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

This matter concerned an application for a disability support pension by the Applicant, who was born in 1979. The Applicant had previously received a disability support pension, which he ceased after undertaking training and employment as an aged care worker. He lodged a new claim for the pension in November 2016, following the onset of bladder issues and a subsequent deterioration of his pre-existing upper limb condition. The Respondent was the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The decision was made by B J Illingworth SM.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for Assessment of Work-related Impairment for DSP) Determination 2011, and whether he had a continuing inability to work, both assessed as at the date of his claim or within a 13-week qualification period thereafter. The Tribunal was required to determine the correct and preferable decision regarding the Applicant's upper limb condition, in light of medical reports and the Applicant's own evidence regarding his functional limitations.

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant suffered from a debilitating upper limb condition affecting his right hand and wrist, impacting his ability to perform various daily tasks and use a computer keyboard. However, it noted that these limitations were specific to his right hand, and the Applicant could perform most of these functions using his left hand. The Tribunal also considered a report prepared during the qualification period which indicated a reduction in work capacity but also a potential for future work capacity with intervention. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the Applicant's upper limb condition, while significant, did not attract an impairment rating of 20 points under the relevant tables.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for a disability support pension. The Tribunal noted a concession made by both parties regarding the assessment of the Applicant's urinary condition, agreeing that it attracted an impairment rating of 10 points, but this was insufficient to meet the threshold for the pension.