FSHQ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review)
[2025] ARTA 1208
•11 July 2025
FSHQ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 1208 (11 July 2025)
Applicant:FSHQ
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2022/8285
Tribunal:Senior Member J Longo (second review)
Place:Melbourne
Date: 11 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
………..………[SGD]………..………
Senior Member J Longo
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Catchwords
Disability Support Pension – rejection of claim – multiple conditions – diagnosis – not diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
Cases
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123
Secondary Materials
Department of Social Services, Guides to Social Policy Law, Social Security Guide, version 1.329, 12 May 2025
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
This application relates to a claim for disability support pension made by the Applicant, on 29 June 2021. His claim was rejected by Services Australia – Centrelink (Centrelink) on 7 July 2021. On 6 August 2021 the Applicant sought review of the original decision. On 2 March 2022 a Centrelink authorised review officer affirmed the original decision.
The Applicant applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 25 July 2022 for review of the decision made by the authorised review officer. On 20 September 2022 the AAT on first review affirmed the decision. On 10 October 2022 the Applicant lodged an application for second review of the decision.
On 14 October 2024 the AAT was abolished and the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) commenced operations. Under the transitional provisions,[1]any applications to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal.
[1] Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024.
The Application was heard on 3 March 2025. Prior to the hearing, a USB drive of documents was provided by the Applicant which was partially accessible and contained a voluminous number of documents. As discussed with the Applicant at the hearing, this material was not taken into evidence. After the hearing, I made directions to allow the Applicant to provide further written submissions and relevant medical reports which could not accessed from the USB drive of documents. I also allowed the Respondent to file further written submissions in response to any written submissions from the Applicant. The Applicant provided written submissions and further documents on 31 March 2025 and the respondent filed further written submissions on 28 April 2025.
In making this decision, I have considered the evidence at hearing and written submissions of the Applicant and relevant documents. The Respondent’s legal representative also made written and oral submissions. [2]
[2] Applicant’s documents numbered 1 to 203 and attachments 1 to 526; Respondent’s T-documents numbered 1 to 395.
For the reasons that follow, I have affirmed the decision under review.
CONSIDERATION
Entitlement to disability support pension is governed by the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act). The criteria for qualification are set out under subsection 94(1) of the Act. Subsection 94(1) requires, among other things, that a person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment (paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act), that a person’s impairment is 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables (paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act) and that they have a continuing inability to work as defined (paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act).
Subclause 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act provides that in order for disability support pension to be granted from the date of the claim, the medical evidence must establish the entitlement within the 13-week period from the claim. Evidence of a condition outside this period may only be relevant insofar as it refers to the condition during the qualification period.[3]
[3] See Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123.
Do the Applicant’s medical conditions rate at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables?
I am satisfied, based on the evidence in the medical reports provided in this application, that paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act is met. At issue therefore is whether the Applicant’s impairments rate at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The Impairment Tables, as were in force at the time of the claim for disability support pension on 29 June 2021, were contained in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination). The Determination included directions on their application.
Paragraphs 6(3) and (4) of the Determination, contained in Part 2 – Rules for applying the Impairment Tables, states that a condition is considered a permanent condition if it has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and the condition has been fully treated and fully stabilised. If considered a permanent condition and the impairment that results from that condition is more than likely to persist for more than 2 years, then an impairment rating can be assigned.
I have considered each of the medical conditions raised by the Applicant against the requirements in the Determination.
Baggio-Yoshinari syndrome (BYS)
The Applicant states in his claim that he has been diagnosed with Baggio-Yoshinari Syndrome (BYS). The Applicant stated that he contracted this condition while on holiday in the Brazilian Amazon in 2014 from a tick bite. Consistent with the previous evidence provided, at hearing the Applicant stated that he was diagnosed with the condition in late 2018 by his GP at the time. The Applicant stated that he was treated with a variety of antibiotic and anti-microbial medication and also took a variety of supplements. In 2019 he underwent ketamine infusion, over a five day period, and also travelled to Cyprus to undergo ozone therapy. He stated that he then underwent less conventional treatment such as the use of infra-red sauna to treat the condition.
