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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension (DSP) by the Applicant, who had several medical conditions. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services was the Respondent. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the Applicant's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether these conditions attracted sufficient points under the Impairment Tables to qualify for a DSP.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation and application of the "fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised" requirement for a DSP. This involved determining the relevant period for assessing these conditions and the meaning of "fully" in this context. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the Applicant's various impairments, including a spinal condition, attracted the necessary points under the relevant Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs* [2012] AATA 922, which clarified that the assessment of whether a condition is stabilised must be based on the evidence available at the time of the DSP application and the subsequent 13-week period. Subsequent progression of a condition after the application date cannot be used to award a DSP based on those changed circumstances. The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's spinal condition caused pain and significantly impacted his movements, and the Respondent conceded that the Applicant had impairments satisfying s 94(1)(a) of the Act, the conditions did not attract sufficient points under the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal was able to allocate points to the Applicant under Tables 3 and 5, but the total of 15 points did not meet the threshold of 20 or more points required by s 94(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the Applicant did not qualify for the DSP, and it was unnecessary to consider whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision under review was affirmed.