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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Suddhoo against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a delegate's decision to reject his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Suddhoo lodged his initial claim with Centrelink on 21 June 2016. Centrelink rejected the claim on 17 November 2016, finding that Mr Suddhoo did not meet the threshold of 20 or more impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables. This decision was subsequently affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and then by the AAT on 2 March 2022, which assigned Mr Suddhoo a total impairment rating of five points. Mr Suddhoo then applied to the Tribunal for a review of the AAT's decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Suddhoo was qualified for the DSP during the qualification period, which extended from 21 June 2016 to 20 September 2016. This involved assessing whether Mr Suddhoo suffered from any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments, and if so, whether these impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised (FDTS) during that period. Crucially, the Tribunal had to ascertain if these impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and whether Mr Suddhoo had a continuing inability to work, as stipulated by section 94(1)(c) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the legislative framework, including section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which outlines the qualification criteria for DSP. This section requires a person to have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and either a continuing inability to work or participation in a supported wage system. The Tribunal noted that the respondent accepted that Mr Suddhoo had impairments that satisfied section 94(1)(a) of the Act during the qualification period. However, the respondent contended that none of Mr Suddhoo’s conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during that period, and therefore did not attract the requisite 20-point impairment rating. The Tribunal agreed with this contention.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Suddhoo did not satisfy the requirement under section 94(1)(b) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) for an impairment rating of 20 points or more during the qualification period. Consequently, he did not qualify for the DSP. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, which was the AAT's decision of 2 March 2022, upholding the original rejection of Mr Suddhoo's claim for DSP.