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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Norman, against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services affirming a decision to refuse a disability support pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for a disability support pension, specifically whether they attracted 20 or more impairment points under the relevant tables and whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The case was heard by D Mitchell M.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: first, whether the applicant's medical conditions attracted 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables during the relevant period, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth); and second, if that threshold was met, whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal's consideration focused significantly on the applicant's seizure condition, with the respondent arguing it was not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised.

The Tribunal's reasoning highlighted that the applicant's seizure condition was not considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period. Medical evidence indicated ongoing investigations, fluctuating diagnoses from "Grand mal epileptic fits" to "probable epilepsy" and later "non epileptic seizures," and a period where a neurologist suggested weaning medication due to normal EEG results. Similarly, while the applicant's mental health conditions were diagnosed, they were not found to be fully treated and stabilised. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments did not attract more than 20 points under the Impairment Tables, meaning the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act were not met.

As the applicant did not meet the 20-point threshold under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal found no need to consider the further requirement of a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.