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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered whether the applicant qualified for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) under section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's impairments met the criteria for DSP eligibility during the relevant qualification period, specifically whether her condition was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and whether it attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, if this impairment was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and if it resulted in a rating of at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to consider whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined by the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did suffer from a mental health condition, including anxiety, depression, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder, during the qualification period, thus satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the crucial issue was whether this condition was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. Examining the medical reports, the Tribunal noted that while diagnoses were made by qualified practitioners, the evidence indicated that the applicant's condition had not been fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period. Reports from later dates showed ongoing medication trials and the absence of a determined ongoing treatment regime, meaning the requirements of the Impairment Tables, which stipulate that a condition must be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised to receive an impairment rating, were not met. Consequently, the applicant's impairment did not attract the required 20 points.

As the applicant's impairment did not meet the 20-point threshold under the Impairment Tables, she did not qualify for the DSP under section 94(1) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the previous decision.