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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning Ms van Opijnen's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Ms van Opijnen lodged her claim on 14 March 2017, citing a range of conditions including depression, anxiety, chronic pain, diabetes, and arthritis. Her claim was initially rejected by the Department of Social Services (DSS) on 8 September 2017, and this decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) on 16 July 2018. The AAT, on 6 November 2018, also affirmed the decision, finding that Ms van Opijnen's conditions resulted in a total impairment rating of 10 points. Ms van Opijnen sought further review by the Tribunal, arguing the previous decision was incorrect and made while she was unwell.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms van Opijnen's impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised within the qualification period for the DSP claim, which extended from 14 March 2017 to 13 June 2017. It also needed to assess whether her impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether she had a continuing inability to work, as required by section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991. The Tribunal noted that the qualification criteria for DSP are conjunctive, meaning all elements must be satisfied.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an impairment rating to be assigned under the Impairment Tables, the condition must be permanent, meaning it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and is more likely than not to persist for more than two years. Applying this to Ms van Opijnen's circumstances, the Tribunal found that at the qualification period, her conditions attracted a total of 10 points under the Impairment Tables. This was based on a 10-point rating for her spinal condition, while her mental health conditions were considered not fully treated or stabilised, and there was insufficient evidence of functional impairments from her diabetes.

Consequently, as Ms van Opijnen did not meet the minimum impairment rating of 20 points required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act, she did not qualify for the DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the previous decision of the AAT.