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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to affirm a decision that the applicant did not qualify for a disability support pension. The applicant’s claim was based on a spinal condition and mental health conditions. The review was conducted by Senior Member Belinda Pola of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant’s conditions, specifically their mental health condition, were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant qualification period, as required by the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. The Tribunal was also required to consider the evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of the applicant's mental health condition in light of the legislative requirements.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant’s mental health condition was fully diagnosed by a clinical psychologist during the qualification period, it was not fully treated. Relying on the principle that the Tribunal must consider treatment that took place and was intended to take place within the qualification period, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had undertaken six counselling sessions within a four-week period. However, the Tribunal accepted the respondent’s contention that this did not constitute ‘reasonable treatment’, which could have included further interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy or pharmacological trials. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the mental health condition was not fully treated and therefore not fully stabilised within the qualification period, meaning no impairment rating could be assigned for this condition.

As it was not necessary to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of s94(1)(c) of the Act, and given that no identified impairments could be assigned impairment ratings under s94(1)(b), the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.