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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hurmz against a decision affirming the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' refusal to grant him a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Mr Hurmz met the eligibility criteria for a DSP during a specified qualification period, specifically concerning the severity of his impairments and his continuing inability to work. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Hurmz suffered a severe impairment, defined as an impairment attracting 20 or more points under a single Impairment Table, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. To qualify for a DSP, a person must have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that is rated at 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and demonstrate a continuing inability to work. A key requirement for assigning impairment points is that the underlying condition must be permanent, meaning it has been fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised, and is likely to persist for more than two years, with corroborating evidence beyond self-reporting. Furthermore, for impairments not deemed severe, active participation in a Program of Support (POS) for at least 18 months within the preceding 36 months is required to establish a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Hurmz had several medical conditions, including benign prostatic hyperplasia, emphysema, hypertension, alcohol dependence, and a mental health condition, he did not satisfy the criteria for a severe impairment. Specifically, regarding his benign prostatic hyperplasia, although it was diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, there was no evidence of functional impairment during the qualification period. The Respondent contended, and the Tribunal accepted, that Mr Hurmz had a total rating of 0 points under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, he did not meet the threshold of 20 or more points under a single Impairment Table, as required by paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). As Mr Hurmz failed to satisfy this limb of the eligibility requirements, the Tribunal did not need to consider whether he had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that Mr Hurmz did not qualify for a DSP during the relevant qualification period because he did not satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.