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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review by an applicant seeking a disability support pension. The applicant contended that previous decision-makers had failed to consider all evidence supporting a finding of severe impairment under the relevant tables. The respondent argued that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the pension, either due to not meeting the qualification period requirements or, if she did, not demonstrating a severe functional impact.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's conditions, specifically her mental health condition and spinal condition, qualified her for a disability support pension. This involved determining if her conditions were fully treated and diagnosed, if they met the qualification period requirements, and crucially, whether they resulted in a severe functional impact as defined by the relevant tables. The applicant specifically argued for a 20-point impairment rating under Table 5 for her mental health condition, indicating severe functional impairment.

The Tribunal acknowledged concessions made by the respondent that the applicant had a fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised mental health condition and a spinal condition, each warranting a 10-point impairment rating. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not support a finding of severe functional impact for the mental health condition during the qualification period. Specifically, regarding the descriptor for self-care and independent living, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant required regular support at least twice a week, noting that while her daughter assisted on days she could not function, the frequency and timing of this assistance during the qualification period were not established.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It found that while the applicant may have qualified for points across multiple tables, she did not meet the threshold of 20 points under a single table, which was a necessary requirement under sections 94(2aa) and (3B) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).