As stated above, the Applicant’s condition was initially diagnosed by his treating GP in 2018. The Applicant stated at the hearing that this GP, and his subsequent GP who continued the treatment commenced under the previous GP, had specialist interest in treating patients with Borreliosis. In addition, he stated that he has consulted other specialists including orthopaedic surgeons, a gastroenterologist and a neurologist.
The Applicant stated that he has experienced brain fog and loss of focus and concentration, which makes it difficult to read. He stated that he was previously undertaking a Master of Business Administration while working full-time and was achieving excellent results and went to Brazil while completing his final subject and was no longer able to achieve the same results. He stated that he stopped working in 2018 and tried to study part-time but failed to complete his course.
In addition to the concentration and focus issues, the Applicant stated that he experiences widespread inflammation over his whole body. He stated that he is no longer able to do things he used to do, such as socialise, work and exercise. He is able to walk, between 500m and 1km, but would also have days where he can’t and doesn’t leave the house. He stated that he would cook food for multiple days. He was catching the bus once a fortnight to go shopping and occasionally he would have a friend do his shopping for him or take him shopping depending on how he felt at the time.
It was submitted by the Respondent’s representative that the Applicant’s condition of BYS could not be considered fully diagnosed, treated or stabilised because there was insufficient evidence from an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, an infectious disease specialist, confirming the condition. The Respondent submits that, as per subsection 6(4) of the Impairment Tables and as stated above, a condition can only be considered permanent if is it fully diagnosed by an ‘appropriately qualified medical practitioner’. According to section 3 of the Impairment Tables, ‘appropriately qualified medical practitioner’ means a medical practitioner whose qualifications and practice are relevant to diagnosing a particular condition.
Chapter 3.6.3.05 of the Social Security Guide,[4] and referred to stated in the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions of the Respondent, provides as follows:
In determining whether a medical condition has been fully diagnosed, an examination and analysis of diagnostic information is required. The relevant diagnostic information is normally available in medical records provided by the claimant and from other corroborating evidence.
To be valid for DSP purposes, diagnosis of a medical condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, however, for the purpose of Table 9 - Intellectual Function, an assessment of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified psychologist.
Note: Appropriately qualified medical practitioner means a medical practitioner whose qualifications and practice are relevant to diagnosing a particular condition.
The reason for this is to ensure that the person has received the necessary diagnostic input and associated treatment considerations. In these instances it is sufficient to consider clear indications that this has occurred where this information is contained within the medical records provided by the claimant or, where necessary, verbal confirmation of this by the medical practitioner at follow up, which must be clearly documented by the assessor.
[4] As at the date of the claim.
In support of the submission that the condition of BYS could not be considered as fully diagnosed, the Respondent relied on the report prepared by the Health Professional Advisory Unit (HPAU) (an internal unit of Centrelink) that stated as follows:
Can [the Applicant’s] medical conditions be considered fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised (FTDS) within the meaning of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension(DSP)) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables)?
BYS: No. It is acknowledged and accepted that [the Applicant] has provided information which points to him being bitten by a tick in 2014 in Brazil. He has had serological investigations but these have not been conclusive to diagnose BYS. I acknowledge the research papers which highlight the difficulty in this diagnosis. I also acknowledge that [the Applicant] has made a concerted effort in pursuing this diagnosis, most recently being the positive spirochaete result. This too, however, is not conclusive to make the diagnosis of BYS. Also noting that it appears that DualDur is not NATA accredited. I also acknowledge that BYS may be a clinical diagnosis. As per Australian guidelines, we would require confirmation of the diagnosis from an infectious disease physician. If BYS were to be considered fully diagnosed, it could be considered as fully treated as per the treatment guidelines.
