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

This matter concerned an application for unlimited portability of a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant sought to have his DSP paid indefinitely while overseas, arguing he already possessed this entitlement. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for unlimited portability under section 1218AAA of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for unlimited portability of his DSP. This required the Tribunal to assess if the applicant was receiving a DSP, had a severe impairment as defined by subsection 94(3B) of the Act, would continue to have this severe impairment for at least five years, and would be prevented by this impairment from performing any work independently of a program of support within the next five years if he were in Australia. The Tribunal also considered the timing of evidence relevant to the assessment, noting that while the starting point was the date of the portability request, all evidence up to the date of the Tribunal's decision could be considered, particularly where there had been a change in the functional impact of the applicant's conditions.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in section 11 of the Impairment Tables, which govern how impairment ratings are assigned, stipulating that ratings cannot be assigned between consecutive levels unless all descriptors for the higher level are satisfied. The Tribunal also referred to *WMKR and Secretary, Department of Social Services* [2015] AATA 483 regarding the consideration of evidence up to the date of the Tribunal's decision. In this instance, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to establish a severe impairment, specifically noting the limited evidence regarding his diagnosed "moderate cervical spondylosis."

The Tribunal affirmed the previous decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for unlimited portability of his DSP.