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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Jeffery, who claimed to have impairments relating to diabetic visual disturbance, diabetic foot ulcers, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The Department rejected his claim, finding that his impairments did not attract the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables and that he did not have a continuing inability to work. This decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on first review. Mr Jeffery sought a second review by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Jeffery’s impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised (FDTS) during the qualification period, whether these impairments attracted a total rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables, and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to assess Mr Jeffery's conditions as they existed during the qualification period, which was the date of his DSP claim (9 February 2017) or within 13 weeks thereafter.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "permanent" for the purposes of the Impairment Tables, which requires a condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, stabilised, and more likely than not to last for more than two years. While the Respondent accepted Mr Jeffery's eye condition was FDTS during the qualification period, the medical evidence indicated it attracted 0 points under the relevant table. Reports from ophthalmologists noted good visual acuity and no need for visual aids for driving, with one report suggesting his eyesight was "deemed good such that he could return to normal duties/activities." Although Mr Jeffery presented evidence of recent eye bleeds and the use of reading glasses, the Tribunal found that a report from Professor McAllister, conducted more than two years after the qualification period, could not be used to determine impairment during that time. Similarly, a general practitioner's report verified the existence of chronic conditions but did not describe the functional impairment as at the qualification period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It acknowledged Mr Jeffery as an honest witness and was sympathetic to his complex medical conditions, noting that his conditions may have worsened since his claim was lodged. The Tribunal advised that it remained open for Mr Jeffery to test his eligibility again with recent, relevant medical evidence.