Kontossis and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1846
•21 June 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kontossis and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 1846
[2018] AATA 1846
21 June 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Kontossis against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Kontossis's various medical conditions, including chronic right shoulder pain, cervical spine issues, and mental health conditions, qualified him for the DSP. The case was heard by Ms Anna Burke, a Member of the Tribunal.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Kontossis suffered from a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment; whether his diagnosed conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to continue for at least two years; whether these conditions attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables; and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to assess his conditions against the criteria set out in the Social Security Act 1991 and the Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal found that Mr Kontossis did suffer from impairments, including his right shoulder condition, secondary chronic pain, cervical spine issues, and mental health conditions. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that his right shoulder condition attracted 10 impairment points for upper limb function, and his personality disorder attracted 10 impairment points for mental health conditions, totalling the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was satisfied that these conditions were diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to continue for at least two years. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Kontossis had a continuing inability to work.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision under review and substituted a new determination. The Tribunal found that Mr Kontossis satisfied all the requirements of section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 and was therefore qualified to receive the Disability Support Pension as at the date of his claim.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Kontossis suffered from a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment; whether his diagnosed conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to continue for at least two years; whether these conditions attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables; and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to assess his conditions against the criteria set out in the Social Security Act 1991 and the Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal found that Mr Kontossis did suffer from impairments, including his right shoulder condition, secondary chronic pain, cervical spine issues, and mental health conditions. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that his right shoulder condition attracted 10 impairment points for upper limb function, and his personality disorder attracted 10 impairment points for mental health conditions, totalling the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was satisfied that these conditions were diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to continue for at least two years. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Kontossis had a continuing inability to work.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision under review and substituted a new determination. The Tribunal found that Mr Kontossis satisfied all the requirements of section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 and was therefore qualified to receive the Disability Support Pension as at the date of his claim.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0