PCVD and Secretary, Chief Executive Centrelink (Social security second review) - [2025] ARTA 2023

PCVD and Secretary, Chief Executive Centrelink (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2023 (10 October 2025)
Applicant:PCVD
Other Parties: Secretary, Chief Executive Centrelink
Tribunal Number: 2024/9443
Tribunal:Senior Member T Hamilton-Noy (second review)
Place:Melbourne
Date:10 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 10 October 2025 at 9:46am
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A)-201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Catchwords
Disability support pension claim – rejection of claim – acute necrotising pancreatitis – incontinence – post traumatic stress disorder – major depressive disorder – back pain – heart arrhythmia – supraventricular tachycardia – coronary artery disease – diabetes – asthma – peptic ulcer – hernia – no severe impairment
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023
Cases
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447
Re Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404
Statement of Reasons
Background

This application relates to the Applicant’s qualification for disability support pension.
The Applicant lodged a claim for disability support pension with the Respondent (Services Australia – Centrelink) on 25 January 2024 in respect of the conditions of pancreatitis, heart arrythmia, high blood pressure and diabetes. The claim was rejected by an employee of Centrelink on 13 May 2024. The decision was internally reviewed by an authorised review officer and the decision to reject the claim was affirmed.
The Applicant sought review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 13 August 2024. From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 were taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gave the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
On 30 October 2024, the Tribunal at first review affirmed the decision to reject the claim for disability support pension, after consideration of the Applicant’s conditions of post traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, pancreatitis, faecal incontinence, supraventricular tachycardia, coronary artery disease and diabetes.
The Applicant sought a second review of this decision on 15 November 2024.
The Tribunal hearing in this matter was conducted on 25 September 2025. The Applicant participated in the hearing by telephone and gave evidence on affirmation and a representative of the Respondent also participated by telephone. During the hearing the Tribunal heard evidence on affirmation from the Applicant’s treating psychologist and the psychologist’s evidence is detailed further below.

Issues and relevant law

The legislative requirements relevant to this matter are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act). The relevant Determination in place at the time of claim, which sets out the circumstances in which points may be allocated for a condition, is the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 (the Determination).
Section 94 of the Act sets out the qualification requirements for the payment of disability support pension. The Tribunal must consider in this matter whether the Applicant met subsection 94(1) of the Act at the time of his claim, that is, whether:
a. The applicant has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment (paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act);
b. The Applicant’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables (paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act); and
c. The Applicant has a continuing inability to work or the Applicant is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system (paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act).
The Tribunal is required to consider the above qualification requirements at the time the Applicant made the claim for disability support pension. In addition, subclass 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act provides that:
If:
(a) a person (other than a detained person) makes a claim for a relevant social security payment; and
(b)   the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the payment; and
(c)   assuming the person does not sooner die, the person will, because of the passage of time or the occurrence of an event, become qualified for the payment within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made; and
(d)   the person becomes so qualified within that period;
the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the social security payment.
The Federal Court in Re Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 noted that the effect of this provision is that:
[T]he Applicant’s entitlement to the pension must be considered as at the date of her claim, namely, 3 May 2004 and a period of 13 weeks thereafter. Any subsequent change in her health is irrelevant to the questions which arise in this proceeding except insofar as it may cast light on the position at the relevant time.
The Tribunal accepted that the period to be considered by the Tribunal in the present matter is the period from 25 January 2024 to 25 April 2024.

Evidence before the Tribunal

In addition to the oral evidence given by the Applicant and his psychologist at the Tribunal hearing, and the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing, the Tribunal had in evidence before it:
(i)Main bundle of Centrelink documents (“T” documents);
(ii)Supplementary bundle of documents (18 pages);
(iii)Documents provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant including: his application for second review; a copy of the first review decision; letters prepared by doctors and treating specialists; a letter prepared by the Applicant’s psychologist; and a large bundle of documents comprised partly of the first review material and partly of further medical documents, photos and submissions by the Applicant; and
(iv)A Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions prepared by the Respondent, with four annexures.

