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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Humphreys against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Humphreys met the criteria for the pension during a specific claim period, particularly concerning the severity of his various medical conditions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, represented by Dr L Bygrave, Member, was tasked with reviewing the Secretary's decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: firstly, whether Mr Humphreys possessed an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables; and secondly, whether he suffered from a continuing inability to work as defined by the Social Security Act 1991. The Tribunal considered several conditions, including coronary artery disease, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, morbid obesity, and a left wrist condition, to determine if they met the threshold for the pension.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal examined the medical evidence for each condition. For coronary artery disease, while diagnosed and recommended for surgery after the claim period, it was not considered fully treated or stabilised within that period, thus precluding the assignment of points. Similarly, for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from a motor vehicle accident and a home invasion, although Mr Humphreys attended counselling, no reports from his psychologist were filed. A psychiatrist's report assessed various impairments, including total impairment in employability, but this assessment was made significantly after the claim period and did not provide a diagnosis or discuss treatment. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating the required level of impairment during the claim period, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Humphreys did not qualify for the disability support pension.

Consequently, as the Tribunal found that Mr Humphreys did not meet the impairment threshold during the claim period, it was unnecessary to consider the second issue of his continuing inability to work. The decision under review, which affirmed the denial of the disability support pension, was therefore affirmed.