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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr William Kovacic against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Kovacic met the criteria for a DSP under section 94 of the relevant Act.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Kovacic had a physical impairment that rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal also had to consider the weight to be given to Mr Kovacic's reported symptoms and the impact of non-medical factors on his impairment assessment.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the available medical evidence, noting that while Mr Kovacic had diagnoses of mild degenerative osteoarthritis of the spine and hips, hypertension, and tinnitus, the objective medical evidence did not support an impairment rating of 20 points or more. Physical examinations of his spine by specialists in 2007 and 2008 were largely normal, with only slight reductions in movement. Imaging from 2005 confirmed minor degenerative changes, and subsequent X-rays showed mild changes, with one exception of moderate facet joint changes at L5/S1. The Tribunal noted that Mr Kovacic's reported pain and his fear of medication side effects, which led to him not taking prescribed medication as directed, were not sufficient to establish the required level of impairment. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that his hypertension was well-controlled and his tinnitus did not impact his work capacity. The Tribunal also considered that Mr Kovacic believed he could work in a sedentary role for more than 15 hours per week, a view supported by his general practitioner.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Kovacic did not satisfy the criteria for a DSP. It accepted that he had a physical impairment, but concluded that this impairment did not rate 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, nor did the evidence establish a continuing inability to work.