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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a respondent seeking a disability support pension, with the Secretary of the Department of Social Services as the applicant. The core dispute concerned whether the respondent's medical conditions, Chronic Obstructive Airway Disease (COAD) and fibromyalgia, resulted in a severe impairment as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and its associated Impairment Tables. The respondent contended that her conditions prevented her from performing daily activities and sustaining work on a repetitive or habitual basis, thereby meeting the criteria for a severe impairment.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the respondent's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and if these conditions resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under Table 1 of the Impairment Tables during the relevant period. This assessment was crucial to establishing whether the respondent had a continuing inability to work, a key requirement for receiving a disability support pension. The Tribunal also had to interpret the meaning of "unable to" in the context of the Impairment Tables, specifically whether it referred to an absolute inability or an inability to perform a task on a repetitive or habitual basis.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the respondent experienced difficulties with mobility and daily activities due to her conditions, the evidence did not establish a severe impairment. It clarified that for the purposes of Table 1, "unable to" meant an inability to perform a task with the repetition normally expected. The Tribunal found that the respondent could walk into and around a shopping centre or supermarket a couple of times a week for short periods without assistance, which did not satisfy the 20-point descriptors (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Table 1. The Tribunal noted that the stairs at the end of her work shift caused her the most trouble.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the respondent did not have a severe impairment and therefore did not meet the requirements of section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) during the relevant period. The decision under review was set aside, and it was substituted with a decision that the respondent did not meet the requirements to be granted the disability support pension for the claim made on 13 December 2018.