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

Mr Hamdache sought review of a decision affirming the rejection of his application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute concerned whether Mr Hamdache's impairments met the threshold of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). The matter was heard by Mr S Evans, Member, of the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Mr Hamdache's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period (4 January 2019 to 5 April 2019) and, if so, what impairment rating could be assigned in accordance with the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was required to consider medical reports and other evidence, assessing its relevance to Mr Hamdache's condition during that specific period, even if the evidence post-dated the period, provided it was referable to his condition at that time.

The Tribunal considered Mr Hamdache's spinal condition, noting that to qualify for a rating under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, a condition must be permanent, meaning fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. While Mr Hamdache reported ongoing pain from spinal injuries sustained in 2006 and 2015, the Tribunal found that his functional limitations, such as sitting tolerance, did not meet the criteria for a 20-point rating. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that an impairment rating of 10 points was appropriate for his spinal condition. The Tribunal also noted Mr Hamdache's history of shoulder problems, including operations, but the extent of functional impairment from these conditions was not detailed to the point of meeting the 20-point threshold.

As Mr Hamdache's impairments did not achieve a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, he failed to satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991*. Consequently, his claim for DSP could not succeed, and it was unnecessary to consider the further criterion of a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.