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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding the Applicant's eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Applicant had lodged a second claim for DSP on 19 December 2016, which was subsequently rejected by the Department on 19 July 2017. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant met the qualification criteria for DSP as stipulated in section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (the Act) at the relevant time.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment as defined by section 94(1)(a) of the Act within the qualification period. If such an impairment existed, the Tribunal then needed to assess whether the Applicant had an impairment rating of at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b). Finally, if these criteria were met, the Tribunal would consider whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work, as defined in section 94(2) of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's depression, a potential psychiatric impairment, had not been diagnosed in accordance with the requirements of Table 5 of the Impairment Tables. Specifically, the introduction to Table 5 mandates that a diagnosis must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, including a psychiatrist, or supported by evidence from a clinical psychologist if the diagnosis was not made by a psychiatrist. The Tribunal found no evidence of such a diagnosis at the qualification period, meaning the functional impact of this condition could not be considered. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant's total impairment rating at the qualification period was no more than 5 points under Table 1.

As the Applicant did not meet the minimum impairment rating of 20 points required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not satisfy the qualification criteria for DSP. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.