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

This matter concerned an application for a second tier review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to refuse a disability support pension. The applicant sought review of the decision, which had been affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and a first-tier Administrative Appeals Tribunal review. The applicant's claim was based on a mental health condition comprising major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, and agoraphobia with panic attacks, as well as a spinal condition and asthma. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's impairments attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the relevant Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, which ran from 14 August 2018 to 13 November 2018. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the functional impairment arising from the applicant's mental health condition under Table 5 of the Impairment Tables, considering the extent of his difficulties with self-care and independent living. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether the applicant's own evidence of impairment was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence, such as medical reports and the input of support persons.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's mental health condition was accepted as diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, the evidence did not establish that his impairments attracted the requisite 20 points. Although the applicant reported significant difficulties with self-care and independent living, including relying on family for household tasks and experiencing drowsiness from medication, the Tribunal noted that the Impairment Tables require corroborating evidence beyond self-reporting. While the applicant received regular support from his family and occasional assistance from a friend, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate an incapacity to perform tasks such as shopping, cooking, cleaning, and laundry in the absence of this support. The medical evidence indicated a lack of motivation rather than an inability to perform these tasks.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.