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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension by the Applicant, McDougall, against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The central dispute revolved around whether the Applicant met the legislative requirements for the pension, specifically concerning the severity and stability of her diagnosed medical conditions during a defined "Relevant Period." The decision was made by P E Nolan SM.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant had impairments that were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the Relevant Period, and whether these impairments attracted 20 or more impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables. This was a necessary precursor to satisfying all criteria under section 94(2) of the Social Security Act 1991, which are required for a continuing inability to work and thus eligibility for the pension.

The court considered various upper limb conditions, including osteoarthritis of the thumb and hands, carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow, bursitis of the shoulder, and trigger thumb. While the Respondent conceded that some conditions, such as osteoarthritis of the hands, were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, it contended that others, including carpal tunnel syndrome and tennis elbow, were not. The court found, based on medical evidence, that the Applicant's carpal tunnel syndrome, although fully diagnosed, was not fully treated and stabilised during the Relevant Period, citing expert opinions indicating expected improvement and planned further treatment. Similarly, the court noted that the Applicant's right tennis elbow condition also required further assessment and treatment.

As the Applicant's conditions did not attract an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more during the Relevant Period, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to consider the remaining criteria for qualification for the Disability Support Pension. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.