The Applicant’s physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments

The Tribunal accepted from the medical evidence before it that, at the time of claim, the Applicant’s GP stated that his active past history was for the conditions of peptic ulcer, diabetes mellitus type 2, acute necrotising pancreatitis, hernia repair, asthma and supraventricular tachycardia. The Tribunal found that, at the time of claim, the Applicant had physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments and that he met paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act.

Impairment ratings in respect of the Applicant’s conditions

Acute necrotising pancreatitis with associated incontinence

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant was admitted to hospital on 5 June 2021 with severe acute necrotising gallstone pancreatitis and that he had a prolonged admission for this condition. His admission was complicated by sepsis and during the admission he had multiple surgeries including a laparotomy to remove his gallbladder, percutaneous cholecystostomy, percutaneous drainage of an abdominal collection, and endoscopic necrosectomy. The Applicant was discharged from hospital on 17 August 2021 to rehabilitation and with follow-up appointments.
The Applicant presented again to hospital on 15 September 2021, due to fever within the setting of recent drain tube removal. Percutaneous drainage of the intra-abdominal collection was performed and the Applicant was discharged to Hospital in the Home on 22 September 2021. He then participated in a telehealth review on 9 November 2021, at which time it was noted that a drain tube had been removed on 1 November 2021, that the site was not completely healed but did not appear infected, and that the Applicant had trialled a cessation of Creon but diarrhoea had returned, so this had been recommenced.
The Applicant attended his surgeon in February 2022, who noted the Applicant was looking “strong, vibrant and well tanned”. At the time of the consultation he had no symptoms of maldigestion and was taking a minimal amount of Creon. The surgeon noted he was happy for the Applicant to cease taking this medication.
When taken to the surgeon’s report at the Tribunal hearing and asked to comment on it, the Applicant stated that he had been lying to his surgeon because he was scared to return to hospital. He stated that, as recently as two months before the hearing, he had not been open with his surgeon as he was wanting to return to work. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s evidence that he continued to be prescribed Creon at the time of the Tribunal hearing.
As to the ongoing impacts of the condition, in a medical certificate prepared by the Applicant’s GP, dated 19 January 2024, the GP noted that the Applicant was described as suffering from incontinence, being a condition that was impacting his capacity to work, study or participate in activities.
At a job capacity assessment undertaken on 22 April 2024, the Applicant advised the assessor that he has constant mild pain in his stomach which becomes worse after eating, that he was always needing to go to the toilet for bowel movements after each meal, and that he was required to wear incontinence pads at all times due to his bowel issues. The Applicant advised that he experiences urgency and has not always made it to the toilet in time, that he is always required to be close to a toilet and that there is minor leakage from the bowel, sufficient faecal matter to soil his continence pad but not his outer clothes on a daily basis. He described avoiding using public transport or being near others due to the issue. The assessor noted the absence of corroborating evidence from the Applicant’s GP to verify the “type, severity, frequency of incontinence pads on a daily basis”.
In May 2025, the Applicant’s surgeon stated that the Applicant suffers from endocrine and exocrine pancreatic failure, with associated “severe maldigestion and debilitating diarrhoea”.
