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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms McGee against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding her eligibility for a Disability Support Pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Ms McGee's various impairments, particularly her mental health condition, met the criteria for the pension, specifically whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under the relevant tables and whether her conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The case was heard by D K Grigg M.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Ms McGee's various medical conditions, including ischaemic heart disease, thoracolumbar scoliosis, anaemia, vision impairment, and anxiety and depression, constituted impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a) of the relevant Act. Secondly, and crucially, the court had to assess whether these impairments, when considered collectively, attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under section 94(1)(b) of the Act, which necessitated that the conditions be permanent and likely to persist for at least two years, and that they be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised.

The court's reasoning focused on applying the Impairment Tables, which are designed to assess the functional impact of impairments rather than the conditions themselves. For an impairment rating to be assigned, the condition causing it must be permanent, meaning it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and is likely to persist for more than two years. The court found that while Ms McGee suffered from several impairments, including ischaemic heart disease and thoracolumbar scoliosis, the evidence did not support a significant functional impact for the heart condition, assigning it only 5 points. Furthermore, the court noted that Ms McGee's depression was not considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised at the relevant time, as she had not been reviewed by a clinical psychologist or received treatment. Consequently, the court concluded that the threshold of 20 or more points for the impairment rating was not met.