KBNF and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) - [2025] ARTA 2283

KBNF and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2283 (27 October 2025)
Applicant:KBNF
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2024/2563

Tribunal:Senior Member S Trotter (second review)
Place:Brisbane
Date:27 October 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 27 October 2025 at 2:49pm

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – lower limb condition – neurological condition – mental health condition – 2011 Impairment Tables – whether fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised - whether impairment rating of 20 points can be assigned – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Social Security (Tables for Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Cases
MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767
Secondary Materials
Nil
Statement of Reasons

This application is about whether Mr KBNF (the Applicant), who is now 41 years of age, met the medical qualification requirements for grant of disability support pension in relation to a claim made by him on 19 September 2022.
On 4 November 2022, Services Australia – Centrelink on behalf the Respondent (Centrelink)[1] decided to reject Mr KBNF’s claim for disability support pension on the basis that he did not have an impairment rating of 20 points as required.
[1] Services Australia delivers social security payments and services and is overseen by the Department of Social Services. The Respondent is responsible for the overall management and administration of the Department of Social Security. Centrelink is the Government Agency that delivers social security payments and services as part of Services Australia and the Agency with whom pension and benefit applicants/ recipients interact. The Respondent may be variously referred to as Centrelink or the Respondent throughout these Reasons.
On 10 November 2023, the Applicant requested a review of this decision and, on 20 January 2023, a Centrelink authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
On 8 April 2024, following application on 5 December 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) in its then Social Security and Child Support Division (SSCSD), affirmed the decision of the authorised review officer.
On 22 April 2024, application was made on behalf of the Applicant seeking second review of the decision of the SSCSD.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading KBNF and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social se...

Details

AGLC: KBNF and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2283
Case: [2025] ARTA 2283
Decision Date: 27 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between KBNF and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, involved a dispute over the eligibility for a disability support pension. The Applicant had made multiple claims for the pension, all of which had been rejected except the most recent one, granted from 30 May 2025. The central issue was whether the Applicant had met the statutory criteria for a disability support pension as of 19 September 2022. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the Applicant had a qualifying physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, whether the conditions could be rated, and whether a total of 20 points or more could be allocated under the Impairment Tables. Additionally, the Tribunal had to decide if the Applicant had a continuing inability to work as required by the legislation.

The primary legal issues revolved around the statutory requirements for qualifying for a disability support pension. The Tribunal had to ascertain whether the Applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for a qualifying impairment as of 19 September 2022. This involved assessing the sufficiency of the medical evidence to diagnose, treat, and establish the severity of the conditions impacting the Applicant. The Tribunal also needed to determine if the conditions could be rated and if the total points allocated met the legislative threshold of 20 points or more. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the statutory provisions and the medical evidence provided by both parties. The Applicant argued that he should have been granted the pension from 19 September 2022 based on his lower limb condition, while the Respondent maintained that the medical evidence did not support the necessary findings at that time.

The Tribunal concluded that while the Applicant had impairments caused by a lower limb condition, a neurological condition, and a mental health condition as of 19 September 2022, the medical evidence did not sufficiently support a finding that these conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully established. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and thus did not qualify for a disability support pension as of that date. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, upholding the Respondent's position that the Applicant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the pension as of 19 September 2022. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the legislative requirements and the evidence presented, ensuring that the statutory criteria were properly applied in reaching its conclusion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I accept that the Applicant was impacted by a number of medical conditions, including the lower limb condition, at the time of his 19 September 2022 claim for disability support pension. However, the grant of disability support pension is required, pursuant to the legislation, to be assessed on corroboratory evidence of diagnosis and treatment, and further where appropriate, corroboratory evidence of impairment for the allocation of impairment ratings. I have no discretion to disregard the legislative requirements necessary to medically qualify for disability support pension. I acknowledge that the Applicant has since been granted disability support pension from 30 May 2024. No details of the basis of that claim and its acceptance were before me although, as already noted, I observe that new Impairment Tables commenced subsequent to the 19 September 2022 claims for claims made on or after 1 April 2023.DECISIONThe Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

It follows from the relevant statutory provisions that the issues for me to determine are:(a) Did the Applicant have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment for the purposes of his 19 September 2022 claim? And, if so,(b) Can an impairment rating be allocated in relation to each of the conditions impacting the Applicant for his 19 September 2022 claim and, if so, how many points can be allocated? And, if so,(c) Can a total of 20 points or more be allocated in relation to the Applicant’s 19 September 2022 claim? And, if so,(d) Did the Applicant have a continuing inability to work for the purposes of the 19 September 2022 claim for disability support pension?CONSIDERATION The Applicant told me at hearing that he has made a number of claims for disability support pension, 6 in total, and they have all been rejected up until the last one, which has been granted from 30 May 2025. He said the same medical conditions have been affecting him for years. He was impacted the same way in 2022 that he was in 2025 when disability support pension has been granted. He therefore submits that he should also be assessed as being medically qualified in 2022. The Respondent’s position is that as of 19 September 2022, the medical evidence did not support a finding that the conditions impacting the Applicant were fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stablished such that the Applicant’s impairments could be rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Accordingly, the Applicant did not satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act and therefore did not qualify for disability support pension at that time.[3] The Respondent accepts, however, that paragraphs 94(1)(a) and (c) were met at the relevant time.Issue 1: Did the Applicant have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment for the purposes of his 19 September 2022 claim?[3] Paragraph 5.2 of the Respondent’s SFIC. Having reviewed the medical reports in evidence, I am satisfied that as of 19 September 2022, the Applicant had impairments caused by a lower limb condition (bilateral hip pain), a neurological condition and a mental health condition. I therefore find the Applicant satisfies paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act for the purposes of his 19 September 2022 claim. As already noted, the Respondent accepts that paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act was satisfied as of 19 September 2022: paragraph 41 of the Applicant’s SFC.Issue 2: Can an impairment rating be allocated in relation to each of the conditions impacting the Applicant for his 19 September 2022 claim and, if so, how many points can be allocated? The Applicant’s position is that his lower limb (hip) condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised for the purposes of his 19 September 2022 claim, as confirmed by his general practitioner (referred to as Dr C in these Reasons), at the time and that he should have been receiving disability support pension from that time on that basis. The Applicant said he accepts that the neurological condition (variously described as epilepsy or FND) was very uncertain at the time and was being investigated but he considers he should have been receiving disability support pension for his hip condition. He said whenever he took forms into Centrelink at the front counter, they were always querying why he had not applied for disability support pension.