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

This matter concerned an application for a second review of a decision regarding the Applicant's eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Applicant claimed a range of conditions including anxiety/depression, chronic low back pain, left shoulder bursitis, and a sleep disorder. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant's impairments met the threshold for a DSP qualification during the relevant period, specifically whether they attracted at least 20 impairment points under the Impairment Tables and whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments, and if so, whether these impairments attracted ratings of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider if the Applicant had a 'continuing inability to work' as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The Applicant's claim had previously been rejected by the Department and affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer, and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1), leading to this second review.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did suffer from physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments. However, it determined that the Applicant's anxiety and depression, while fully diagnosed, were not fully treated and stabilised according to the relevant clinical practice guidelines, which recommended a combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for chronic or moderate-to-severe depression. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not undertaken adequate trials of medication as advised. Consequently, the Applicant's impairments did not attract the required 20 points.

For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal also considered the requirement for active participation in a program of support. It found that the Applicant had not actively participated in such a program, and no exemption applied. Therefore, even if the impairment threshold had been met, the Applicant would not have qualified for the DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of AAT1, concluding that the Applicant did not qualify for the DSP.