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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the entitlement of the applicant to a Disability Support Pension (DSP) from an earlier date than initially approved. The applicant, a highly educated individual with a background in academia and ministry, experienced a significant deterioration in his mental health from 2017, leading to compulsive drinking, marital breakdown, and the loss of his employment. He applied for DSP in September 2019, citing extreme anxiety, depression, PTSD, and stress. His initial application was rejected by Centrelink due to insufficient supporting documentation from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant suffered from a severe impairment, as defined by Table 5 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), during the qualification period for the DSP. This required determining if he had severe difficulties in at least four of the specified functional areas, including self-care, social activities, interpersonal relationships, concentration and task completion, behaviour and decision-making, and work/training capacity. The Tribunal had to assess the medical and corroborating evidence to ascertain the severity of his mental health conditions and their impact on his functional capacity.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the medical evidence provided by a counselling psychologist, Dr. Glassock, and a psychiatrist, Dr. Fraser, as well as a clinical psychologist, Dr. Glusman. Dr. Glassock reported extremely severe scores for depression, anxiety, and stress, noting suicidal ideation and concluding the applicant could not return to meaningful employment. Dr. Fraser confirmed co-morbid panic disorder and major depressive disorder, stating residual symptoms substantially impaired his function and made him unreliable for work. Dr. Glusman reported symptoms consistent with agoraphobia, major depressive disorder with anxious distress, panic attacks, and alcohol use disorder, making it difficult for the applicant to leave the house. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's mental health impairment was of itself sufficient to prevent him from doing any work independently of a program of support or undertaking training within the next two years.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision and remitted the matter to the respondent with a finding that during the qualification period, the applicant was severely impaired and had a continuing inability to work.