It is my opinion that the condition of BYS cannot be deemed to be fully diagnosed over the claim period. (citations omitted)
The HPAU report states that one of the Applicant’s GPs who provided reports in relation to BYS was contacted. The HPAU report states that the Applicant’s GP confirmed that there had been no reports from an infectious disease physician. The Respondent submits that the Australian guidelines on diagnosis and treatment for infectious diseases that are tick borne strongly recommend that diagnosis be provided by a practitioner specialising in microbiology or infectious disease.[5] These submissions are stated to be based on the premise that tick borne infections are rare in Australia and symptoms can often overlap with other infectious diseases or chronic conditions.
[5]
I note that the Applicant was referred to a infectious disease physician by a GP in October 2017.[6] The Applicant confirmed at the hearing that he was referred for pathology tests at the time but did not have a consultation. The report from the Applicant’s GP in respect of early release of superannuation for the Applicant states that ‘it seems clear that he has a spirochetal infection, quite likely to be Baggio-Yoshinari Syndrome as It all commenced with at tick bite in Brazil in 2014.’[7]
[6] [T19] at page 144.
[7] [T24] at page 187.
The Applicant disagrees with the HPAU report and the submissions that BYS cannot be considered as a fully diagnosed condition because it was not diagnosed by an ‘appropriately qualified medical practitioner’ and further disagrees that that means a medical practitioner whose qualifications and practice are relevant to diagnosing a particular condition.
Notwithstanding the Applicant’s disagreement with the above submissions, his subsequent written submissions dated 4 April 2025 indicate that he did see two infectious disease specialists in 2017. A further infectious disease specialist was consulted in 2024. In the Applicant’s submissions, he refers to attending two specialists in 2017, whom he states are infectious disease specialists, and that they failed to consider Baggio-Yoshinari Syndrome despite hallmark medical signs and symptoms with him dismissed with an unlabelled ‘minor immunocompromised condition’ despite the clinical indications for these conditions proven via serology.
Furthermore, the documents provided by the Applicant include a report dated 15 July 2024 (and electronically signed on 6 August 2024) from an infectious disease physician and microbiologist in Melbourne, which states as follows:
I reviewed the information and tests that [the Applicant] has had in the past and I will summarise these as follows. On 27 August 2018, he had Bartonella serology done at the Australian Rickettsial Reference Lab in Geelong which was negative. Lyme serology was negative including blood PCR. Western blot lgG was negative. There was a positive Western blot lgM, however, which is nonspecific and often seen with people who have had glandular fever His Borrelia Immunofluorescence antibody is also negative.
On 12 April 2018, he had bloods done in ArminLabs in Germany which show a negative Borrelia EliSpot, C6 ELISA also negative. Bartonella EliSpot and Babesia EliSpot were also negative. He had positive mycoplasma lgG and positive EliSpot of EBV given both showing previous infection. He has also had positive VZV lgG showing previous infection of chickenpox and he also has positive Coxsackie antibody showing previous infection with Coxsackie virus. These tests were repeated on 17 March 2019 through ArminLabs and also gave a negative result for all the tick organisms including Borrelia afzelii, garinii and burgdorferi; Babesia; Bartonella; Ehrlichia; Rickettsia akari.
A test done on 13 June 2022 at a lab called DualDur in Hungary showed organisms seen on his blood film, which were reported to be as follows: Potential spirochetes of Borrelia seen in the blood and Bartonella live organisms in the red blood cells. I reviewed the photos and do not agree with their assessment. They are a non-accredited lab and Bartonella do not infect red blood cells. I think this test is rubbish.
I do not think that he has Baggio-Yoshinari syndrome which he was diagnosed with on 1 March 2018, nor has he had Babesia, nor has he had Bartonella. Baggio-Yoshinari syndrome is a Borrelia infection acquired by tick but in Brazil, which he does not have.
I repeated blood tests and they have come back as being negative for all of the tick infections by the Australian Rickettsial Reference Lab including Babesia, Bartonella, rickettsiae, Q fever, and Lyme are all negative. Toxoplasma is negative. His CRP is 6. His ESR is 10. FBE Is normal. Thyroid function normal and cortisol levels normal.
