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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Gaiter against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension (DSP). The dispute centred on the impairment rating assigned to Mr Gaiter's back condition. While the Secretary, Department of Social Services, accepted that Mr Gaiter's spinal condition was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, it contended that the functional impairment arising from this condition warranted only 10 points under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables. Mr Gaiter argued that his condition should attract at least 20 points under the same table. The decision was made by P Britten-Jones SM.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Gaiter's spinal condition attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, which would indicate a severe impairment for the purposes of a DSP claim. This required the court to assess the evidence regarding the functional limitations caused by Mr Gaiter's chronic back pain and restriction, and to determine if these limitations met the criteria for a severe impairment as defined by the relevant legislation and tables.

The court considered reports from Dr Suriyapalan, Dr Tschirn, and a Job Capacity Assessment. While Dr Suriyapalan noted that Mr Gaiter's back pain would persist for more than 24 months and that its future effect on his ability to function was uncertain, Dr Tschirn attributed a 10-point rating under Table 4, citing a moderate functional impact based on Mr Gaiter's ability to sit or drive for at least 30 minutes. The Secretary relied on these reports, along with the Job Capacity Assessment which indicated Mr Gaiter could sit, stand, and walk for limited periods and lift occasional light items, to argue that the impairment was not severe. The court accepted the Secretary's submissions, finding that Mr Gaiter had not satisfied the requirements of sections 94(1)(b) and (c) of the Social Security Act 1991.

Consequently, the SSAT's decision was set aside, and a substituted decision was made that Mr Gaiter was not qualified for a DSP at the date of his claim.