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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hurst against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services affirming a determination that he did not qualify for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Hurst’s impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under the relevant Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining the appropriate impairment rating based on the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: firstly, to identify the relevant Impairment Table for assessing Mr Hurst’s conditions, and secondly, to determine the appropriate impairment rating, if any, to be assigned to those conditions. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence of Mr Hurst’s functional limitations, particularly in relation to spinal function, and to assess whether this evidence was sufficiently corroborated by medical reports to meet the criteria for an impairment rating under the relevant table.

The Tribunal reasoned that Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, concerning Spinal Function, was the most appropriate for assessing Mr Hurst’s impairments, given his reported difficulties with lifting his arms, driving, and walking due to neck and back pain. The Tribunal emphasised that self-report alone was insufficient and required corroborating medical evidence. While Mr Hurst provided evidence of his difficulties, the Tribunal found that the corroborating medical evidence, particularly from Dr Dark and the Job Capacity Assessment (JCA), did not support an impairment rating of 20 or more points under Table 4. Specifically, restrictions on overhead tasks were noted as potentially falling under Table 2 (Shoulder Function), and the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a functional impact on spinal activities to meet the threshold. The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to consider Mr Hurst’s Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or hearing loss as qualifying impairments.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that Mr Hurst’s impairments did not attract an impairment rating of 20 or more points, and therefore he did not satisfy the requirements for a disability support pension.