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

This matter concerned an application for a second tier review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning the Applicant's eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Applicant, who is 62 years old, had previously been granted a DSP in 2011 following a workplace accident in 2008 that caused lower back and knee injuries. His DSP was cancelled in 2018 after a review using updated Impairment Tables found him ineligible. Subsequent reviews and claims, including the one under consideration, also resulted in decisions that he did not meet the eligibility criteria.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant qualified for a DSP under section 94(1) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This required determining if the Applicant had a qualifying physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, and if so, whether that impairment attracted a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal also needed to consider, if the point threshold was met, whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work for at least 15 hours per week and had participated in a Program of Support or the supported wage system.

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had physical impairments due to his lower back pain and chronic left knee conditions, satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the central determination revolved around the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal noted that the tables assess functional impact based on what a person can do, provided the condition is permanent and likely to persist for more than two years. Applying these principles to the medical evidence, including reports detailing lumbar spondylosis and chronic back pain with radiating leg pain, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's impairments attracted a rating of 15 points under the Impairment Tables.

As the Applicant's impairment rating of 15 points did not meet the threshold of 20 points or more required by section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991*, his claim for DSP could not succeed. Consequently, it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider the further limb of the eligibility criteria concerning the continuing inability to work. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.