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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Heazlewood against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services (DSS) affirming a determination that he was not eligible for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Mr Heazlewood's impairments met the threshold required for DSP eligibility at the time of his claim. The case was heard by A C Cotter SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Heazlewood's various impairments attracted 20 or more impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work within two years of the relevant period. The Tribunal was required to assess the severity of his degenerative cervical and lumbar spondylosis, as well as consider potential impairments under other tables relating to physical exertion, stamina, and upper limb function.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Heazlewood's degenerative cervical and lumbar spondylosis was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, noting that despite extensive treatment from a pain management specialist, his condition had not significantly improved and his medication dosages had increased. The Secretary conceded that this condition was fully treated and stabilised, and the Tribunal agreed that it warranted 10 impairment points under Table 4 (Spinal Function). However, after considering the evidence regarding Mr Heazlewood's daily activities and the observations of medical professionals, the Tribunal determined that his impairments, when assessed against the Impairment Tables, totalled only 15 points. Consequently, he did not meet the 20-point threshold for DSP.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that Mr Heazlewood did not qualify for DSP at the relevant time. The Tribunal noted that even if he had reached the 20-point threshold, he would still have faced obstacles in establishing a continuing inability to work. The decision encouraged Mr Heazlewood to consider making a fresh claim in the future, given the potential for deterioration in his spinal condition and ongoing treatment for his mental health.