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

Case

[2017] AATA 1620

4 October 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Murfett and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1620 [2017] AATA 1620 4 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Murfett against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services affirming a decision to refuse him a disability support pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Murfett's impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under the relevant Impairment Tables, a requirement for qualifying for the pension.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Murfett's psoriasis and left arm chronic pain impairments were "permanent" for the purposes of the Social Security (Impairment Assessment) Determination 2017. This involved assessing whether the conditions had been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and were more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The court also had to consider whether the resulting functional impact of these impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables.

The court reasoned that for an impairment to be considered permanent, it must meet specific criteria outlined in the Determination, including being fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for over two years. Evidence indicated that Mr Murfett suffered from severe, extensive, and chronic psoriasis, which caused discomfort and impacted his daily activities, including sitting for long periods and his ability to drive. While the Secretary initially submitted an impairment rating of 10 points for the psoriasis, this was later revised to 5 points, aligning with a medical opinion. The court concluded that Mr Murfett suffered from a Psoriasis Impairment and a Left Arm Chronic Pain Impairment that met the qualification requirements. However, the court found that the impairments did not attract an impairment rating of 20 or more points.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Murfett did not meet the threshold for a disability support pension based on the assessed impairment rating.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Standing

  • Statutory Construction

  • Natural Justice

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Appeal

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0