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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension by Mrs Harrison, who contended she qualified due to conditions affecting her spine and mental health. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services opposed the application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Senior Member Dr Stewart Fenwick, was required to determine whether Mrs Harrison's impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, and consequently, whether she met the qualifying criteria for the pension.

The Tribunal considered the legal issues surrounding the assessment of Mrs Harrison's conditions, particularly her spinal condition and anxiety/depression. A key aspect of the determination involved assessing the weight to be given to Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) reports, which were noted to be recommendations rather than binding decisions. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance of medical evidence predating the qualification period against material arising during that period, and whether conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the specific requirements of the Impairment Tables and the need for a single assessment for an identifiable impairment, noting that multiple descriptions of a single spinal condition could not be aggregated to achieve a higher rating.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Harrison's spinal condition, while diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, attracted an impairment rating of 10 points, not the required 20 points. Furthermore, her mental health condition was not considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised by an appropriately qualified practitioner, and there was insufficient evidence to assess impairment for that condition. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mrs Harrison did not meet the threshold for a severe impairment rating. As it was unnecessary to consider her ability to work if the 20-point threshold was not met, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.