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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Wilkinson against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, to cancel his Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Wilkinson had been receiving the DSP for a spinal disorder since 2008. The review focused on whether his various medical conditions qualified him for the DSP at the date of cancellation, specifically whether his impairments attracted 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether Mr Wilkinson’s various medical conditions, including neuropathy, spinal disorder, bowel problems, depression, asthma, high cholesterol, a fractured left hand, jaw pain, and a cardiac condition, met the criteria for receiving a DSP at the time of cancellation. This involved assessing whether his impairments attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act.

The court found that Mr Wilkinson’s neuropathy condition was fully diagnosed at the relevant time. However, it was not considered fully treated and stabilised, as evidenced by ongoing consultations with neurologists and planned further assessments. Similarly, his back condition, while diagnosed, was not fully treated and stabilised due to recent exacerbation and planned treatment. His mental health condition had not been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, precluding any points allocation. While his asthma and high cholesterol were diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, they caused minimal functional impairment and therefore did not attract points. Consequently, the court concluded that Mr Wilkinson’s conditions did not attract an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.

As Mr Wilkinson did not satisfy the requirement of section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act, he did not qualify for the DSP at the date of cancellation. Accordingly, the decision under review to cancel his DSP was affirmed. The court noted that this decision would be distressing but encouraged Mr Wilkinson to lodge a fresh claim in the future if his circumstances changed.