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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Secretary, Department of Social Services against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that had set aside an earlier decision to reject the Respondent's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Respondent had lodged his claim for DSP on 11 August 2015, alleging various medical conditions including neck and shoulder pain, and hearing loss, which he contended had arisen during his past employment. The core dispute revolved around whether the Respondent's impairments met the threshold for a DSP qualification under the relevant legislative provisions, specifically concerning the combined impairment rating and the requirement for conditions to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Respondent's medical conditions, considered individually and in combination, resulted in a sufficient level of impairment as defined by the Impairment Tables, and whether these conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised as at the relevant qualification period. The court was required to assess the adequacy of the medical evidence presented to the AAT, particularly in relation to the Respondent's upper limb, neck, and hearing conditions, and to determine if the AAT had correctly applied the principles regarding the assessment of multiple impairments and the "fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised" criterion.

The court reasoned that the AAT had placed undue weight on the Respondent's self-reported symptoms, particularly concerning his upper limb and neck conditions, without sufficient corroborating medical evidence. It noted that further diagnostic investigations, such as imaging, were recommended by medical experts to accurately diagnose the nature and extent of these conditions, including the possibility of referred pain or a psychological overlay. The court also found that the AAT's conclusion that the Respondent's left shoulder and elbow pain was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised was not adequately supported by the available medical evidence, which indicated an uncertain prognosis and a lack of comprehensive specialist assessment. Furthermore, the AAT had failed to assess the Respondent's right shoulder bursitis, despite medical evidence referring to this condition.

The court concluded that the AAT's decision was affected by errors of fact and law, particularly in its assessment of the Respondent's medical conditions and their stability. Consequently, the court set aside the AAT's decision and substituted its own decision, remitting the matter for redetermination by the AAT.