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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr Sharman and the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The dispute concerned Mr Sharman's eligibility for Disability Support Pension (DSP) as of 12 August 2014. The core issues were whether Mr Sharman had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments on that date, and if so, whether these impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and further, whether he had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Sharman possessed any impairments that met the criteria under section 94(1)(a) of the relevant Act. If impairments were found, the Tribunal had to assess if they attracted a rating of 20 points or more as per section 94(1)(b). This assessment involved considering whether the impairments were permanent and likely to persist for more than two years, as defined by sections 6(3) and 6(4) of the Impairment Tables, which require a condition to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised.

The Tribunal found that Mr Sharman did have impairments from a back condition and depression, a concession supported by the evidence. However, regarding the back condition, the Tribunal reviewed extensive medical evidence from various specialists dating back to 2010. While there was evidence of spinal abnormalities, nerve root impingement, and persistent sciatica, the medical opinions varied on the necessity and efficacy of surgical intervention, with some suggesting conservative management, pain management, or that the opportunity for successful surgery had passed. Crucially, the Tribunal noted a report from October 2014 which stated that Mr Sharman's condition was unlikely to change significantly in the next 24 months and was deemed long-term, fully treated, and stable for the purpose of the report.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Sharman did not qualify for DSP on the assessment date. This finding meant that the original decision by the Department of Social Services to cancel his DSP was affirmed.