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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to reject Mr Sanders' claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Sanders, born in April 1967, lodged his claim on 8 March 2018, listing various medical conditions including chronic pain, memory and concentration issues, and worsening eyesight and hearing. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Sanders met the eligibility criteria for a DSP, specifically concerning the qualification period, the severity of his impairments, and his continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Sanders' impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised (FDTS) within the qualification period of 23 February 2018 to 25 May 2018. It also needed to assess whether these impairments attracted a minimum of 20 points under the Impairment Tables and whether Mr Sanders had a continuing inability to work (CITW). The legal principles applied included the requirements of section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and the criteria for assessing permanent impairments under the Impairment Tables, which necessitate a condition to be FDTS and likely to persist for more than two years.

The Tribunal considered evidence that Mr Sanders' neck disorder was FDTS and attracted 10 points, and his shoulder and upper arm disorder was FDTS and attracted 5 points. However, his lower limb condition was not FDTS, and while his ADHD and depression were considered FDTS by the first instance AAT, attracting 10 points, the overall impairment rating did not reach the required 20 points. Crucially, the Tribunal found that Mr Sanders did not demonstrate a CITW during the qualification period. The Tribunal acknowledged Mr Sanders' difficult medical circumstances and noted that any worsening of his conditions since the qualification period would necessitate a new DSP application.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject Mr Sanders' claim for a DSP, finding it to be the correct and preferable decision based on the evidence and legal requirements applicable during the relevant qualification period.