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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Applicant, who listed several medical conditions including osteoarthritis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, hemochromatosis, hypertension, Crohn's disease, B12 deficiency, chronic fatigue syndrome, and psoriatic arthritis. An initial assessment recommended the Applicant was "manifestly medically ineligible" for the DSP, leading to a rejection of her claim on 26 October 2017, on the basis that she did not have an impairment of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Following further evidence and review, the decision to refuse the claim was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and subsequently by the Social Services & Child Support Division (SSCSD). The Applicant then sought review of the SSCSD's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant was entitled to receive the DSP, which required determining if her medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and if she had accumulated 20 or more impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables during the specified period. The Tribunal was limited to considering the Applicant's conditions, their diagnosis, treatment progress, and impact during the "Relevant Period," which was defined as between 15 March 2017 and 15 June 2017.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's conditions, including chronic pain, seronegative spondyloarthropathy with Crohn's disease and psoriasis, abdominal cut nerve entrapment syndrome, and depression, were not fully treated or stabilised during the Relevant Period. Consequently, these conditions could not be considered permanent for the purposes of applying the Impairment Tables, and the Tribunal was unable to assign impairment points. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for a DSP. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant had provided significant medical evidence of treatments and functional impacts after the Relevant Period, its assessment was confined to the conditions as they existed and were treated within that specific timeframe.