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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs McKenna against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to reject her claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The primary dispute revolved around whether Mrs McKenna's impairments met the threshold required for DSP qualification under the relevant legislation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining the validity of the Department's decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mrs McKenna qualified for DSP on 14 June 2017, or within the subsequent 13 weeks, by satisfying the requirements of section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This involved assessing whether her impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether they attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011*. The Tribunal also needed to consider the requirement of a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an impairment to be considered permanent under the Impairment Tables, it must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, with a likelihood of lasting more than two years. The Tribunal noted that evidence of treatment efficacy after the qualification period was not directly relevant, as the assessment should focus on the likely effect of treatment at the time of the claim and in the following 13 weeks. Applying this to Mrs McKenna's case, the Tribunal concluded that her impairments did not attract the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables during the qualification period. Consequently, it was unnecessary to consider the further requirement of a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject Mrs McKenna's claim for DSP, finding that she did not satisfy the necessary criteria for qualification.