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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Syed against a decision to affirm the refusal of his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Syed's various medical conditions met the threshold of 20 impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables, as required for DSP eligibility. The Tribunal was tasked with independently assessing the conditions, including a lumbar spine condition, depression and anxiety, high blood pressure and vascular disease, and sleep apnoea, to determine their diagnostic status, treatment, stability, and functional impact during the qualifying period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine, de novo, whether Mr. Syed's impairments, specifically his lumbar spine condition, depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, vascular disease, and sleep apnoea, were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised during the relevant qualifying period, and if so, what impairment rating should be assigned to each condition under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was not bound by previous assessments made by other bodies, including the Joint Compensation Authority, the Human Performance Assessment Unit, the Authorised Review Officer, or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that no evidence was presented regarding the claim of workplace bullying and harassment, and therefore, this aspect was not considered. In relation to the lumbar spine condition, the Tribunal found that while it was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, it did not attract any impairment points. Similarly, the conditions of high blood pressure, vascular disease, and sleep apnoea were found to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised but did not demonstrate sufficient functional impact to warrant impairment points. Depression and anxiety were found to be fully diagnosed but not fully stabilised or treated. Consequently, the cumulative impairment points did not reach the required threshold of 20. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.