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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Turner for a disability support pension, with the reviewable decision affirming a previous determination that he did not meet the criteria for the pension. The dispute centred on whether Mr Turner's various physical and psychiatric conditions resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points or more, as required by the relevant impairment tables under social security legislation. The decision was made by Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member, of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr Turner's diagnosed conditions, including a post-surgical adrenocortical tumour, anxiety, depression, mood swings, fractures to his shoulder, thumb, and hand, knee damage, spinal fractures, degenerative spondylosis, mild scoliosis, and recurrent migraines, constituted a combined impairment rating of at least 20 points. This required an assessment against the specific criteria outlined in the relevant impairment tables, particularly concerning the diagnosis, treatment, and stabilisation of his conditions.

The Tribunal considered medical reports from Dr Aitken and Dr Minogue. Dr Aitken noted Mr Turner's long-standing migraines, attributing them to past spinal injury, and indicated that he experienced disabling migraines twice monthly. However, Dr Minogue expressed reservations about assigning an impairment rating without specialist assessment, suggesting that significant improvement could be anticipated with such advice. The Tribunal found that while Mr Turner's conditions were diagnosed, they had not been fully treated and stabilised, particularly in the absence of specialist review for his migraines. Consequently, an impairment rating under the tables could not be given for this condition. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Turner's overall impairment rating was 15 points, which was insufficient to qualify for the disability support pension. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.