At the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant stated that his GP had recommended he increase his Creon dosage and that he had attended a urologist a couple of months before the hearing, who had prescribed Ostriol. He gave evidence of suffering from both faecal and urinary incontinence. When asked about his medical reports only reflecting faecal incontinence, the Applicant stated that his doctor had known for a long time, probably over a year. He was unclear in his evidence as to when any urinary incontinence had commenced, stating that the Tribunal had all of that information and he could not remember, but it was definitely over a year. He gave evidence of not having discussed this symptom with his surgeon, but of having told his surgeon that he was alright and everything was good. The Applicant stated this had not been true, but he was scared to return to hospital. The Applicant gave evidence that he had had access to income protection for two years following his hospital admission. He had then attempted to work as a delivery driver, but had been unable to control his faeces or urine and had had to cease work.
Having regard to the medical information before it, the Tribunal found that the condition of acute necrotising pancreatitis with associated faecal incontinence had been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised by the time the disability support pension claim was made on 25 January 2024. In so finding, the Tribunal noted the extensive period of hospitalisation and range of surgical intervention undertaking during 2021, the follow-up management by specialists and medication taken over a prolonged period of time.
While the AAT at first review considered the functional impact of the condition with respect to Table 1 of the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the information presented to it that there was persuasive evidence that the condition causes an impact to physical exertion and stamina, such that consideration of points under Table 1 was appropriate.
The introduction to Table 13 of the Impairment Tables specifies that the table is to be used to assess the functional impact of a diagnosed condition related to incontinence of the bladder or bowel. The medical evidence provided to the Tribunal reflects the Applicant as experiencing ongoing issues with faecal incontinence although provides little detail of the extent of this. The Applicant gave evidence of having been dishonest with his surgeon in a follow-up appointment in February 2022 and subsequently with his GP. Perhaps as a result of this, there is no medical commentary commensurate with the time of claim about the functional impact caused by the condition, aside from the Applicant’s self-reported symptoms to a job capacity assessor in April 2024. The GP certificate prepared in January 2024 mentions incontinence but does not otherwise provide details of the type of incontinence, and there was no other medical evidence prepared at the time of the claim setting out any functional impact caused by the condition.
The introduction to Table 13 of the Impairment Tables specifies that there must be corroborating evidence of a person’s impairment and that self-reporting of symptoms must be supported by corroborating medical evidence. Examples given in the introduction to the Table include:
-    A report from the person’s treating doctor;
-    A report from a medical specialist, particularly in cases of moderate or severe incontinence, (such as urogynaecologist, gynaecologist, urologist or gastroenterologist) confirming diagnosis of conditions associated with incontinence (such as some gynaecological conditions, prostate enlargement or malignancy, gastrointestinal conditions or malignancy, incontinence resulting from paraplegia, spina bifida, or neurodegenerative conditions); and
-    Assessments and reports from practitioners specialising in the treatment and management of incontinence (such as urologists, urogynaecologists, continence nurse or continence physiotherapists).
The Tribunal did not have any such reports before it and, for this reason, and while very sympathetic to the Applicant’s description of the condition and its impact on him, considered that it is unable to allocate points under Table 13 in respect of this condition.
The Tribunal also considered that it was unable to consider the claimed urinary incontinence in the absence of any medical evidence substantiating that this is occurring or setting out the functional impact of urinary incontinence that was occurring commensurate with the disability support pension claim.

