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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Perera against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, affirming a decision that he did not qualify for the Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Perera's medical conditions, assessed under the relevant legislative framework, met the criteria for receiving the DSP during the claim period. The review was conducted by Mr. D.J. Morris, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr. Perera satisfied the requirements of section 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) during the claim period, which extended from 18 March 2015 to 17 June 2016. This involved assessing whether his diagnosed conditions were fully treated and stabilised, and whether the assigned impairment points under the relevant tables were sufficient to qualify him for the DSP. The Tribunal also considered the application of clause 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which dictates when a claim is taken to be made if the claimant is not qualified on the day of lodgement but becomes qualified within 13 weeks.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Perera did suffer from impairments, including a spinal condition, a right leg amputation, hypertension, mental health conditions (PTSD and depression), and post-concussion syndrome, thus satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the critical determination was the assignment of impairment points. Despite acknowledging the severity of Mr. Perera's conditions and the significant impact they had on his life, the Tribunal concluded that his claim did not satisfy section 93(1)(b) of the Act because he did not accumulate the required number of impairment points under the relevant tables. The Tribunal emphasised that failing to qualify for DSP does not negate the existence of impairment, and noted Mr. Perera's tertiary education and prior employment history, suggesting that with appropriate support, he might be able to find fulfilling employment.

The decision of the Tribunal was affirmed.