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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Parsa against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to affirm a decision that he did not qualify for a disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether Mr Parsa's various medical conditions resulted in a sufficient level of impairment, as assessed under the Impairment Tables, to meet the eligibility criteria for the pension. The decision was made by Dr I Alexander, a Member of the Social Security and Child Support Division.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Parsa's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether he suffered a continuing inability to work due to a severe functional impact on his activities. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was sufficient corroborating evidence to support the impairment ratings claimed by Mr Parsa under the relevant Impairment Tables, particularly concerning his spinal and lower limb conditions, a claimed mental health condition, and hypertension.

The Member reasoned that while Mr Parsa's spinal and lower limb conditions were accepted as permanent, the Impairment Tables require corroborating evidence beyond self-reported symptoms. The Member found Dr Guirguis' report unhelpful as it did not adequately assess functional impairment or address the relevant descriptors. Without further corroborative evidence, ratings under Tables 3 and 4 could not be applied. The mental health condition could not be rated as it had not been confirmed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and while hypertension was permanent, there was no evidence of functional impairment from this condition. Consequently, the Member was satisfied that Mr Parsa's total impairment rating did not reach the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables, meaning he did not satisfy section 94(1b) of the Social Security Act 1991.

The decision under review was affirmed.