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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the cancellation of his Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The applicant contended that he qualified for the DSP at the date of cancellation, 5 September 2016. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant’s various medical conditions, including an upper limb condition, spinal condition, and psoriasis, attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, as required for DSP eligibility.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant’s impairments, as assessed at the date of cancellation, attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Secondly, if this threshold was met, whether the applicant had satisfied one of the criteria set out in section 94(1)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991, indicating a continuing inability to work. The Secretary accepted that the applicant suffered from physical impairments at the date of cancellation, satisfying section 94(1) of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicant's upper limb condition, noting medical evidence from Dr Trifiletti indicating tendonitis in the right shoulder since 1992, surgical treatment in 1992, and a residual unfitness for tasks involving heavy lifting, overhead work, or repetitive use of the right upper limb. Despite this, Dr Trifiletti assessed a residual work capacity for full-time light employment, provided such work avoided repetitive use of the right upper limb, and suggested the applicant would benefit from retraining. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s upper limb condition, as assessed by the Secretary, could attract an impairment rating of only 5 points under Table 2 of the Impairment Tables. As the applicant did not meet the requirement of attracting 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal concluded it was unnecessary to consider the second issue of a continuing inability to work.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Disability Support Pension on 5 September 2016.