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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to reject the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant contended that the decision was incorrect, arguing that decision-makers lacked the necessary expertise to assess his capacity and future without considering the input of various medical specialists and his lived experience of pain and struggle. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the legislative requirements for a DSP.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised within the relevant qualification period, whether these impairments attracted a minimum of 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was also required to consider the definition of "permanent" for the purposes of the Impairment Tables, which stipulated that a condition must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and likely to last for more than two years.

The Tribunal reasoned that for DSP qualification, both the minimum impairment threshold of 20 points and the continuing inability to work criteria were of equal importance. The applicant's claim was assessed based on his medical conditions as at the date of claim, or within 13 weeks thereafter, which was the qualification period. The Tribunal noted that medical reports originating after this period were only relevant to the extent they referred to the applicant's condition during that time. The Tribunal found that the applicant's ankle condition attracted 10 points under Impairment Table 3, and his Bipolar Affective Disorder attracted 10 points under Impairment Table 5. As the applicant's conditions did not attract an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables as at the end of the qualification period, he did not satisfy the relevant legislative requirements.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal, which had previously affirmed the original decision to reject the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension. The applicant did not qualify for a DSP.