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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension by the Applicant, who suffered from several conditions including spinal pain, lumbar pain, depression, and anxiety. The Respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, contended that the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) for the pension. The case was heard by Senior Member D Cremean.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether these conditions resulted in a continuing inability to work. The Respondent also raised an issue regarding the corroboration of the Applicant's conditions, which was considered a prerequisite to assessing the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's physical conditions, such as neck, shoulder, back, hip, and knee pain, along with diabetes, were conceded by the Respondent and accepted by the Tribunal, the condition of plantar fasciitis was not sufficiently diagnosed based on the available medical information. Regarding the Applicant's mental health condition, the Tribunal was satisfied, considering the evidence including a report from Dr Cara Tucker and medical certificates from Dr Chakma, that the Applicant suffered from a mental health condition during the relevant qualification period. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 94(1)(b) of the Act, specifically regarding the permanency of his conditions, as they were not found to be fully treated and stabilised. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's expressed willingness to undertake work that was mentally stimulating or had social benefit indicated he did not suffer a continuing inability to work.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant failed to meet the criteria under section 94(1)(b) and, by extension, section 94(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the disability support pension, was affirmed.