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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension (DSP) by the Applicant against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Applicant met the eligibility criteria for the DSP, specifically concerning the severity of his impairments and his continuing inability to work during the relevant qualification period. The decision was made by Member C Edwardes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine three key legal issues. Firstly, whether the Applicant possessed any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment. Secondly, if such impairments existed, whether they attracted ratings of at least 20 points under the relevant Impairment Tables. Finally, the Tribunal had to assess whether the Applicant had a "continuing inability to work" as defined by the Social Security Act 1991.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the functional capacity of the Applicant and the nature of the evidence presented. It noted that the Impairment Tables are function-based and assess functional capacity affecting a person's ability to work, requiring conditions to be permanent and likely to persist for more than two years. Crucially, the Tribunal highlighted that symptoms reported by a person can only be taken into account if there is corroborating evidence. The Applicant's own evidence, including admissions of steady functional improvement, a rehabilitation physician's assessment of functional independence, and the questionable nature of some of his submitted documents, weighed against a finding of significant, permanent impairment. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that medical advice indicated the Applicant could indeed work, and that his medication was still subject to trial during the qualification period.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not qualify for the DSP. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was affirmed.