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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Gulic against the cancellation of his Disability Support Pension. The central dispute was whether Mr Gulic’s medical conditions, as they existed at the date of cancellation, met the criteria for receiving the pension, specifically whether his impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision was made by Dr I Alexander, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Gulic’s various medical conditions, including degenerative lumbar spine, cervical spine, right ankle, upper limb conditions, mental health issues, and chronic pain, were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. Crucially, the Tribunal had to determine if these conditions resulted in an impairment attracting 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables and if Mr Gulic had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented. It found that while Mr Gulic had a longstanding degenerative lumbar spine condition and a permanent right ankle condition, the evidence did not support a finding of moderate functional impact for either, assigning only 5 points under the respective Impairment Tables. For his cervical spine and upper limb conditions, the Tribunal found the relevance of past imaging to his current symptoms unclear, and the lack of recent specialist assessment meant these conditions were not considered fully diagnosed as at the date of cancellation. Regarding his mental health condition, the Tribunal noted a lack of meaningful treatment for several years prior to cancellation, with treatment only commencing afterwards, thus it was not considered fully treated or stabilised. Similarly, the chronic pain condition was not deemed fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised, with psychological factors significantly contributing to its severity.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence provided sufficient support for Mr Gulic’s contention that his impairments met the threshold for the Disability Support Pension at the date of cancellation. The medical evidence was considered incomplete, with inconsistent histories and opinions not adequately supported by evidence. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.