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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to affirm a decision that the Applicant did not qualify for a Disability Support Pension. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for the pension, specifically concerning the severity and stability of his impairments. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the Secretary's decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's impairments attracted 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, and if so, whether this indicated a continuing inability to work. Central to this was the determination of whether the Applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant period, as required by the Social Security Act 1991.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's back condition, which was found to be fully diagnosed. However, the Tribunal found that the condition could not be considered fully treated and stabilised. Evidence from a physiotherapist indicated ongoing management was required, and the Applicant himself reported that physiotherapy aggravated his pain and that he did not perform prescribed exercises. Furthermore, the Applicant had been referred to a Persistent Pain Management Service, and had not engaged with a specialist. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's back, mental health, and other conditions could not be considered permanent for the purposes of assigning impairment ratings. Consequently, the Applicant did not meet the threshold of 20 impairment points under the Impairment Tables.

As the Applicant did not meet the requirement of accumulating 20 or more impairment points, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to consider the further question of whether he had a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.