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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the applicant, who claimed to suffer from various medical conditions including Hashimoto's disease (terminal dysthyroidism), chronic obstructive airways disease, hypertension, and reactive depression. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether these conditions, during the relevant period of 20 March 2017 to 19 June 2017, resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, and whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's medical impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant period. It also needed to assess whether these conditions caused a functional impairment attracting an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether the applicant met the criteria for a severe impairment or had completed a Program of Support. Finally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that for an impairment rating to be assigned, the conditions must be permanent, meaning they are fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and likely to persist for at least two years. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's Hashimoto's disease was fully diagnosed, but found that it was not fully treated or stabilised, as she had not consulted a specialist for treatment likely to result in functional improvement. The Tribunal also considered that where multiple conditions contribute to a common impairment, a single rating should be assigned under a single table. The evidence presented did not establish that the applicant's conditions attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not qualified for the Disability Support Pension within the relevant period. The decision under review, which affirmed the rejection of the DSP claim, was therefore affirmed.