Based on the specialist evidence provided, including the more recent testing and review of the Applicant, I do not accept the diagnosis of BYS. The evidence of the most recent infectious disease specialist refers to the previous serology information as provided by the Applicant. The report, while completed in July/August of 2024 provides probative evidence of the medical condition as at the date of claim for disability support pension. Even if I were not to consider this evidence, the Applicant’s written submissions show that his consultation with two infectious disease specialists in 2017 did not consider BYS and instead stated that the Applicant had an unlabelled ‘minor immunocompromised condition’. There was no diagnosis at the time of claim on 29 June 2021 or within the 13 week qualification period. Accordingly, I am unable to find that BYS is a permanent condition, as required under the Determination, in order to assign an impairment rating for the condition.
Bartonellosis and Babesiosis
The Applicant also contends that he has been impacted by conditions of Bartonellosis and Babesiosis in his claim. The Applicant stated in his written submissions that Babesiosis has been successfully treated and is no longer relevant for the purpose of the disability support pension claim. On this basis I have not considered the condition.
In relation to Bartonellosis, there is a reference to a bartonella infection, on clinical grounds, in the referral letter dated 30 April 2019[8] and in the report to an insurer on behalf of the Applicant in March 2019. However, I refer to the medical information above in paragraph 22 of these reasons and find that the specialist evidence shows no infection relating to Bartonellosis as at the date of the claim. Accordingly, I am unable to find that Bartonellosis is a permanent condition, as required under the Determination, in order to assign an impairment rating for the condition.
[8] [T25]
Thyroiditis
The Applicant also stated that he was diagnosed with auto immune thyroiditis and the condition was mentioned in his claim. In terms of treatment, he was not prescribed any medication for this condition because the condition was constantly changing and he experienced both hyper and hypo symptoms.
A report dated 3 June 2020 from a Clinical Haematologist and Consultant Physician on behalf of the Applicant indicates that the symptoms in relation to the Applicant’s thyroiditis had resolved and it was no longer clinically hypothyroid. The laboratory tests from 3 August 2020 show normal thyroid function. The Applicant stated that the thyroiditis impacted his functional capacity secondary to his BYS. He stated that he was not on medication but that his thyroid condition was being monitored as his levels were going up and down. His evidence was that the condition was not stabilised. I am satisfied that the thyroiditis impacting the Applicant was fully diagnosed but not fully treated and stabilised at the time of the claim. Accordingly, I am unable to find that thyroiditis is a permanent condition, as required under the Determination, in order to assign an impairment rating for the condition.
Bilateral knee pain
The Applicant stated that he had bilateral knee pain caused by playing sport and injury. He submits that he had undergone surgery in the past and that in June 2022 was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon who had suggested stem cell treatment but this did not proceed. I note that he had seen a physiotherapist prior to the claim. I have no other evidence of treatment at the time of the claim.
According to the Determination, Table 3 is to be used to assess a functional impairment resulting in functional impairment to activities requiring the use of legs or feet. I am satisfied that a lower limb condition impacting the Applicant had fully been diagnosed, but am not satisfied that the bilateral knee pain has been fully treated and fully stabilised at the time of the claim. Accordingly, I am unable to find that the Applicant’s bilateral knee pain is a permanent condition, as required under the Determination, in order to assign an impairment rating for the condition.
Left ankle pain
The Applicant stated that he had residual tightness of the ankle, including some limitation on the range of movement. He stated that he was still seeing a physiotherapist at the time of the claim, but conceded that there was no functional impact to his left ankle.
An MRI in November 2020 shows evidence of lateral ligament injury and previous syndesmotic injury. The report from the Applicant’s orthopaedic surgeon dated 28 January 2021 indicates subtle instability and advises that the Applicant undergo an arthroscopy and lateral ligament stabilisation to help with the problem.[9] The Applicant stated that he underwent surgery to his left ankle in February 2021 and received physiotherapy treatment following surgery. I note that the Applicant received a left ankle joint corticosteroid injection on 8 June 2021. The GP management plan dated 10 June 2021[10] refers to physiotherapy and pain management of the condition.
