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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Maddern against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to refuse her claim for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Ms Maddern's medical conditions, specifically sarcoidosis, met the criteria for a severe impairment under the relevant social security legislation, as assessed against the Impairment Tables. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining this issue.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Maddern's impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, and whether she had a severe impairment as defined by the Impairment Tables. This required the Tribunal to consider if her condition, sarcoidosis, was permanent and if it resulted in a functional impairment of 20 points or more. The Tribunal also had to assess if Ms Maddern had actively participated in a program of support, although the primary focus remained on the medical assessment of her impairment.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the medical evidence presented, particularly concerning the diagnosis and progression of Ms Maddern's sarcoidosis. While sarcoidosis was diagnosed and treated with high-dose prednisolone and methotrexate, medical reports indicated that imaging scans suggested a resolution of lymphadenopathy and no new lung changes by August 2015. A physician noted that Ms Maddern was feeling "relatively well" and that her ongoing breathlessness was likely due to her weight rather than her sarcoidosis. Crucially, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the sarcoidosis was permanent during the qualification period, which precluded assigning a rating under Impairment Table 1. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Ms Maddern did not have a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and therefore did not qualify for a disability support pension. The decision under review was affirmed.