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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Spaleta, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding her eligibility for Disability Support Pension (DSP). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the Secretary's decision. The evidence before the Tribunal included various reports, such as psychological assessments, analytical reports concerning environmental factors, and medical reports from specialists including a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, dermatologist, and respiratory physician. The applicant also provided oral evidence.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's impairments attracted a total rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and consequently, whether she had a continuing inability to work as defined by the Social Security Act 1991. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the requirements of section 94 of the Act, which outlines the criteria for DSP eligibility, including the assessment of impairments and the capacity to engage in work.

The Tribunal reasoned that before applying the Impairment Tables, it was necessary to consider the applicant's medical history in relation to the conditions causing the impairments. While acknowledging the evidence presented, including a report from a psychologist, the Tribunal noted the absence of a report from a consultant allergy physician, Dr. John Weiner, which would have been beneficial in determining if the applicant's allergic reactions had been fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The Tribunal found that the impairments arising from the applicant's conditions could not be assigned a total rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act. Although not strictly necessary for the determination, the Tribunal also considered section 94(2)(aa) regarding a continuing inability to work, noting that a "severe impairment" is defined as 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table. The Tribunal also clarified that factors such as the availability of work, training, motivation, and personal preferences are not relevant when determining a continuing inability to work under the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments did not meet the threshold for a severe impairment and therefore did not attract a total rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. As a result, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for DSP eligibility.