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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Tamua against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding her eligibility for a disability support pension. The central dispute revolved around whether Mrs Tamua met the definition of "severely disabled" under Article 2(2)(a) of an agreement, which was relevant to her claim. While it was not disputed that Mrs Tamua suffered from a physical impairment due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, and morbid obesity, the respondent contended that the degree of her impairment did not meet the required threshold for severe disablement.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Mrs Tamua was "severely disabled" for the purposes of Article 2(2)(a) of the Agreement. This required the Tribunal to construe the meaning of "totally unable" within the definition of "severely disabled" as provided in Article 1(1)(l)(i) of the Agreement. The parties agreed that the Tribunal should be guided by the definition in clause 1.1.S.110 of the Guide to Social Security Law, which stipulated that a recipient is severely disabled if their impairment prevents them from working for at least 8 hours a week for the next two years and from benefiting from training or rehabilitation to the extent of being able to work at least 8 hours a week.

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including reports and testimony from occupational physicians and general practitioners. It noted that while the Guide provided a policy framework, the Tribunal was not bound by it and must interpret the statutory text. The Tribunal found that the definition in the Guide was inconsistent with the proper construction of Article 1(1)(l)(i). Applying the ordinary meaning of "totally unable," the Tribunal concluded that the word "totally" required an absolute inability to work or benefit from training, without any temporal allowance for a minimum number of hours. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mrs Tamua's impairment prevented her from doing any work independently within the next two years and from undertaking training activities during that period, thus satisfying the criteria for severe disablement.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision that Mrs Tamua was eligible to be paid a disability support pension from 16 July 2013, the date of her claim.