Mental health conditions

At the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant described himself as currently having poor mental health, with poor sleep and high levels of stress. He described that he is largely housebound and unable to socialise. He told the Tribunal that he has not obtained a referral to see a specialist (such as a psychiatrist) for medication, as his current treating psychologist is of the view that some medications could make things worse and he is trying sessions first with his psychologist, which involve psychotherapy and education. The Tribunal accepted, from the presentation of the Applicant at the hearing, that he is very distressed about his current circumstances, is experiencing a range of mental health symptoms and is attending a psychologist for support.
As to the mental health conditions and their assessment for the purposes of the disability support pension claim, the Tribunal noted that no mental health conditions were identified by the Applicant at the time of claim in January 2024. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant’s mental health symptoms developed some time after the prolonged period in hospital during 2021 and that the post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms arose, at least in part, due to the Applicant having had people dying in his hospital room during the admission and to having developed issues with incontinence after his hospital stay.
The Applicant’s patient history report, sourced through Medicare, indicates that the Applicant first attended his current psychologist on 10 October 2024 and that he had attended on eight subsequent occasions between October 2024 and June 2025. The Applicant agreed in his evidence at the hearing that he had first attended his psychologist in October 2024, although observed that he had had difficulties with his mental health prior to that time. He stated he had not wanted to mention these difficulties to his GP, and noted that he had not been referred for counselling prior to October 2024 as he had never mentioned it before that.
The Applicant has provided two reports by his treating psychologist for the Tribunal application. The first of these, dated 16 October 2024, noted that the Applicant had been referred by his GP for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment. The Applicant reported to the psychologist having experienced psychological distress following a critical illness, and a decline in mental and physical health since the illness. The report noted that the Applicant met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, within the context of hospitalisation and a near-death experience. Symptoms were described to include intrusive recollections of the trauma, flashbacks, dissociative episodes, avoidance of situations reminding him of the traumatic event, negative alterations in mood and cognition and hyperarousal symptoms. The report also noted that the Applicant was presenting with major depressive disorder, with symptoms of low mood, lack of motivation, fatigue, poor sleep and a diminished ability to engage in daily activities or exercise.
In the report, the psychologist noted that the Applicant’s mental health had shown no improvement over a three-year period and that his symptoms had worsened over time. His treatment history was described as him having “attended a few psychological therapy sessions”. The psychologist stated that the severity and chronicity of the PTSD symptoms indicated his condition was not likely to improve significantly in the near future, and that the likelihood of him returning to work was minimal. The “Opinion and Recommendations” made in the report were as follows:
Based on my clinical assessment, the client is experiencing severe, chronic PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, both of which significantly impair his capacity to function in daily life and in a work setting. Despite recently engaging in therapy, there has been no observable improvement in his mental health over the past three years. In fact, his symptoms have worsened, and he remains severely affected by both his physical and psychological conditions.
Given his lack of improvement, ongoing psychological distress, and significant functional impairments, I am of the opinion that the client has no capacity to return to work. Therefore, I strongly recommend that he be considered for Disability Support Pension.

