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, with Ms. Frenz seeking review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning her eligibility for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Ms. Frenz's various medical conditions, including depression, adjustment disorder, urinary incontinence, spinal condition, and lower limb conditions, met the criteria for a disability support pension under the Impairment Tables, specifically whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant qualification period, and whether they resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms. Frenz's mental health condition was permanent, meaning it was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. It also had to assess whether her urinary incontinence was fully treated and stabilised, considering the medical advice and Ms. Frenz's decisions regarding recommended treatments, including surgery. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to consider the overall impact of all her conditions in determining her eligibility for the pension.

The Tribunal reasoned that Ms. Frenz's mental health condition could not be assigned an impairment rating because there was insufficient evidence of it being fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period. This was based on the lack of evidence of ongoing psychiatric review or psychological counselling, and the fact that her consultations were with a general practitioner, not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist as required by the Impairment Tables. Regarding urinary incontinence, the Tribunal found that while diagnosed, it was not fully treated and stabilised. Despite recommendations for pelvic floor exercises, bladder retraining, and surgery from multiple medical practitioners, Ms. Frenz had not undertaken the recommended surgical treatment due to fear, and there was no evidence of her consulting a uro-gynaecologist as advised. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms. Frenz had not accessed reasonable investigations and treatment for this condition.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. However, it noted that Ms. Frenz was at liberty to lodge a new disability support pension application based on any progression of her medical conditions since the time of her original application.