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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Hamed, against a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to cancel his Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant's claim for DSP related to a spinal condition, although he also suffered from other medical conditions which were accepted as being well managed. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's spinal condition met the criteria for a DSP, specifically whether it was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised at the date of cancellation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine if the applicant's spinal condition, at the relevant date of cancellation, constituted a severe impairment that prevented him from working.

The Tribunal considered the legal requirements for DSP qualification under section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and section 6 of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination). These provisions stipulate that an impairment must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years, to be rated. Furthermore, the impairment must result in a severe impairment rating of at least 20 points on a single Impairment Table, or a combined rating of at least 20 points, and a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal also had regard to the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014, which defines active participation in a program of support.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while the applicant's spinal condition was fully diagnosed, it was not fully treated or stabilised at the date of cancellation. The Tribunal reviewed extensive medical evidence, including radiology reports dating back to 2004 and a report from Dr Joseph Slesenger, to assess the progression and stability of the applicant's spinal condition. The Tribunal concluded that the condition did not meet the permanence requirements under Rule 6(4) of the Determination, as it was not considered fully treated and stabilised. Consequently, the applicant's spinal condition could not be rated under the Impairment Tables, and he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for a DSP.