A second report prepared by the psychologist, dated 7 May 2025, again noted that the Applicant met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder and the range of symptoms that had been described in some detail in the previous report. The report further noted that the Applicant had engaged in psychological therapy, including exposure-based therapy, but had demonstrated minimal to no clinical improvement, and his symptoms had remained severe and treatment-resistant. His conditions were described as having remained “clinically stable but severely impaired for over three years, with no signs of spontaneous recovery or functional gains”.
In the May 2025 report, the Applicant was described as unable to work and with a “negligible” capacity to return to work. He was described as being restricted in performing routine daily tasks, struggling with mobility, and avoiding public settings due to anxiety and hypervigilance. The psychologist opined that, given the chronicity and severity of the Applicant’s symptoms, no improvement was expected within two years and the Applicant’s “condition is considered permanent for the purposes of functional assessment”. The psychologist submitted that the Applicant met the 20-point descriptors in the relevant Impairment Table, due to: severe difficulty with mood regulation; marked difficulty coping with change and managing stress; avoidance of public and social environments; ongoing nightmares, flashbacks and hypervigilance; inability to function independently outside the home; and a sustained inability to work more than 15 hours per week, at the time the report was prepared and into the foreseeable future.
The Applicant’s psychologist gave oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing and the Tribunal accepted the psychologist’s evidence that he is a clinical psychologist and diagnosed the Applicant as having PTSD and major depressive disorder after two sessions with the Applicant in October 2024, following referral by the Applicant’s GP on 6 September 2024 for what was described as mixed anxiety and depression. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s psychologist gave evidence that the first of these sessions had occurred on 8 October 2024, which was in contrast to the Medicare information which indicated 10 October 2024. The Tribunal did not consider that any issues of credibility turned on this discrepancy. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had attended for further sessions between November 2024 and May 2025.
The Applicant’s psychologist was asked about the process for diagnosis of the Applicant and gave evidence that this had been based on diagnostic testing, through a DSM-5 structured interview. The Applicant’s psychologist gave evidence that he had not been provided any material which spoke to the Applicant’s mental health in January 2024 and that this had been done “more through his own assessment”. The Applicant’s psychologist was unable to comment on the Applicant’s presentation as of January 2024, stating that he was unable to do this because the Applicant was not his patient at that time and he had not otherwise received medical documents about this.
In Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922, the AAT noted (at [34]) that:
In the Tribunal’s consideration as to whether a condition has been stabilised and is likely to persist for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal must look at the situation as it was, and the evidence that was available, at the time of the application for DSP (and the subsequent 13 weeks). Any subsequent evolution of a particular condition might be relevant to any weight the Tribunal places on competing prognostications or on an assessment of the quality of the medical reports provided (most notably where evidence indicates that the creator of a medical report may not have had access to all relevant information or may not have turned his or her mind to all the relevant issues). This point is important as it is quite frequently the case that appeals on DSP decisions arrive at this Tribunal twelve or more months after the initial DSP application was refused. In many instances, the natural course of illnesses or injuries has then become more obvious, thereby confounding the professional opinions honestly proffered by thorough and conscientious treating doctors. If a medical condition has progressed since the time of the original DSP application, then it is up to the applicant to make a new DSP application. It is not open in law for this Tribunal to use any evidence of such progression to directly award a DSP because of those changed circumstances.
The Tribunal also notes the comments of the AAT in Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447 (at [31]-[33]):
In my view, in the case of DSP, it is implicit in clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Administration Act that an applicant must be qualified for DSP on the date of claim or with the period of 13 weeks following. Evidence, such as medical reports, that come into being after the relevant period may still be relevant, but only in so far as they are referrable to the applicant’s condition during the relevant period.
This is supported by the judgment of Gyles J in Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404. Gyles J stated at [1] that as an applicant’s entitlement to DSP must be considered at the date of claim and within the 13 week period, “Any subsequent change in her health is irrelevant to the questions which arise in this proceeding except insofar as it may cast light on the position at the relevant time”.
The language in clauses 6(5) and 6(6) of the 2011 Determination is forward-looking. With respect to whether a condition was fully stabilised, for example, the question for the Tribunal is whether “any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years” (emphasis added). While hindsight may suggest that treatment did not result in improvement within two years, that is not the question for the Tribunal to determine. The legislation requires the Tribunal to consider the treatment that has taken place, and was intended to take place, and the likely effect of that treatment, at the time of the claim and in the 13 weeks thereafter. For that reason, evidence of treatment, and the efficacy of that treatment, after the relevant period is not directly relevant to the Tribunal’s decision.
As to the guidance in the Determination, the Tribunal noted that subsection 8(6) of the Determination provides that a condition has been stabilised where:
(a) the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement; or
(b) the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(v)significant functional improvement is not expected, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or
(vi)there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.
Subsection 8(7) of the Determination defines reasonable treatment as treatment that is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person, is at a reasonable cost, can reliably be expected to result in significant functional improvement, is regularly undertaken or performed, has a high success rate and carries a low risk to the person.
The Tribunal is unable to consider the mental health conditions as diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within the relevant period for the following reasons.
Firstly, while the Tribunal accepts the Applicant developed mental health symptoms after his prolonged hospital admission in 2021, the formal mental health diagnosis occurred a significant time after the claim for disability support pension was lodged. There was no diagnosis of a mental health condition at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim.
Secondly, while the psychologist report refers to the Applicant having had poor functioning for three years – which covers the period in which the claim was lodged – the functioning appears to have been self-reported by the Applicant rather than based on any medical or other evidence available to the psychologist. The psychologist’s report is unable to cast light on the Applicant’s condition as of the date of claim, given it was prepared through self-reported symptoms by the Applicant and given it is unable to cast any light – based on other medical evidence – about the Applicant’s condition at the time of claim. The report is of the nature cautioned against in Bobera and Fanning, in that it goes to events after the relevant period and to efficacy of treatment after the relevant period.
Thirdly, the Applicant commenced counselling some nine months after the disability support pension claim was lodged and had not, within 13 weeks of claim, undertaken any assessment or management for a mental health condition and had not (and still has not) trialled any medication which may alleviate his symptoms. The Tribunal found that the condition had not been reasonably treated, within the meaning of subsection 8(6) of the Determination, at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim.
Based on the above findings, the Tribunal concluded that the mental health conditions were not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim. Given this finding, the Tribunal is unable to consider the allocation of points for the conditions under the relevant Impairment Table.

