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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Nicholls against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to reject his application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Member of the Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Nicholls had physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments that attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. The relevant period for assessing his qualification for DSP was from the date of his claim, 24 September 2015, to 13 weeks thereafter, concluding on 24 December 2015.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Nicholls possessed impairments that were permanent, fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and if so, whether these impairments attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also needed to consider if Mr Nicholls had a continuing inability to work, although the primary focus of the decision was on the impairment rating. The Respondent conceded that Mr Nicholls suffered from several conditions, including stroke, diabetes, sarcoidosis/neurosarcoidosis, chronic migraines, a cardiac condition, and other listed ailments, with medical evidence supporting these diagnoses.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the requirement that an impairment must be permanent to attract a rating under the Impairment Tables, as defined by subsection 6(3)(a) and (4) of those tables. This requires the condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised. While the Respondent conceded the existence of Mr Nicholls' various medical conditions, the Tribunal found that the impairments, when assessed against the criteria of the Impairment Tables, attracted a rating of zero points. Consequently, Mr Nicholls did not satisfy the requirement of subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act, which mandates an impairment rating of at least 20 points.

As Mr Nicholls failed to meet the threshold for impairment points, he did not satisfy all the necessary subsections of section 94(1) of the Act to qualify for the DSP. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Nicholls was not qualified for the receipt of the DSP during the relevant period.