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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Peter Thompson, on behalf of his son Mr Malcolm Thompson, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to refuse Mr Malcolm Thompson a Disability Support Pension. The dispute centred on whether Mr Thompson met the legislative requirements for the pension, specifically concerning the severity of his impairments and their impact on his capacity to work. The case was heard by Mr Conrad Ermert, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Thompson suffered from a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, and if so, whether this impairment attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr Thompson had a continuing inability to work, as defined by the Social Security Act 1991. The Secretary accepted that Mr Thompson suffered from an intellectual disability, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and sleep apnoea, and that these conditions were permanent.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including reports from a psychologist, Ms Matthews, who diagnosed Mr Thompson with Autism Spectrum Disorder and assessed him as being on the borderline of intellectual disability. Ms Matthews indicated that Mr Thompson requires constant supervision, instruction for each task, and does not fit into a team environment, though he can perform simple jobs with significant support and drive on familiar routes. The Tribunal noted that while Mr Thompson’s intellectual function and adaptive behaviour were assessed, the specific Impairment Tables for Intellectual Function required an assessment using a WAIS IV or equivalent, and an adaptive behaviour assessment like the Vineland-II. The Tribunal affirmed that Mr Thompson’s intellectual impairment was permanent.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Thompson's application for the Disability Support Pension was not successful. Despite acknowledging Mr Thompson's need for assistance and support in finding employment, the Tribunal found that he did not meet the threshold for the pension based on the evidence and the legislative criteria. The Tribunal encouraged the Respondent to provide available assistance to help Mr Thompson find suitable employment.