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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr Ramsay, who sought review of a decision to reject his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Ramsay lodged his claim on 17 September 2018, citing various medical conditions including spinal injury, sciatic nerve damage, chronic depression, anxiety, sleep apnoea, ADHD, and suicidal ideation. The Department of Human Services rejected his claim, finding he did not meet the required impairment rating under the Impairment Tables, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and the AAT. Mr Ramsay sought further review by the AAT, arguing that his conditions were permanent and that the previous decision-maker had not considered all relevant medical evidence.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Ramsay qualified for a DSP at the time of his claim or within the subsequent 13 weeks. This involved assessing whether he had a qualifying impairment, whether his conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised to attract at least 20 impairment points under the Impairment Tables, and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevant legislation, including the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the Impairment Tables, and apply established legal principles regarding the assessment of eligibility for DSP.

The Tribunal reasoned that for DSP qualification, an applicant's conditions must be assessed as they were at the date of claim or within the following 13 weeks. Evidence arising after this period is only relevant if it sheds light on the applicant's condition during the qualification period. The Tribunal found that Mr Ramsay's conditions were not fully treated or stabilised within the relevant period, and therefore did not attract the necessary 20 impairment points. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the requirement for a continuing inability to work must also be met, and that both this and the impairment threshold are of equal importance.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the previous decision to reject Mr Ramsay's claim for DSP. While expressing sympathy for his circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the decision was correct and preferable based on the evidence and the applicable legal framework. The Tribunal noted that Mr Ramsay could reapply for DSP with recent medical evidence if his condition changes.