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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Ognjenovic against the cancellation of her Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mrs Ognjenovic, born in 1954, had qualified for the DSP in 2005 and had not previously worked outside the home. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether she continued to qualify for the DSP as of 19 July 2016, following a review of her eligibility.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Mrs Ognjenovic's various medical conditions, including major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, type 2 diabetes, and several physical impairments, resulted in a rating of 20 points or more under the applicable Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was required to assess her conditions as they existed on 19 July 2016, considering medical evidence both before and after that date to inform the assessment of her impairments and her continuing inability to work. The Tribunal also needed to consider the portability of her DSP, although this became secondary to the primary eligibility question.

The Tribunal considered medical reports dating from around the time Mrs Ognjenovic was granted DSP in 2005, as well as more recent assessments, including a Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) from June 2016. It noted that the Impairment Tables in effect in 2016 differed from those applied in 2005. After reviewing the evidence, including reports from a clinical psychologist and a general practitioner detailing conditions such as chronic major depressive disorder, PTSD, type 2 diabetes, and various physical injuries, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that Mrs Ognjenovic had impairments totalling 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables as at 19 July 2016. The Tribunal also noted a lack of information regarding claims of a tumour or blood pressure issues.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mrs Ognjenovic did not qualify for the DSP on 19 July 2016, and therefore the decision to cancel her pension was correct. As eligibility was not established, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to consider her continuing inability to work or the portability of the DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.