Marshall and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 615
•2 April 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marshall and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 615
[2019] AATA 615
2 April 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the appeal of an applicant seeking a disability support pension (DSP) against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to reject his claim. The applicant listed several conditions including hypertension, depression, anterolisthesis of L5/S1, and osteoarthritis of the knees. The core dispute revolved around 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 they resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's various medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant period. Furthermore, it needed to assess whether the applicant's impairments, when evaluated against the Impairment Tables, reached the threshold of 20 points or more, which is a prerequisite for receiving a DSP. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work 15 hours or more per week due to his impairments.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's adjustment disorder with depressed mood was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, but insufficient evidence was presented regarding its functional impact, resulting in zero points under Table 5. The applicant's lumbar spine condition was also found to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, causing a mild functional impairment and attracting 5 points under Table 4. However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's other conditions were not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments did not attract more than 20 points. The decision under review was affirmed.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's various medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant period. Furthermore, it needed to assess whether the applicant's impairments, when evaluated against the Impairment Tables, reached the threshold of 20 points or more, which is a prerequisite for receiving a DSP. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work 15 hours or more per week due to his impairments.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's adjustment disorder with depressed mood was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, but insufficient evidence was presented regarding its functional impact, resulting in zero points under Table 5. The applicant's lumbar spine condition was also found to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, causing a mild functional impairment and attracting 5 points under Table 4. However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's other conditions were not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period, and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments did not attract more than 20 points. The decision under review was affirmed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
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