Payne and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 3789
•24 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Payne and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 3789
[2018] AATA 3789
24 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether the applicant qualified for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) following the cancellation of his pension. The applicant had been in receipt of DSP since 1996, initially granted due to impairments from Q fever and chronic fatigue syndrome. The review in 2015 led to the cancellation of his pension on the basis that his medical impairments did not attract the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, if these impairments attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and if he had a continuing inability to work. Central to these determinations was the definition of "permanent" under the Impairment Tables, which requires a condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant had several medical conditions, including back and neck issues, knee injuries, and chronic fatigue, most did not meet the criteria for assessment under the Impairment Tables as of the cancellation date. The knee condition, for instance, was not fully treated or stabilised, as surgery had been recommended but not undertaken. There was also an absence of relevant medical evidence for his Q fever and chronic fatigue syndrome at the time of cancellation. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a diagnosed or treated mental health condition. Consequently, the applicant's impairments attracted a total rating of only 5 points.
As the applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points, the Tribunal affirmed the decision that he did not qualify for DSP at the time of cancellation. The Tribunal emphasised that assessments must be made based on the evidence available as at the date of cancellation, and impairments that are not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised cannot be rated.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, if these impairments attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and if he had a continuing inability to work. Central to these determinations was the definition of "permanent" under the Impairment Tables, which requires a condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant had several medical conditions, including back and neck issues, knee injuries, and chronic fatigue, most did not meet the criteria for assessment under the Impairment Tables as of the cancellation date. The knee condition, for instance, was not fully treated or stabilised, as surgery had been recommended but not undertaken. There was also an absence of relevant medical evidence for his Q fever and chronic fatigue syndrome at the time of cancellation. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a diagnosed or treated mental health condition. Consequently, the applicant's impairments attracted a total rating of only 5 points.
As the applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points, the Tribunal affirmed the decision that he did not qualify for DSP at the time of cancellation. The Tribunal emphasised that assessments must be made based on the evidence available as at the date of cancellation, and impairments that are not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised cannot be rated.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Payne and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 3789
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0