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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to refuse Mr. Goodey’s claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr. Goodey, who had ceased work five years prior to care for his young daughter, applied for the DSP citing various medical conditions including spinal disorders, chronic pain, fatigue, and loss of strength. The core dispute revolved around whether Mr. Goodey’s impairments met the threshold required for the DSP under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. The case was heard by Anna Burke, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: firstly, whether Mr. Goodey suffered from a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment as required by section 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991; and secondly, whether the severity of his impairments rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, as mandated by section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal also considered whether Mr. Goodey had undertaken a program of support, a requirement under section 94(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Goodey did suffer from impairments, including cervical canal stenosis, lumbar disc degeneration, and other conditions, satisfying the first limb of the test. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal carefully considered the medical evidence, including reports from radiologists, a neurosurgeon, and Mr. Goodey’s general practitioner. While previous assessments had assigned lower point values, the Tribunal, after reviewing detailed reports of Mr. Goodey's spinal conditions and their impact, determined that his cervical canal stenosis and lumbar disc degeneration, combined with other functional impairments, met the required 20 points. Specifically, the Tribunal assigned 10 points under Table 4 for his spinal condition, 5 points under Table 1 for physical exertion and stamina, and 5 points under Table 2 for upper limb function. However, despite meeting the point threshold, the Tribunal noted that Mr. Goodey had not completed a program of support as required by section 94(2)(aa) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that while Mr. Goodey met the impairment severity criteria, he failed to satisfy the requirement of having undertaken a program of support, thus not meeting the full criteria for a Disability Support Pension under section 94(1)(c) of the Act.