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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to reject Mr McLarty's claim for a disability support pension. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr McLarty had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments during the qualification period, whether these conditions were permanent and likely to persist for more than two years, and if so, whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. Further issues included whether Mr McLarty had a continuing inability to work and, if a severe impairment was not found, whether he had satisfied program of support requirements.

The Tribunal considered the evidence regarding Mr McLarty's various health conditions, including obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), bilateral shoulder rotator cuff tear, and depression. It applied the principles established in *Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations* and *Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services*, which stipulate that an applicant's entitlement must be assessed as at the date of the claim and the subsequent 13 weeks, with later changes being relevant only insofar as they shed light on the position at that time. The Tribunal noted that an impairment rating could only be assigned if the condition causing the impairment was permanent, meaning it was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years.

The Tribunal found that Mr McLarty's OSA was a permanent condition and assigned it five points under Table 1. However, it determined that his bilateral shoulder rotator cuff tear was not fully treated and stabilised, as he had not followed medical recommendations for cortisone injections and physiotherapy. Similarly, his depression was not considered fully treated and stabilised due to a lack of information regarding current psychological intervention, prognosis, and functional impacts. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr McLarty's impairments did not attract a rating of 20 points or more under any Impairment Table, and therefore affirmed the decision to reject his claim for a disability support pension.