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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr MacGregor against the decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the Department of Social Services' rejection of his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr MacGregor lodged his claim on 10 September 2018, listing several medical conditions primarily related to his shoulder, neck, spine, and hip, stemming from a workplace injury in 2009 and a subsequent motor vehicle accident. A Job Capacity Assessment conducted on 30 November 2018 assigned him five impairment points for his upper limb condition and ten points for his spinal condition, concluding he had a work capacity of 15-22 hours per week with intervention.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr MacGregor’s impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised (FDTS) during the qualification period, and whether these impairments attracted a total rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr MacGregor had a continuing inability to work (CITW). The qualification period for assessing his claim was from 10 September 2018 to 10 December 2018.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a condition to be considered permanent for DSP purposes, it must be fully diagnosed by a qualified medical practitioner, fully treated and stabilised, and likely to last more than two years. Applying this to Mr MacGregor's circumstances, the Tribunal found that while his upper limb and spinal conditions were considered FDTS and attracted ratings of five and ten points respectively, his hip pain was not fully treated and stabilised. Consequently, his total impairment rating did not reach the required threshold of 20 points. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Mr MacGregor did not satisfy the CITW criteria.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that Mr MacGregor was not qualified for a DSP during the relevant qualification period. Therefore, the decision to reject his claim was affirmed.