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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Kandasamy against the cancellation of her Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. Mrs Kandasamy had previously qualified for the DSP in 2008. Her eligibility was reassessed following a request for indefinite overseas portability, leading to a determination that she no longer met the criteria under section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) due to an insufficient impairment rating. The appeal was heard by Miss E A Shanahan, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mrs Kandasamy's impairment rating, assessed under the functionally based Impairment Tables, met the threshold of 20 points or more as required by section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the impact of her conditions, including vasovagal syncope, migraine, and major depressive disorder, on her ability to work, and whether these conditions were fully diagnosed and stabilised according to the relevant legislative requirements.

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including medical reports and Mrs Kandasamy's own testimony. It was accepted that Mrs Kandasamy suffered from vasovagal syncope and migraine, attracting an impairment rating of 15 points. While a lengthy history of depression was acknowledged, the Tribunal found that this condition had not been treated or stabilised at the time of the cancellation of her DSP, nor was it diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist prior to her initial qualification for the DSP, as required by the updated Impairment Tables. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the reassessment that Mrs Kandasamy did not meet the 20-point threshold under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the cancellation of Mrs Kandasamy's DSP was correct and preferable. While acknowledging the possibility that her condition might improve with treatment, the Tribunal concluded that it was too early to determine her prognosis, and based on the evidence presented, she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria at that time.