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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Lindblom and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant claimed to have several medical conditions, including degenerative osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine, angina, and upper limb issues, which he argued qualified him for the DSP. The core dispute revolved around whether these impairments met the threshold required by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) for receiving a DSP.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain if the applicant's medical impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, which was the date of claim (11 April 2016) or within 13 weeks thereafter. Secondly, the Tribunal had to assess whether these conditions resulted in a functional impairment that attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. If this threshold was met, the Tribunal would then consider whether the applicant had a severe impairment under a single Impairment Table or, alternatively, had completed a Program of Support. Finally, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement for impairments to attract a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The applicant's spinal condition, despite a long history of pain, was found not to be fully treated or stabilised during the relevant period. Medical evidence indicated that while the applicant had participated in a pain education program, he had not completed it, and the recommended strategies had not been fully trialled. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no Impairment Rating Points could be assigned under the Impairment Tables for the spinal condition. As this was a prerequisite for qualifying for the DSP under section 94(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy this requirement.

Given the conclusion that the applicant did not meet the Impairment Rating threshold, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the further issue of whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. Therefore, the decision under review, which affirmed the initial decision to deny the DSP, was affirmed by the Tribunal.