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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Trinick against a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Tribunal, which affirmed a prior decision rejecting her claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mrs Trinick had lodged her claim on 25 August 2017, citing various medical conditions including an underactive thyroid, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis. An initial assessment found her to be "manifestly medically ineligible" due to insufficient evidence of specialist management and treatment for her conditions. Subsequent reviews by an Authorised Review Officer and the Tribunal itself affirmed this rejection, finding that her impairments did not attract the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mrs Trinick’s impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised within the relevant qualification period, and whether these impairments attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether Mrs Trinick had a continuing inability to work, a prerequisite for DSP eligibility. The qualification period for assessing these criteria was from 25 August 2017 to 24 November 2017.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the definition of "permanent" for DSP assessment purposes, which requires a condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and likely to last for more than two years. Applying the principles from *Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services*, the Tribunal emphasised that the assessment must consider the treatment that had taken place and was intended to take place, and its likely effect, during the qualification period. Evidence of treatment efficacy after this period was considered not directly relevant. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient medical documentation to demonstrate that Mrs Trinick's conditions met the criteria for being fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised within the relevant timeframe, and therefore her impairments did not attract the necessary points.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject Mrs Trinick's claim for DSP, finding it to be the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal reiterated a previous suggestion that Mrs Trinick might consider reapplying for the DSP with further recent medical evidence from specialists managing her conditions.