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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to affirm a decision that she did not qualify for a Disability Support Pension. The Applicant, aged 55, had a history of office work as a tax agent since the late 1990s, having qualified as an accountant in 2002. She claimed several conditions, including a significant back injury, sleep apnoea, and mental health issues, which she asserted rendered her unable to work. The Applicant also mentioned ongoing medication use, including "uppers," "downers," and medication to "keep me sane," along with insomnia and weight gain.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant met the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), which mandates that the applicant's assessed medical conditions must be allocated at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and that these conditions must be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. The Tribunal also considered whether the Applicant's conditions were permanent, a prerequisite for meeting the points threshold.

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's back condition had caused significant pain and interference with her daily life, and had necessitated interventions such as spinal cord stimulation, it could not be considered "permanent" as understood under the Act at the time of the qualification period. This conclusion was based on the evidence of Dr. Todhunter, who indicated that further treatment, specifically a pain management program, was under consideration. The Tribunal relied on established principles that impairments relating to pain should not be regarded as permanent until an applicant has at least completed a course of pain management. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant met the requirements of section 94(1)(b).

As the Applicant failed to satisfy section 94(1)(b), the question of whether she satisfied section 94(1)(c) did not arise. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.