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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Hollier against the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to reject her claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP). Ms Hollier had previously undergone implantation of a contraceptive device which led to severe pain and subsequent legal action for medical negligence, which was unsuccessful. She had made several prior unsuccessful claims for DSP, with one claim being paid between June 2009 and July 2010. Her most recent application for DSP was lodged on 17 April 2014 and rejected on 5 June 2014, a decision affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer on 13 June 2014.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Ms Hollier satisfied the criteria for DSP during the relevant period, specifically whether her medical conditions, namely Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also considered whether there was sufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to support these conditions being fully treated and stabilised within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal found that while Ms Hollier had both physical and mental conditions, the exact diagnostic nature of these conditions was debatable due to a significant hiatus in her medical attention and treatment. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal determined that neither condition was fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period, and therefore, an impairment rating could not be assigned. The Tribunal noted that Ms Hollier had not received treatment for nearly three years between 2010 and late 2012, and her antidepressant medication was not recommenced until after the review period. Despite some later reports suggesting her MDD was fully treated and stabilised, the Tribunal found a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence to support this assertion at the time of the claim. Furthermore, a report suggested that further available treatments were likely to lead to significant functional improvement, indicating that her condition was not necessarily stabilised.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject Ms Hollier's claim for DSP, finding that she did not meet the legislative criteria for the pension during the stipulated period.