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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Trenter against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to cancel his Disability Support Pension (DSP). The appeal was heard by Professor R McCallum AO, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether Mr Trenter's impairments, including a below-knee amputation, skin irritation, and depression, were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised at the time of the DSP cancellation, and whether he met the criteria for a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether any of Mr Trenter's impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised as at 25 May 2015, and if so, to assess them against the relevant impairment tables. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr Trenter had a continuing inability to work, as defined by specific provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), particularly in light of his employment of more than 15 hours per week.

The Tribunal found that Mr Trenter's above-left-knee amputation was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised on 25 May 2015. However, his skin condition and any potential depression were not considered to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised at that time, as he had not consulted relevant specialists. Applying the impairment tables to the amputation, the Tribunal assessed its functional impact as moderate, resulting in a rating of 10 points. This assessment meant Mr Trenter did not meet the threshold for a DSP under subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act. Despite this finding, the Tribunal proceeded to interpret section 96 of the *Social Security Act 1991* concerning the continuing inability to work, noting the lack of precedent on its interpretation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Trenter's impairment rating of 10 points meant the decision to cancel his DSP on 25 May 2015 was correct. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of section 96, though strictly unnecessary for the outcome regarding Mr Trenter's eligibility, provided an interpretation of this important provision for DSP recipients engaged in work.