Back pain

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant developed back pain during his prolonged admission to hospital in 2021. A medical certificate prepared by the Applicant’s GP, dated 19 January 2024, listed the condition as a secondary condition with no specified date of onset and expected duration of any functional impact being described as between 13 weeks and 24 months. The same information was provided in a subsequent medical certificate prepared on 12 April 2024.
The Applicant attended a job capacity assessment on 22 April 2024, after the claim was lodged. He described at the assessment that he had a special cushion he was using, that he was taking Voltaren as required and that he was walking on a daily basis. He described that lower back pain came on if he stood for too long; that he could sit for two hours and walk for an hour; and he was able to bend to pick up something off the floor as long as it was not heavy.
When asked about this condition at the hearing, the Applicant stated that his fourth or fifth disc has been dislocated and his GP has advised him it is putting pressure on a nerve. He attends a chiropractor every year and uses cream and Voltaren when he experiences back pain. When asked whether there had been any recommendation for other types of therapy for his back pain, the Applicant responded by stating he has so many problems and now has kidney stones as well. When asked what problems the back pain was causing day-to-day, the Applicant stated that he is unable to sit for long and has to move around, the back pain is always there and it is stronger if he sits for a little while. If he remains in the same position for one hour it hurts him.
There was no evidence before the Tribunal about the source of diagnosis of this condition, or of any comprehensive assessment or management of the condition. Information about the condition is largely gathered by brief medical certificates prepared by the Applicant’s GP and by his own self-reporting of the management and symptoms of the condition. Given this, the Tribunal considered that the condition was not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim. In consequence, the Tribunal is unable to consider the allocation of impairment points for this condition.

Heart arrhythmia / supraventricular tachycardia / coronary artery disease

The Applicant was diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia during his admission to hospital from June to August 2021. The admission notes reflect multiple MET calls for supraventricular tachycardia during the admission, where the Applicant was treated with electrolyte optimisation and Metoprolol. An echocardiogram was performed on 10 June 2021 showing normal left and right ventricular size and function, mildly dilated atria and normal valves. Cardiology recommendation was for regular Metoprolol to be continued on discharge, with a Holter monitor and follow up in the arrhythmia clinic.
The Applicant attended a cardiac electrophysiologist on 29 November 2023, at which time it was noted that he had had several episodes of supraventricular tachycardia associated with low blood pressure, that had usually resolved with a Valsalva manoeuvre. The Applicant was reported as taking 25mg of Metoprolol daily, with no further episodes while taking the medication. He was described as a candidate for an ablation, but was seeking to tread conservatively at that time, which was noted as reasonable. He was to be provided a further appointment the following year.
The Tribunal noted that, at the time of claim in January 2024, the Applicant claimed the condition of heart arrhythmia was a condition affecting his ability to work. He stated in the claim form that he had developed problems with his heart and had an appointment on 5 February with a cardiac specialist and would have “a couple of check ups and a medical procedure” on his heart.
During his attendance at the job capacity assessment on 22 April 2024, the Applicant advised he had had recent episodes of arrhythmia for which he had ended up in the emergency department. He reported having had tests which had revealed a tight artery, for which he was awaiting an angiography and probable stent insertion.
The Applicant’s GP prepared a letter dated 14 May 2024, in which he stated the Applicant has a number of chronic medical conditions which include coronary artery disease. There is insufficiency of other evidence before the Tribunal about the diagnosis, treatment or functional impact of the condition of coronary artery disease.
At the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant gave evidence of having developed heart arrhythmia after his hospital admission and that a blockage in his artery was discovered. This was cleaned a couple of months prior to the hearing and he has been advised that if issues occur again, he is to contact the clinic again. The Applicant agreed he had had a catheter and angioplasty in May 2024 and had attended follow-up appointments during June and July 2024. Appointment letters contained in the documents before the Tribunal were consistent with this evidence. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has been advised to “leave it for now” but to contact again if symptoms are becoming worse. He stated that at present he has no arrythmia but continues to experience tightness in his chest. Later in his evidence, the Applicant described that he lives in a double storey townhouse and sometimes needs to stop after climbing the stairs. Before he falls asleep, he feels as though he can’t breathe.
The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant developed and was diagnosed with cardiac issues during his prolonged admission to hospital in 2021. By the date of claim, he had been diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia for which he had been prescribed medication. He had been reluctant to engage in other intervention and his evidence to the Tribunal was that, subsequent to the claim, he had limited symptoms and was having no ongoing active management. While there are suggestions in the medical documents of various interventions, there is no comprehensive information before the Tribunal about the source of diagnosis of the various cardiac conditions, their management or of ongoing symptoms. Given this, the Tribunal found that the conditions of heart arrhythmia, supraventricular tachycardia and coronary artery disease were not diagnosed, reasonably treated or stabilised at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim. These conditions are, accordingly, unable to be allocated points under the relevant Impairment Table.
The Tribunal further noted that a medical certificate prepared by the Applicant’s GP, dated 19 January 2024, refers to chest pain which is stated to impact the Applicant’s capacity for work, study or participation in other activities. Treatment was stated to include attendance at a cardiologist. Given the limited information before the Tribunal about this condition, the Tribunal concluded that it also was not diagnosed, reasonably treated or stabilised within the relevant period after the claim was lodged.

