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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Mark McKinnon for a review of the decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to refuse him a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Mr McKinnon met the eligibility criteria for the DSP, specifically concerning the severity and impact of his diagnosed medical conditions during the relevant qualification period. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the evidence presented by both Mr McKinnon and the Secretary.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr McKinnon suffered from a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment under section 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), and if so, whether that impairment, or a combination of impairments, resulted in a level of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess these conditions as they existed during the qualification period, noting that subsequent changes in medical condition were not relevant to this specific claim, although evidence referable to the qualification period could be considered.

The Tribunal found that Mr McKinnon suffered impairments during the qualification period, including Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Hypertension, a mental health condition, and a skin condition, which were accepted by the Respondent. In assessing the Irritable Bowel Syndrome, the Tribunal reviewed extensive medical evidence, including reports from his treating general practitioner, specialist consultations, hospital discharge summaries, and an occupational therapist's opinion. This evidence detailed the chronic and unpredictable nature of his symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, bowel urgency, and instances of accidents, which significantly impacted his quality of life and ability to work. Despite the various medical investigations, no definitive cause other than moderate sigmoid diverticulosis was found for his symptoms, and the condition was described as ongoing with no effective treatment.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division. The Tribunal concluded that it was not necessary to consider section 94(1)(c) of the Act, implying that the applicant had not met the threshold requirements under sections 94(1)(a) and (b) for the DSP.