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

Case

[2018] AATA 3734

5 October 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Mews and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 3734 [2018] AATA 3734 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension (DSP) by the applicant, Mews, against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for the pension.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's medical conditions, specifically heart and diabetes, resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991. The Tribunal also needed to consider, if the first criterion was met, whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work, pursuant to section 94(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. It noted that the Impairment Tables are function-based and assess functional capacity, requiring conditions to be permanent and fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. Symptoms must be corroborated by evidence. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant achieved a total of 10 impairment points under the Impairment Tables, falling short of the required 20 points. Consequently, the Tribunal did not need to consider the issue of continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department of Social Services, finding that the applicant did not qualify for a disability support pension.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Statutory Construction

  • Appeal

  • Procedural Fairness