Diabetes

The Applicant gave evidence at the hearing that he had developed diabetes after his hospital admission in 2021 due to missing a third of his pancreas. The admission notes from August 2021 reflect that the Applicant was experiencing hyperglycaemia within the context of diabetes and acute pancreatitis, that he had been diagnosed in April 2021 and that his GP had previously managed him on Metformin. Upon attendance at his surgeon in February 2022, the surgeon noted that the Applicant’s diabetes was controlled with Metformin.
The Applicant’s evidence at the hearing about the diabetes condition was that his sugar levels had recently been increasing and he had a further appointment scheduled with a dietician. He agreed his sugar levels had been up and down, but stated they are mostly up and not down now. He described the condition as worsening over the past two months.
Given the lack of comprehensive medical information before the Tribunal about management of the condition, and given the Applicant’s evidence of a more recent exacerbation of the condition, the Tribunal concluded that the condition was not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised for the purposes of the disability support pension claim.

Asthma

The Tribunal accepted from a Patient Health Summary before it that the Applicant was diagnosed with asthma in or around December 2022. The Tribunal noted that this was in contrast to the Applicant’s evidence at the hearing, that he had been diagnosed during his stay in hospital in 2021, where he was given pumps. He described that he continues to have two pumps for the condition, which he uses irregularly. When asked about any symptoms, he described feeling like someone is choking him, but that this would settle down after a couple of minutes.
No other information was before the Tribunal about diagnosis or management of the condition and, on the information available to it, the Tribunal found that the condition was not diagnosed, reasonably treated or stabilised for the purposes of the disability support pension claim.

Peptic ulcer

This condition is referred to by the Applicant’s GP in documents prepared in January 2024 and May 2024, with an indication in the patient health summary provided to the Tribunal that diagnosis of the condition occurred in August 2020. When asked about this condition, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he doesn’t know what the condition is and he has so many things. Based on the limited information before it, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the condition of peptic ulcer was diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim.

Hernia

The Tribunal had been provided a discharge summary dated 16 August 2022, indicating that the Applicant had presented to the hospital on 12 August 2022 for elective repair of a ventrial hernia. The Applicant was discharged on 16 August 2022 to his home, with orders for no heavy lifting or driving for specified periods. His dressings were to be removed within a week and he was referred for follow-up with his GP and through a clinic. There was no evidence of any ongoing symptoms or treatment for this condition and the Tribunal decided it is unable to consider allocating any points for this condition under the relevant Impairment Table.

Conclusion about medical conditions

For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. He therefore did not meet the requirement in paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act at the time of his claim, or within 13 weeks of claim.
As the requirements in subsection 94(1) of the Act are cumulative – that is, the Applicant must meet all three of the paragraphs in subsection 94(1) to qualify for disability support pension – he did not meet the qualification requirements at the date of his claim or within 13 weeks of claim. For this reason, the Tribunal finds that the decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for disability support pension is correct and this decision is affirmed.

Date of hearing: 25 September 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms T Weir, HWLE Lawyers

Date of hearing:	25 September 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms T Weir, HWLE Lawyers