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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services (DSS), to reject his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant's claim was based on conditions including major depressive disorder, asthma, and alcohol liver disease. The core dispute revolved around whether these impairments met the threshold required for a DSP, specifically whether they attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining these issues.

The Tribunal was required to consider several legal issues. Primarily, it had to determine whether the applicant's medical impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant period. Following from this, the Tribunal needed to ascertain if these conditions resulted in a functional impairment that attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. If the applicant met this threshold, the Tribunal would then need to assess whether he had a continuing inability to work, as required by the Social Security Act 1991.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that while the applicant's conditions were diagnosed, the Secretary contended that the mental health condition was not fully treated and stabilised. This contention was based on medical advice indicating that psychotherapy was an important part of the treatment plan and that the applicant was commencing antidepressant medication. The Tribunal found that conventional treatment for the mental health condition remained ongoing during the relevant period, meaning it was not fully treated and stabilised. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of having an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, as stipulated by section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

Given that the applicant failed to meet the threshold of a 20-point impairment rating, the Tribunal concluded that it was unnecessary to consider whether he had a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the decision to reject the applicant's claim for DSP was affirmed.