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

This decision concerned an appeal by Mr Hallowell against a determination by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether Mr Hallowell met the threshold of impairment points required to establish a continuing inability to work, as defined by the relevant legislation. The matter was heard by Mr D. J. Morris, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Hallowell's psychological conditions could be assigned impairment points under the Impairment Tables, and whether he satisfied the criteria for a "continuing inability to work" under section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if Mr Hallowell's impairment was "severe" and, if not, whether he had actively participated in a program of support.

The Tribunal reasoned that for Mr Hallowell's psychological conditions to be assessed under Table 5 – Mental Health Function, a corroborating diagnosis from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist was mandatory. As the applicant's treating doctor was a general practitioner, this requirement was not met, meaning no impairment points could be assigned for these conditions. While the Tribunal found that Mr Hallowell should be allocated a total of 20 impairment points (10 from Table 2 and 10 from Table 3) based on his physical conditions, this did not constitute a "severe impairment" as defined by the Act. Consequently, the provisions relating to participation in a program of support applied. The Tribunal noted that Mr Hallowell had not undertaken a program of support to the satisfaction of the Act, and therefore, the requirements of section 94(1)(c)(i) or section 94(2)(aa) were not met.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the original decision that Mr Hallowell was not qualified for a disability support pension on the date of his claim, nor did he become qualified in the relevant period, as he failed to satisfy the legislative requirements for a continuing inability to work.