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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Marston against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Marston's various physical and psychiatric impairments met the threshold of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision was made by Dr I Alexander, Member, of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Marston's impairments, including conditions such as hepatitis C, cirrhosis, haemochromatosis, diabetes mellitus, psoriasis, and anxiety and depression, were sufficiently diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period to warrant a rating under the Impairment Tables. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the application of Table 2 (Upper Limb Function), Table 4 (Spinal Function), Table 5 (Mental Health Function), Table 10 (Digestive and Reproductive Function), and Table 14 (Functions of the Skin).

The Tribunal found that several of Mr Marston's physical conditions, including hepatitis C, cirrhosis, haemochromatosis, and diabetes mellitus, were not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, precluding an Impairment Table rating. While Mr Marston's psoriasis was considered permanent, there was insufficient evidence of its functional impact during the qualification period. Regarding his mental health condition, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the medical evidence and concluded that, during the qualification period, the diagnosis of anxiety and depression had not been confirmed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist as required by Impairment Table 5. Consequently, no rating could be assigned under that table.

As the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Marston's impairments did not amount to 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the qualification period, he did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision under review was affirmed.