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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms. Larkin against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming the rejection of her claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Ms. Larkin met the legislative criteria for DSP, specifically concerning the diagnosis, treatment, and stabilisation of her medical conditions, the assessment of her impairment rating under the Impairment Tables, and her continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to review the AAT's decision based on the legislative framework governing DSP claims.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine whether Ms. Larkin possessed a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, whether this impairment, or combination of impairments, attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, and crucially, whether she had a continuing inability to work, as defined by section 94(2) of the *Social Security Act 1991*. These criteria are conjunctive, meaning all must be satisfied for a DSP qualification. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "severe impairment" under section 94(3B) of the Act, which requires an impairment rating of 20 or more points under a single impairment table.

The Tribunal found that while Ms. Larkin's overall impairment rating reached 20 points or more, she did not satisfy the criterion of a continuing inability to work. This conclusion was reached after considering the medical evidence regarding her conditions, including fibromyalgia and anxiety, and their functional impacts. The Tribunal noted that achieving the minimum impairment rating does not automatically qualify an individual for DSP, as the ability to work, even if limited, remains a critical factor. The Tribunal applied the principles that entitlement is assessed during a qualification period of 13 weeks from the claim date and that all DSP qualification criteria must be met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the AAT's decision, finding that Ms. Larkin was not qualified for DSP as at the relevant qualification period because she failed to demonstrate a continuing inability to work.