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

This matter concerned an appeal by Miss Wilkie against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The central dispute revolved around whether Miss Wilkie's impairments during a specified qualification period met the criteria for a disability support pension, specifically whether her impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and if she had a continuing inability to work. The case was heard by Mr Conrad Ermert, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were threefold: first, whether Miss Wilkie had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments during the qualification period; second, if such impairments existed, whether they attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and third, if the impairments met the rating threshold, whether Miss Wilkie had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal was required to assess the severity and permanence of Miss Wilkie's conditions, including severe obstructive sleep apnoea, daytime sleepiness, asthma, and a back problem, against the specific criteria set out in the Social Security Act 1991 and the Impairment Tables.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirements for an impairment rating under section 94(1)(b) of the Act, which necessitates that a condition be permanent, fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years. The Respondent conceded that Miss Wilkie had impairments satisfying section 94(1)(a), and this concession was supported by medical evidence. Regarding the sleep apnoea, daytime sleepiness, and asthma, the Respondent also conceded these were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, allowing for an impairment rating. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence supported a rating of only 10 points under Impairment Table 1 for these conditions, as the descriptors for a 20-point rating, which included an inability to perform specific activities like walking around a shopping centre without assistance or using public transport without assistance, were not met. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.