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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Newman against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Newman's medical conditions were permanent and whether these conditions resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant impairment tables, as required by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The case was heard by D K Grigg M.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether Mr Newman's diagnosed medical conditions were "permanent" for the purposes of the Social Security (Impairment Assessment) Determination 2010 (the Determination); and second, if the conditions were permanent, whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables, specifically Table 1 concerning physical exertion and stamina. The court was required to consider the evidence provided by health professionals, any additional medical or work capacity information, and information required by the Tables, while excluding symptoms reported without corroborating evidence and, unless required by the Tables, the impact of non-medical factors.

The court's reasoning focused on the criteria for assessing permanent conditions and assigning impairment ratings under the Determination. For a condition to be considered permanent, it must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The court noted that self-reported symptoms alone were insufficient, and corroborating evidence was essential. In Mr Newman's case, the Secretary accepted that he had impairments satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the critical question was whether these impairments met the 20-point threshold under section 94(1)(b). The court considered medical reports, including one from Dr O’Callaghan detailing Mr Newman's cervical and lumbar spondylosis, which indicated moderate to severe disease, inability to sit or walk for extended periods, difficulty with stairs, and significant disability. Despite these findings, the decision under review affirmed that the impairments did not attract the required 20-point rating.