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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Hamcho against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to cancel her disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether Ms Hamcho had a sufficient level of functional impairment due to her medical conditions at the time of cancellation, as assessed under the Impairment Tables. The case was heard by Dr I Alexander, a Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Ms Hamcho's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether these conditions resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, specifically Impairment Table 3. This assessment was crucial to establishing whether she continued to meet the eligibility criteria for a disability support pension under section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) at the time her pension was cancelled.

The Tribunal considered conflicting medical evidence regarding Ms Hamcho's functional impairment. While Ms Hamcho reported severe functional limitations, the assessment by Dr Frean, which included a comprehensive medical history and clinical examination, was found to be persuasive. The Tribunal clarified that "assistance" as used in Impairment Table 3 refers to assistance from another person, not from aids or equipment, a principle affirmed in *Re Summers and Secretary, Department of Social Services* [2014] AATA 165. Based on this interpretation and the available evidence, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Hamcho did not have an impairment of 20 points or more at the time of cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision that Ms Hamcho did not satisfy section 94 of the Act at the time of cancellation. This meant the decision to cancel her disability support pension was deemed correct.