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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Ware, who claimed to suffer from a range of medical conditions including severe degenerative arthritis of both knees, lumbar pain, arthritis in his shoulders and hands, obesity, asthma, deep vein thrombosis, depression, high blood pressure, and kidney problems. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether Mr Ware qualified for the DSP at the date of his claim, 17 February 2017, or within the subsequent 13 weeks, up to 19 May 2017.

The AAT was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, whether Mr Ware's medical impairments were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period. Secondly, whether these conditions resulted in a functional impairment that attracted an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. If so, the Tribunal also needed to consider whether he had a severe impairment under a single Impairment Table or had completed a Program of Support, and finally, whether he had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement for conditions to be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised before an impairment rating could be assigned. While Mr Ware's severe degenerative arthritis of both knees was accepted as fully diagnosed, the Tribunal found it had not been fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period. Evidence indicated that Mr Ware was still undergoing assessment for bilateral knee replacement surgery, was advised to wait for the procedure due to his age and the lifespan of artificial joints, and needed to address obesity prior to surgery. Consequently, this condition could not be assigned an impairment rating under the Tables.

Based on this assessment, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Ware had an Impairment Rating of zero points as at the relevant period. Therefore, he did not satisfy the criteria under section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) for a DSP. As a result, the Tribunal did not need to consider the issue of a continuing inability to work, and the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the DSP, was affirmed.