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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP) made by Ms Penn against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. Ms Penn had previously been granted DSP but it was cancelled when she returned to work. Her current claim was assessed under the Impairment Tables that came into effect on 1 January 2012. The central dispute concerned whether Ms Penn's impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised at the time of her claim, and whether these impairments had a sufficient assessable functional impact to qualify her for DSP.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Penn met the criteria for DSP under section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (the Act). This involved assessing whether she had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that scored 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether she had a continuing inability to work. The latter required consideration of whether her impairment was sufficient to prevent her from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next two years, and whether it prevented her from undertaking training that would enable her to do so. The Tribunal also had to consider the provisions of Schedule 2, clause 4(1) of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999*, which allows a claim to be taken as made on the first day the person becomes qualified if they were not qualified on the lodgement date but would become qualified within 13 weeks.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Ms Penn's spinal degenerative condition was a well-established and chronic condition, and thus could be assessed for impairment points, there was insufficient corroborating evidence to support a finding of significant functional impact under the Impairment Tables. Although Ms Penn reported difficulties such as bending and turning her head, the Tribunal noted that self-reported symptoms alone were insufficient under the Determination, and there was no corroborative evidence for these specific functional limitations. Furthermore, evidence of her ability to travel by aeroplane and walk her dogs, and her capacity to lift lever arch folders, militated against a finding of a mild functional impact under the relevant Descriptors. The Tribunal also noted that Ms Penn did not see a pain specialist until after the claim period, and while her chiropractor's treatment commenced shortly before her claim, the intensive phase of that treatment was not clearly defined within the relevant period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Penn did not satisfy the criteria for DSP, as the evidence did not demonstrate an assessable functional impact of her conditions that met the threshold required by the Impairment Tables. Therefore, her claim was not granted.