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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Mehrjerdi against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) affirming the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to refuse her claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant accepted that she suffered from impairments arising from back pain, poliomyelitis, hypertension, and depression, satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the relevant Act. The central dispute revolved around whether Ms Mehrjerdi had an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the claim period, which was between 6 June 2013 and 5 September 2013.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Mehrjerdi met the criteria for a DSP, specifically whether she had an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables during the claim period. To qualify for a DSP, an applicant must satisfy section 94 of the Act, which includes having an impairment or combination of impairments that attracts a rating of 20 points or more. Furthermore, the rules for applying the Impairment Tables stipulated that the condition causing the impairment must be permanent, fully diagnosed, fully treated, and stabilised, with a prognosis of persisting for more than two years and no likelihood of significant functional improvement enabling work within that timeframe.

The court considered the evidence, including reports from medical practitioners and a Job Capacity Assessment. While the SSAT had assigned an impairment rating of 20 points for Ms Mehrjerdi's condition, the respondent contended that her back condition was permanent but not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the claim period. The court noted that there was limited medical evidence regarding the cause, treatment, and prognosis of her back pain, and therefore agreed with the SSAT's finding that this condition was not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. Consequently, the court found that Ms Mehrjerdi's total impairment rating during the claim period was 10 points, meaning she did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

Given that Ms Mehrjerdi did not satisfy the impairment rating requirement, the court found it unnecessary to consider whether she had a continuing inability to work, a separate criterion for DSP eligibility. The court affirmed the decision of the SSAT.