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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Applicant against the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The Applicant claimed he was unable to work due to several medical conditions, including diabetes-induced chronic osteomyelitis leading to toe amputation, major depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and dementia. The core dispute revolved around whether these conditions, during a specific "Relevant Period" from April to July 2017, met the criteria for a DSP, particularly concerning the severity of functional impairment as assessed under the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period, and if these conditions attracted 20 or more impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the evidentiary requirements for diagnosing mental health conditions, which stipulated that a diagnosis must be made by a psychiatrist or, if not, be supported by evidence from a clinical psychologist. The Tribunal also needed to assess the permanence of the Applicant's various physical and mental health conditions during the Relevant Period.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant suffered from major depressive disorder, PTSD, and dementia, these conditions were not considered permanent during the Relevant Period, and therefore could not attract an Impairment Rating under the Tables. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that a diagnosis of a mental health condition requires confirmation by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist. The Applicant's chronic osteomyelitis, resulting in toe amputation, was found to be permanent during the Relevant Period and attracted 5 impairment points under Table 3. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's impairments did not attract a total of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.