Lynch and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 331
•6 March 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lynch and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 331
[2019] AATA 331
6 March 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension (DSP) by the applicant, following the cancellation of his previous DSP payments. The applicant's prior DSP had been cancelled on the basis that his medical conditions did not attract the requisite 20 points under the relevant impairment tables. Following reviews by an Authorised Review Officer and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the cancellation was affirmed, and his DSP ceased. The applicant subsequently lodged a new claim for DSP, listing several medical conditions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to receive the DSP at the date of his claim or within 13 weeks thereafter.
The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for a DSP, specifically whether they were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and whether these conditions attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal considered the applicant's spinal condition, hypogonadism, Barrett's oesophagus, and migraines.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's spinal condition was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, resulting in a moderate functional impairment and attracting 10 points under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables. However, the Tribunal determined that his hypogonadism was not fully treated or stabilised, and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of assigning impairment points. Similarly, the applicant's Barrett's oesophagus and migraine conditions were found not to be fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, precluding the assignment of impairment points. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments did not attract a total of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a disability support pension.
The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for a DSP, specifically whether they were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and whether these conditions attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal considered the applicant's spinal condition, hypogonadism, Barrett's oesophagus, and migraines.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's spinal condition was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, resulting in a moderate functional impairment and attracting 10 points under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables. However, the Tribunal determined that his hypogonadism was not fully treated or stabilised, and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of assigning impairment points. Similarly, the applicant's Barrett's oesophagus and migraine conditions were found not to be fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, precluding the assignment of impairment points. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments did not attract a total of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a disability support pension.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lynch and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 331
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2012] AATA 922
Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 447
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2015] FCA 1123