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

Case

[2018] AATA 3860

15 October 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Plant and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 3860 [2018] AATA 3860 15 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mr Plant for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to reject his claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Plant had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments as at the time of the Qualification Period, whether the conditions causing those impairments were permanent, and if so, whether those impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. If a severe impairment was not found, the Tribunal also needed to assess whether Mr Plant had satisfied the program of support requirements.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence concerning Mr Plant's Charcot foot condition in both his right and left feet. The Secretary conceded that the Charcot foot in the right foot was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for longer than two years. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Charcot foot in the left foot met these criteria, having been diagnosed over two years prior and treated with corrective footwear. Consequently, the Tribunal found both conditions to be permanent.

The Tribunal then assessed the degree of impairment to Mr Plant's lower limb function under Table 3 of the Impairment Tables. While Mr Plant's representative argued for a 30-point rating, the Secretary accepted a moderate impairment rating of 10 points. The Tribunal found that the impairment arising from the Charcot foot conditions attracted a rating of 10 points under Table 3. The Tribunal also noted other permanent conditions, including diabetes mellitus type II, haemochromatosis, and retinopathy, but found these did not cause functional impairment or attract any impairment ratings. As Mr Plant's permanent conditions did not attract at least 20 impairment points, he did not meet the eligibility requirements for DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject Mr Plant's claim.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0