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

Case

[2021] AATA 2381

20 July 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Milic and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 2381 [2021] AATA 2381 20 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Milic, who sought review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on whether Mr Milic met the eligibility criteria for DSP as set out in the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). The case was heard by Mr S Evans, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Milic satisfied subsection 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) to qualify for a DSP. This required determining if he had a qualifying impairment, if that impairment rated 20 points or more according to the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011* (Cth), and if he had a continuing inability to work. A key aspect of this assessment involved considering whether Mr Milic's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant qualification period, as required by the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Milic had impairments that satisfied paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act, his conditions were not fully treated or stabilised during the qualification period. Specifically, his left hip osteoarthritis, which caused significant pain and functional limitation, was awaiting surgery. As the surgery had not been undertaken, the condition was not considered fully treated or stabilised, meaning it could not be assigned an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, Mr Milic did not meet the threshold of 20 or more impairment points required by paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.

As Mr Milic failed to satisfy the impairment rating requirement, his claim for DSP could not succeed. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision under review.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Statutory Construction

  • Standing

  • Natural Justice

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0