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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Morales against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to reject her claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP). The claim was assessed under section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which requires a person to have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and either a continuing inability to work or participation in the supported wage system. The central dispute revolved around whether Mrs Morales met the criteria for a continuing inability to work, as defined by section 94(2) of the Act, and the relevant period for assessing her qualification for the pension.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Mrs Morales was qualified for DSP on the date she lodged her claim, 22 March 2016. Secondly, if she was not qualified on that date, whether she became qualified within the 13-week period following her claim, as provided by clause 4(1) of Schedule 2 of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth), read in conjunction with section 36(1) of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth). This latter provision dictates that when calculating a period from a specified day, that day is excluded.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Morales had multiple impairments, including a back condition, mental health issues, a cataract, carpal tunnel syndrome, herpes zoster, and plantar fasciitis, satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the claim failed because Mrs Morales did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act, meaning her impairments did not score 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision that Mrs Morales was not qualified for DSP during the relevant claim period.