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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Applicant, who claimed to have a Major Depressive Disorder and a neck condition. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant qualified for DSP at the date of his claim, 22 November 2016, or within the subsequent 13 weeks, up to 21 February 2017. The governing legislation was the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether, during the relevant period, the Applicant's medical impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. Crucially, the Tribunal had to assess whether these conditions resulted in a functional impairment attracting an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, either through a severe impairment under a single table or by completing a Program of Support. Finally, the Tribunal needed to consider whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work. The Impairment Tables are function-based, assessing the functional impact of impairments rather than the conditions themselves.

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's Major Depressive Disorder was fully diagnosed, it was not considered fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period. Evidence indicated ongoing psychological therapy and varied pharmacological treatment, with a psychologist noting that while progress was likely, complete recovery was unlikely and future high-stress periods could trigger episodes. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the available medical evidence and the nature of the ongoing treatment, it was unable to assign any Impairment Rating Points under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the Applicant did not satisfy the requirement under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

As the Applicant failed to meet the threshold for an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more, the Tribunal determined it was unnecessary to consider whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work. Therefore, the decision under review, which refused the DSP, was affirmed.