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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim for a Disability Support Pension made by Ms. May against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The dispute concerned whether Ms. May met the eligibility criteria for the pension, particularly in relation to the severity and permanence of her impairments and her capacity to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key legal issues. These included the meaning of "clinical psychologist" in the context of assessing impairments, the rating of impairments resulting from "permanent" conditions, and whether Ms. May suffered a "severe impairment" as defined by the relevant legislation. Further issues involved assessing her continuing inability to work, whether a job capacity assessment was consistent with the medical evidence, and if her work capacity within two years fell below the minimum threshold for "work." The Tribunal also had to consider the meaning of "designated provider" in relation to a program of support provided by an insurer under a State workers' compensation scheme, and whether the temporal component of active participation in such a program was satisfied. Finally, the Tribunal needed to assess Ms. May's ability to work independently of a program of support within two years, the evidentiary basis for any such inference, and her ability to undertake training activities that would enable her to work independently.

The Tribunal reasoned that while generalised osteoarthritis was accepted as a permanent condition, and a diagnosis of depression was present, the combined impairments did not meet the threshold for a severe impairment. The job capacity assessment was found to be inconsistent with the medical evidence, and Ms. May's work capacity within two years was assessed as being below the minimum threshold for "work." Regarding the program of support, the Tribunal found that the program provided by the insurer did not satisfy the definition of a "designated provider" and that the temporal component of active participation was not met. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to infer that Ms. May would be able to work independently of a program of support within two years, nor that training activities would enable her to do so. Consequently, the active participation requirement was not satisfied.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms. May did not meet the qualification criteria for the grant of a Disability Support Pension based on the claim lodged on 4 June 2015.