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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to reject Ms Stanley's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Ms Stanley's impairments, comprising dysgraphia, autism spectrum disorder, gender dysphoria, and anxiety, attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables during the qualifying period of 18 September 2017 to 18 December 2017. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Stanley met the criteria for the DSP, specifically regarding the severity of her impairments and the completion of a program of support.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Stanley suffered from impairments that met the threshold for the DSP and, crucially, whether these impairments rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. This involved assessing whether her conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualifying period, as required for the Impairment Tables to be applied. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the requirements of a program of support, as outlined in the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014, and whether Ms Stanley met any exemptions to these requirements.

The Tribunal found that Ms Stanley did suffer from impairments during the qualifying period, satisfying the initial requirement for the DSP. However, it determined that her conditions did not attract the necessary 20 impairment points. While dysgraphia was assessed at 10 points (5 under Table 2 and 5 under Table 7), her other conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, gender dysphoria, and anxiety, were not considered fully treated and stabilised during the qualifying period, and therefore did not attract points. The Tribunal also noted that Ms Stanley had not completed a program of support, and no exemption applied. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Stanley did not meet the criteria for the DSP on this claim.