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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms. Radmanovic, against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to refuse her application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's medical conditions met the criteria for a DSP, specifically concerning the diagnosis, treatment, and stabilisation of her impairments, and whether these impairments rated 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables.

The court was required to determine if the applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, as defined by the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. Furthermore, the court had to ascertain whether the applicant's impairments, if meeting the diagnostic and treatment criteria, were rated at 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Finally, the court needed to assess if the applicant had a continuing inability to work, which involved considering her active participation in a Program of Support, unless her impairment was deemed severe.

The court reasoned that for a condition to be considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, it must be more likely than not to persist for more than two years. The assessment of "reasonable treatment" involved considering factors such as accessibility, cost, the likelihood of substantial functional improvement, regularity of undertaking, success rate, and risk. The applicant's own statements and documentary evidence, including references to past accidents, ongoing medical consultations, and a pending pain management specialist appointment, suggested that her conditions were not yet fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised. The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of sections 94(1)(b) and 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) during the relevant period.

Consequently, the reviewable decision of the Secretary was affirmed.