Green and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 26
•13 January 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Green and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 26
[2020] AATA 26
13 January 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for receiving a DSP, specifically concerning the assessment of impairment points under the relevant tables. The decision was made by a Member of the Tribunal.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether there was a continuing inability to work. Crucially, for the Impairment Tables to be applied, the medical conditions needed to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised. The applicant conceded that certain conditions, namely degenerative changes in the hip, kidney disorder, and liver conditions, were not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of the Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal considered the medical evidence concerning the applicant's back and right shoulder conditions. While these conditions were found to be fully diagnosed, the Tribunal determined they were not fully treated and fully stabilised during the relevant period. Consequently, these conditions also could not be considered permanent for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. As the applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points, either individually or cumulatively, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that his impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal noted that as the DSP requirements were sequential, and the initial threshold was not met, it was unnecessary to consider the subsequent requirement regarding the continuing inability to work.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether there was a continuing inability to work. Crucially, for the Impairment Tables to be applied, the medical conditions needed to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised. The applicant conceded that certain conditions, namely degenerative changes in the hip, kidney disorder, and liver conditions, were not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of the Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal considered the medical evidence concerning the applicant's back and right shoulder conditions. While these conditions were found to be fully diagnosed, the Tribunal determined they were not fully treated and fully stabilised during the relevant period. Consequently, these conditions also could not be considered permanent for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. As the applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points, either individually or cumulatively, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that his impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal noted that as the DSP requirements were sequential, and the initial threshold was not met, it was unnecessary to consider the subsequent requirement regarding the continuing inability to work.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Green and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 26
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2012] AATA 922
Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 447
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2015] FCA 1123