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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Hicks against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr. Hicks’ impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether he had a continuing inability to work.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Hicks suffered from a severe impairment as defined by the relevant legislation, and whether he had actively participated in a program of support, which would be a prerequisite for establishing a continuing inability to work. This involved assessing the functional impact of his various medical conditions, including a kidney disorder, heart disorder, visual function, and skin conditions, against the criteria set out in the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal considered the evidence relating to Mr. Hicks’ visual function, accepting that his condition could be considered permanent during the claim period and had a functional impact, but found the severity of this impact to be unclear and not reaching the threshold of "severe." Regarding his skin condition, the Tribunal accepted that it was permanent and, based on medical reports detailing increased sensitivity, the need for precautions, multiple excisions, and impaired healing, concluded that there was a moderate functional impact, warranting a rating of 10 points under Table 14. However, this was also found not to constitute a "severe" functional impact.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr. Hicks did not demonstrate a severe impairment as defined by the Act. Furthermore, as he had not actively participated in a program of support, he could not establish a continuing inability to work. Consequently, Mr. Hicks did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 and was therefore not qualified for a disability support pension. The decision under review was affirmed.