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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision to affirm the cancellation of her disability support pension (DSP), which had been granted in 1999 due to a spinal condition. The cancellation occurred from 7 August 2015, following enquiries by the applicant about extended overseas travel. As part of processing her request for unlimited portability, the applicant was advised that a medical review of her eligibility for DSP would be conducted, applying the Impairment Tables as at 1 January 2012, and that this review might result in her no longer qualifying for the pension. The applicant proceeded with the review, submitting a report from her doctor and undergoing a job capacity assessment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's physical and psychiatric impairments were permanent, whether her impairment rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether she had a continuing inability to work. The court was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) for receiving a DSP.

The court accepted that the applicant had a physical impairment due to her spinal condition, as reported by her doctor. However, it found that the applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables for this condition. While the applicant described various functional limitations, the court agreed with a prior review that her spinal condition warranted only 10 points. Crucially, the court found that the applicant's carpal tunnel syndrome, which she stated arose in November 2015 and for which she was awaiting surgery, was not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised at the time of the cancellation on 7 August 2015. Consequently, the court lacked the authority to assign a rating under the Impairment Tables for this condition as it existed at the relevant date.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of having impairments totalling 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables at the time of the cancellation. Therefore, the decision under review, which affirmed the cancellation of the DSP, was affirmed. The Secretary noted that the applicant might be able to submit a further claim for DSP.