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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mardiryan against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The core dispute revolved around whether Mr Mardiryan met the criteria for a disability support pension, specifically concerning his physical and psychiatric impairments and his continuing inability to work during a relevant period. The case was heard by Mr Conrad Ermert, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine three key issues: first, whether Mr Mardiryan suffered from physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments during the relevant period; second, if such impairments existed, whether they attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables; and third, whether Mr Mardiryan had a continuing inability to work.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered evidence regarding Mr Mardiryan's back condition, depression, and somatic disorder, as well as other diagnosed conditions including hypertension, obstructive sleep apnoea, obesity, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, and a right ankle fracture. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's concession that Mr Mardiryan suffered from these impairments. However, to satisfy the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal noted that an impairment must be permanent, meaning it must be fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. While acknowledging Mr Mardiryan's ongoing psychological therapy and some reported improvements, the Tribunal noted the psychologist's recommendations for further treatment, including dietician and physiotherapy review, sleep reassessment, and ongoing psychological support, suggesting that the conditions may not have been fully treated or stabilised during the qualifying period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It clarified that its decision related to Mr Mardiryan's condition and circumstances at the time of the qualifying period, and that he was at liberty to submit a further application if his condition had changed. The Tribunal also noted Mr Mardiryan's willingness to work in a suitable environment and suggested that further assistance from the respondent in finding such employment might be beneficial.