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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Nedaee against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services affirming a decision that he did not qualify for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The appeal was heard by Dr I Alexander, a Member of the Tribunal. Mr Nedaee contended that he suffered severe functional impairment due to chronic lower back pain during the qualification period for the DSP.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Nedaee's condition of chronic lower back pain was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, and whether it was likely to persist for more than two years. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess whether Mr Nedaee's impairment attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and whether he had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Nedaee had a history of intermittent low back pain and some mild lumbar spine abnormalities were confirmed by imaging, the medical evidence was incomplete and did not sufficiently corroborate his self-reported symptoms. The Tribunal noted that low back pain is often a symptom rather than a specific disease, and in many cases, the precise source cannot be identified, leading to a classification of "non-specific low back pain." If Mr Nedaee's condition were considered non-specific low back pain, the evidence might have supported a conclusion that it was treated and stabilised. However, Mr Nedaee's claim of persistent severe pain and functional impairment since November 2017 lacked a plausible explanation in the medical evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the cause of his persistent severe symptoms and claimed functional impairment was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded that a rating under the Impairment Tables could not have been assigned, and Mr Nedaee did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991. The decision under review was affirmed.