Rybarczyk; Secretary, Department of Social Services and

This matter concerned a review of a decision by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (SSCSD) which had set aside a prior decision and referred Ms Deborah Rybarczyk's claim for a disability support pension (DSP) back for reconsideration. Ms Rybarczyk had lodged her claim on 26 May 2015, citing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, sciatica, and depression. Her claim was initially rejected because her impairments were not assessed as 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and she was not deemed to have a continuing inability to work. An authorised review officer upheld this rejection. The SSCSD, however, found that Ms Rybarczyk satisfied certain legislative requirements and assigned 20 points to her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, concluding she had a continuing inability to work. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services sought review of the SSCSD's decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Rybarczyk's conditions were permanent, whether she had undertaken reasonable treatment, and whether her impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, thereby establishing a continuing inability to work. The applicant contended that the assessment of Ms Rybarczyk's eligibility for DSP should be confined to the period between her claim date and 13 weeks thereafter.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence regarding Ms Rybarczyk's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite a diagnosis and recommendations for surgical release dating back to 2004, Ms Rybarczyk had consistently refused surgery. Medical opinions indicated that the surgery was a minor, safe procedure with a high success rate. The Tribunal accepted the opinion that refusal of such treatment was unreasonable if the symptoms were troublesome, and therefore, the condition could not be considered permanent or fully stabilised under the relevant legislative provisions. Consequently, the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome could not be assigned an impairment rating. The Tribunal also noted that the medical report lodged with the claim did not refer to a spinal condition, although a later report identified lumbar back pain, and evidence of a fall occurred after the relevant assessment period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the SSCSD's decision. In substitution, it decided that Ms Rybarczyk did not qualify for a disability support pension.