[9] [T38]
[10] [T39]
According to the Determination, Table 3 is to be used to assess a functional impairment resulting in functional impairment to activities requiring the use of legs or feet. I am satisfied that the Applicant has fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised left ankle pain at the time of the claim. However, based on his own oral evidence, there was no functional impact of the condition. Accordingly, I assign a nil impairment rating to this condition.
Left shoulder pain
The Applicant stated that he had surgery on his left shoulder in 2017. He has pain and has limited carrying capacity, around 2kg, and some restriction on his range of movement. The condition sometimes impacts his ability to handle small objects. The Applicant previously stated on first review that a steroid injection was suggested by his GP but had not been done (at the time of the first review hearing).
I note that an MRI of the left shoulder occurred on 8 January 2021, which noted labral repairs 3-4 years ago, consistent with the Applicant’s evidence of surgery.[11] The report compares the MRI scans with the previous study of July 2017 and finds that the cuff tendons are normal and that muscle bulk and intensity of the rotor cuff is normal. The comments note mild glenohumeral joint degenerative change. A report from a pain specialist dated 5 December 2016[12] refers to the treatment for the left shoulder including Celebrex, clonidine, dantrolene and duloxetine and advising to be careful with exercise and avoid extreme movement of the left shoulder.
[11] [T35] at page 212.
[12] [T11]
There are also referrals for physiotherapy from 2016 regarding the left shoulder. I note the Applicant has described left shoulder functional limitations. I also note that the Applicant has been referred to orthopaedic specialists in relation to his left shoulder but there are no medical reports from these specialists. While this condition has been referred to in the reports by the Applicant’s GP before me, there is no information provided regarding the functional impact of the condition that allows me to be satisfied that the condition was fully treated and stabilised as at the date of the claim. Accordingly, I am not able to assign an impairment rating to this condition.
Left hip pain
The Applicant stated that he has degeneration of his labrum of the left hip and has had surgery in 2015 and 2016. He has also undergone physiotherapy, osteopathic and chiropractic treatment. He has not received any further treatment for the condition and has been told that he is too young for a hip replacement.
I note that there are scans of the left hip from 2015 and information relating to an injection to the left hip in April 2016. The Applicant’s oral evidence was that he had surgery in 2015 and 2016. I do not have any orthopaedic review or reports on or about the time of the claim for disability support pension as regards the left hip. The Applicant has stated that physiotherapy, osteopathy and chiropractic treatment has occurred and there is referral to this treatment in the Applicant’s GP medical reports. I note a referral for pain management in 2017. While this condition has been referred to in the reports, there is no information provided regarding the functional impact of the condition or information which allows me to be satisfied that the condition was fully treated and stabilised as at the date of the claim. Accordingly, I am not able to assign an impairment rating to this condition.
Ross River Virus
The Applicant lists Ross River virus in his claim for disability support pension on 29 June 2021. The claim form indicates the condition started on 5 December 2019. There is a laboratory test on 5 December 2019 which shows a positive result for Ross River Virus which was suggestive of recent infection, however there is no other medical information. The Applicant stated that this condition causes the same functional impact as his other conditions and also contributes to the exacerbation of these conditions. He confirmed that he was taking anti-viral medication at the time of the testing.
There is no reference to this condition in the reports provided and apart from laboratory test results, no other information relating to the treatment and stabilisation of the condition or information as to the functional impact of the condition. Accordingly, I do not assign an impairment rating to this condition.
Blepharitis
In respect of the condition of blepharitis referred to in his claim, he stated that the symptoms come and go, about once every month or two months, and he treats the condition with chlorsig eye drops. He stated that when the symptoms flare it affects his vision for about a week after starting treatment. He also developed visual snow syndrome.
