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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Scott against a decision regarding his eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Secretary of the Department of Social Services was the respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Scott's medical conditions were permanent and whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant impairment tables, indicating a continuing inability to work. The decision was made by Member D K Grigg.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Scott's medical conditions were permanent, and if so, whether these impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 or more points under section 94(1)(b) of the relevant Act. This assessment was to be conducted using the Impairment Tables, which are function-based and designed to determine the level of functional impact of an impairment rather than to assess the conditions themselves. An impairment rating could only be assigned if the condition causing the impairment was permanent and the resulting impairment was likely to persist for more than two years.

The Tribunal considered the evidence regarding Mr Scott's spinal impairment and drug dependency. It was accepted that his drug dependency attracted a 10-point impairment rating under Table 6, supported by medical opinions noting difficulties with daily tasks, social relationships, attending appointments, and work commitments. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to determine the permanence or functional impact of his asthma, and a mental health condition could not be considered without a diagnosis from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. The Hepatitis C condition was accepted as temporary.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Scott suffered from a Spinal Impairment and a Drug Dependency Impairment during the qualification period, satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the combined impairment rating from these conditions did not reach the required 20 points under section 94(1)(b). Consequently, the decision under review was set aside.