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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by an applicant challenging a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding eligibility for a disability support pension (DSP). The core dispute revolved around the applicant's degenerative spinal condition and whether it met the threshold for a DSP, specifically an impairment rating of 20 points or more under Impairment Table 4, coupled with a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate impairment rating for the applicant's spinal condition, considering conflicting medical evidence. This involved assessing whether the applicant's ability to move her head and neck indicated a "moderate functional impact" (10 points) or a "severe functional impact" (20 points) as defined by Impairment Table 4. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider this assessment within the relevant qualification period for the DSP claim.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the principle that eligibility for a DSP must be assessed as at the date of the claim and for a period of 13 weeks thereafter, as provided by Schedule 2, section 4(1) of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth). While medical evidence generated after this period could be relevant, it was only admissible insofar as it shed light on the applicant's condition during the qualification period. The Tribunal noted the conflicting opinions from the applicant's treating general practitioner, who opined a severe impairment rating, and a specialist occupational physician commissioned by the respondent, who concluded a moderate impairment rating. Despite acknowledging the applicant's ongoing suffering and the potential for her condition to worsen, the Tribunal was constrained to consider only the evidence pertaining to the specific qualification period.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the AAT Tier 1 decision. It noted that the applicant's condition, if assessed at the present time, might meet the criteria for a severe impairment rating, and that the Act did not preclude her from making a new claim for a DSP in the future.