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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Piper against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to cancel his disability support pension (DSP). The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Piper's various medical conditions, as assessed on 25 January 2015, resulted in a total impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, a criterion for receiving a DSP. The Secretary contended that Mr Piper's impairments attracted an overall rating of 0 points, while Mr Piper argued for a rating of 100 points across nine conditions. The case was heard by Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine the nature of Mr Piper's impairments, specifically whether they were physical, intellectual, or psychiatric, and to assess the functional capacity lost as a result of these conditions. This involved evaluating whether the impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, considering conditions such as a neck disorder, and assessing the evidence presented by both parties, including medical reports and Mr Piper's own account of his symptoms and treatment. The Tribunal was required to consider Mr Piper's conditions as they were on 25 January 2015, and to apply the definition of "fully stabilised" which meant it was unlikely there would be significant functional improvement within the next two years.

The Tribunal considered each impairment separately, defining impairment as a loss of functional capacity affecting a person's ability to work. While acknowledging Mr Piper's neck condition, which he attributed to a 2009 assault and described as causing severe throat pain and breathing difficulties, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not support his claimed rating of 20 points under Table 10 (Digestive and Reproduction Function). The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence from overseas medical practitioners or physiotherapists Mr Piper had consulted. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the medical report from Dr Ruthnam did not identify the conditions Mr Piper suffered from at the cancellation date or address the criteria for DSP qualification. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Piper's impairments did not attract an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables at the date of cancellation, and therefore he did not satisfy the criterion for DSP. The decision under review was affirmed.