According to the Determination, Table 12 is to be used to assess a functional impairment involving visual function. The Introduction to Table 12 states that the diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner with supporting evidence from a medical specialist.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has been diagnosed with blepharitis and there is reference to this condition in the report from 2019. However, there was no other medical information provided, and no supportive evidence from a specialist was before me which allows me to be satisfied that the condition was fully treated and stabilised as at the date of the claim. Accordingly, I am unable to find that the blepharitis is permanent, as required under the Determination, in order to assign an impairment rating for the condition.
Tinnitus
The Applicant’s evidence at hearing was that he was diagnosed with tinnitus in 2014 and 2015. The condition is listed in the claim. He stated that the impact of this condition on his function fluctuates in its severity and affects his hearing and concentration. He had audiological testing in 2015 but confirmed that he had not undergone any testing at the time of his claim in June 2021. I note that there is a reference to tinnitus in the Applicant’s claim to Centrelink but no specific medical reports for this condition have been provided. A neurological report dated 18 May 2019 to the Applicant’s GP refers to tinnitus as a symptom.
According to the Determination, Table 11 is to be used to assess a functional impairment involving hearing function or other functions of the ear. The Introduction to Table 11 states that the diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner with supporting evidence from audiologist or Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has been diagnosed with tinnitus and there is reference to this condition in the report from 2019. However, there was no other medical information provided, and no supportive evidence from an audiologist or ENT specialist was before me which allows me to be satisfied that the condition was fully treated and stabilised as at the date of the claim. Accordingly, I am unable to find that the tinnitus is permanent, as required under the Determination, in order to assign an impairment rating for the condition.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
The Applicant claim form states that he has also been diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The Applicant’s evidence was that he was first diagnosed with ME/CFS and also fibromyalgia by his GP in 2017.
A Neurology specialist report dated 13 March 2018 refers to the Applicant having chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia type symptoms and states that the Applicant is managing these quite well. In the notes of the HPAU report regarding the telephone call with the Applicant’s GP, it records that the GP told the assessor that the diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome was made by various GPs and ‘that there has not been management for this by a CFS team or specialist’. The GP also referred to the neurologist report above and the suggested diagnosis of CFS or fibromyalgia and that no specific management was detailed. A referral by the Applicant’s GP to a neurology specialist on 30 April 2019 also refers to chronic fatigue syndrome under a heading ‘current problems’. The Applicant submits that a chronic disease care management plan in 2016[13] by a GP refers to chronic fatigue syndrome, however, the plan states that the reason for the visit was regarding regional pain syndrome. There is no reference to chronic fatigue syndrome in the plan. A medical certificate dated 20 November 2020 states ‘auto immune thyroid disease – CFS’ as a secondary/ related condition with a date of onset of 2019. The condition(s) is described as an exacerbation of an existing condition with an unknown prognosis as to the effect on the Applicant’s capacity to work or study, listing symptoms of fatigue and poor concentration. The medical certificate further states that the current and past treatment is by way of medication.
[13] [T9]
Despite minimal detail in the medical information before me of ME/CFS, I accept that the Applicant had been diagnosed with CFS within the 13-week qualification period. However, I am not satisfied that the condition had been fully treated or stabilised within the period, as there is no evidence of the treatments at the time and the prognosis and or functional impairments attributable to ME/CFS in any of the medical information before Centrelink or produced in this review. As I am not satisfied that ME/CFS is fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period, and therefore I am not able to assign an impairment rating.
CONCLUSION
As stated above, it is an essential criterion for qualification for disability support pension that a person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables as per paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act. Based on the findings above, while I accept that the Applicant has a number of medical conditions which are affected his wellbeing and his ability to function, I am not satisfied that the conditions were such that impairment points could be assigned under the impairment tables on the basis of these conditions for the purposes of his 29 June 2021 claim.
As I have not been able to assign an impairment rating of 20 points or more, it is not necessary to consider whether during the qualification period the Applicant had a continuing inability to work within the meaning of paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act.
Accordingly, I affirm the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 3 March 2025 Applicant: Self-represented. Respondent: Ms T Weir, HWL Ebsworth.
0
1
0