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

Case

[2017] AATA 1230

9 August 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Lokanc and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1230 [2017] AATA 1230 9 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Lokanc against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Lokanc, an Australian citizen born in Bosnia and Herzegovina, had sustained multiple workplace injuries to his back between 1997 and 2002. Following the 2002 injury, he received a significant lump sum compensation payment, which precluded him from receiving social security benefits until March 2015. The dispute centred on whether Mr Lokanc met the legislative requirements for a DSP, specifically concerning the severity of his impairments and his ability to work.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Lokanc had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that attracted 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables, and whether he had a continuing inability to work. This involved assessing whether his impairments were severe, as defined by section 94(3B) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which would exempt him from the requirement to participate in a Program of Support (POS). If his impairment was not severe, the court needed to consider whether he had actively participated in a POS for at least 18 months within the 36 months prior to his claim.

The court found that while Mr Lokanc had a long history of back pain and progressive deterioration of his condition, his impairments did not attract 20 points or more under a single impairment table. Consequently, he did not have a severe impairment for the purposes of section 94(3B) of the Act. The court also noted inconsistencies in Mr Lokanc's evidence regarding his ability to perform basic activities such as sitting, standing, and walking, and found that his submissions regarding his inability to lift, stand, sit, or stay in one place were not supported by the available evidence. The court therefore affirmed the decision under review.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Standing

  • Statutory Construction

  • Natural Justice

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

7

Statutory Material Cited

0