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

This matter concerned an appeal by KPZL against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, which affirmed a refusal to grant a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's medical conditions, specifically chronic fatigue syndrome, were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant qualification period, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the relevant social security legislation. The appeal was heard by Deputy President Sosso of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's chronic fatigue syndrome had been fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The Tribunal was required to assess the available medical evidence to determine if these criteria were met within the statutory timeframe. The Tribunal also noted that if these conditions were not met, it would not be necessary to consider the applicant's continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs* [2012] AATA 922, which clarified that the assessment of whether a condition is stabilised must be based on the evidence available at the time of the application for the disability support pension. The Tribunal found that while the applicant's chronic fatigue syndrome was diagnosed by Dr. Mark Donohoe in 2002, with a recommended treatment plan, there was no evidence that the applicant actually received treatment for this condition during the qualification period. Furthermore, Dr. Catherine Marks' report indicated the applicant had not followed up with Dr. Donohoe and was still experiencing disabling symptoms, but did not suggest appropriate treatment. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the condition had been fully treated and stabilised.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act.