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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Juchau against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a Disability Support Pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Juchau's medical conditions resulted in a permanent impairment attracting a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant impairment tables, and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine whether Mr Juchau's diagnosed medical conditions were permanent, and if so, whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. This involved assessing the functional impact of his impairments and considering whether they were likely to persist for more than two years. The Tribunal also had to consider whether Mr Juchau had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an impairment rating to be assigned, the underlying condition must be permanent, meaning it has been fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised, and is likely to persist for more than two years. Applying this to Mr Juchau's Wegener's Granulomatosis, the Tribunal found Table 1 of the Determination, concerning physical exertion and stamina, to be the relevant table. Based on the available evidence, including medical reports and Mr Juchau's own testimony about his functional limitations, the Tribunal determined that an appropriate impairment rating for this condition fell between 5 and 10 points. As per the rules for assigning ratings when a condition falls between two levels, the lower rating is assigned. Therefore, a 5-point impairment rating was deemed appropriate for his vasculitis impairment. The Tribunal also accepted that Mr Juchau suffered from spinal, mental health, diabetes, and sleep apnoea impairments during the qualification period, satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, there was insufficient evidence to determine the permanence or functional impact of his hypertension.

The Tribunal concluded that Mr Juchau's impairments, when assessed under the relevant tables, did not attract an impairment rating of 20 or more points as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.