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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the appeal of Mr. Lamont against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding his entitlement to a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core dispute concerned whether Mr. Lamont's various medical conditions, existing at the time of his claim or within 13 weeks thereafter, met the criteria for receiving the DSP, specifically whether they attracted 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr. Lamont's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and if these conditions, when assessed against the Impairment Tables, warranted a score of 20 points or more. This assessment was to be made based on the applicant's state of health during the period of his claim, or within 13 weeks of that date, even if subsequent medical evidence or the progression of his conditions might suggest a different outcome in a new claim.

The Tribunal applied the principle that it must assess the applicant's condition as it was at the time of the original claim, referencing the reasoning in *Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs* [2012] AATA 922. This means that any progression of a medical condition after the relevant period cannot be used to award a DSP for the original claim, although such evidence can inform the weight given to prognostications or the quality of earlier medical reports. The Tribunal acknowledged that while it could consider medical reports prepared after the relevant period, these reports must pertain to the applicant's health during that specific timeframe. The Respondent conceded that Mr. Lamont suffered impairments, satisfying one limb of the DSP eligibility criteria.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal noted that Mr. Lamont had made a new claim, and with additional medical evidence and the progression of his condition, a different outcome might arise for that new claim. However, for the claim under review, the existing evidence did not meet the threshold for the DSP.