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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Gaitan and the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The applicant sought a review of a decision regarding her eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core of the dispute centred on whether the applicant qualified for the DSP at the time she lodged her claim, or within the subsequent 13-week period.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a DSP under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991*. This involved assessing whether she had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether this impairment attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the relevant Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also needed to consider if the applicant had a continuing inability to work, although this ultimately became unnecessary to decide.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did have physical and psychological impairments as at the date of her claim. However, the critical issue was whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether they collectively met the 20-point threshold. While the respondent conceded that the applicant's hand osteoarthritis was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, a medical adviser noted that other upper limb conditions, such as left shoulder and trigger finger issues, were not fully treated and stabilised. Consequently, the functional impact of these untreated conditions could not be considered for the impairment rating. The medical adviser assessed that the hand osteoarthritis alone would attract a rating of 5 points under Table 2 of the Impairment Tables, which was insufficient to meet the 20-point requirement.

Given that the applicant did not meet the 20-point impairment rating requirement based on her fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised conditions, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It was not necessary to consider the applicant's continuing inability to work.