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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Goncalo Pinto against a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division to decline his claim for a Disability Support Pension. The purported impairments included visual, upper limb, and spinal conditions. The core of the dispute lay in the applicant's self-reported evidence of his conditions, which contrasted with the available medical material, and whether this evidence supported the legislative requirement of 20 impairment points for each condition.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the Disability Support Pension, specifically focusing on section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the evidence presented demonstrated the requisite level of impairment for each claimed condition during the relevant qualification period. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's assertion that he was not afforded procedural fairness during the hearing, particularly concerning the time allocated for his closing submissions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to decline the claim, finding that the evidence did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). It reasoned that for a claim to be successful, the applicant must have been qualified for the pension during the specified qualification period, and any later changes in medical conditions were not relevant to that claim. While evidence outside the qualification period could be considered if referable to the applicant's condition during that period, the presented material did not meet the threshold. Regarding procedural fairness, the Tribunal found that the applicant had been afforded a flexible obligation to adopt fair procedures appropriate to the circumstances, noting the multiple case conferences, directions hearing, pre-hearing check, and opportunities to address contentions. As the applicant did not satisfy section 94(1)(b), the Tribunal did not need to consider other relevant provisions.