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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Prahauser against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to affirm a decision that he was not qualified for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Prahauser's impairments met the threshold required for a DSP, specifically whether they could be assigned 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables and whether he had a continuing inability to work during the assessment period. The case was heard by I Thompson, Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Prahauser's impairments, during the assessment period of 26 June 2017 to 25 September 2017, were rated at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables and, if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work. Section 94 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 requires a person to have a continuing inability to work, which is satisfied if they are unable to work for 15 hours or more per week due to their impairments and have actively participated in a program of support. However, this latter requirement is dispensed with if a person has a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table.

The Tribunal considered Mr Prahauser's evidence regarding his conditions, including osteoarthritis in his knees and spine, sensory loss in his fingers, and generalised loss of mobility. The Secretary accepted that Mr Prahauser suffered from impairments but contended that his cervical spine condition was worth only 5 points, his lower back and lower limb conditions were not assignable any points, and therefore his overall impairment rating did not satisfy the required threshold. The Secretary also contended that Mr Prahauser did not have a continuing inability to work. While the Secretary accepted that Mr Prahauser had participated in a program of support, the primary focus remained on the point rating of his impairments.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Prahauser was not qualified for the DSP at the time he lodged his claim or within the subsequent 13 weeks. Consequently, the Tribunal was obliged to affirm the decision under review.