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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Musawi, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The applicant's claim was based on two primary conditions: a spinal condition and a psychiatric condition. While the respondent also addressed other conditions, the applicant confirmed that his appeal was solely based on the impairments arising from his spinal and psychiatric conditions.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's claimed impairments, arising from his spinal and psychiatric conditions, attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. To qualify for such a rating, the Tribunal was required to be satisfied that, during the qualification period, the conditions causing the impairments were permanent. Permanence, in this context, meant that the conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and were likely to persist for more than two years. The determination of whether a condition was fully treated and stabilised involved assessing whether reasonable treatment had been undertaken, and if further treatment was unlikely to result in significant functional improvement enabling the person to undertake work within the next two years, or if there were compelling reasons not to undertake treatment.

In relation to the applicant's spinal condition, the Tribunal considered evidence that while it was diagnosed, it was not considered fully treated or stabilised because reasonable treatment had not been undertaken. The applicant described various treatments he had received, including consultations with a neurosurgeon, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic, and physiotherapy, none of which had resulted in significant improvement. A neurosurgeon had advised against further cortisone injections and indicated that surgical options were not effective for his condition. The Tribunal also noted that prescribed pain medication did not alleviate his constant pain, which impaired his functioning.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding it unnecessary to consider other matters raised in the respondent's submissions.