Haje-Obeid and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned a review of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to cancel Ms Haje-Obeid's disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether Ms Haje-Obeid qualified for the pension at the time of cancellation, specifically regarding the presence and permanence of any intellectual or psychiatric impairment and her continuing inability to work. The review was heard by Dr L Bygrave, Member.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the decision to cancel Ms Haje-Obeid's disability support pension from 8 December 2011 was correct, whether a debt had been raised for the period of 8 December 2011 to 6 January 2015, and if so, whether that debt was recoverable. Central to these issues was the interpretation of section 94(1) of the Social Security Act, which outlines the criteria for qualifying for a disability support pension, including the requirement of a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that rates 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal considered conflicting medical evidence. While some reports from Dr Selim indicated major depressive disorder and anxious depression, other reports, notably from Dr D’Silva and Dr Ali, diagnosed Ms Haje-Obeid with "Moderate Mental Retardation" and noted her overall cognitive ability was in the "Extremely Low range," with IQ scores suggesting a significant intellectual impairment. Dr Ali specifically stated that this condition meant she was unable to concentrate, understand difficult things, had never worked, and would not be fit for work. Although Dr Ali's clinical notes did not explicitly mention an intellectual impairment, they did note her inability to read or write. The Tribunal also considered a report from Mr Mattar, a consulting psychologist, who diagnosed stress, anxiety-depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder, noting impaired memory and concentration due to her psychological state and developmental impairment, but the Tribunal placed limited weight on his evidence as he was not considered appropriately qualified for diagnosing permanent conditions for the purposes of the Impairment Tables Determination. The Secretary's submissions focused on the alleged non-permanence of any impairment and the absence of a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review.