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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension (DSP) by Mr. Kumar, who sought a review of a decision by the Department of Social Services. The central issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether Mr. Kumar was entitled to a DSP under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to consider evidence relating to Mr. Kumar's conditions during the thirteen-week period following his application for DSP, from 25 January 2016 to 25 April 2016.

The Tribunal had to determine if Mr. Kumar's impairments met the criteria for a DSP, specifically whether they resulted in a rating of 20 or more points on the Impairment Tables as prescribed by the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011* (Cth). The Tribunal considered medical reports, including a report from a specialist in occupational medicine, Dr. Keith Adam, and surveillance reports detailing Mr. Kumar's activities. While some of this evidence, such as Dr. Adam's report and the surveillance reports, was generated after the relevant period, the Tribunal considered it insofar as it was referable to Mr. Kumar's condition during that period.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr. Kumar's impairments did not achieve the required 20-point threshold on the Impairment Tables. Consequently, he failed to satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). As this ground alone was sufficient to disqualify him from receiving a DSP, the Tribunal did not need to consider whether he also demonstrated a continuing inability to work during the relevant period. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.