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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Barry Wilson for a review of a decision by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal, which had affirmed the rejection of his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Wilson’s claim was initially rejected on the grounds that his impairments did not meet the required 20-point threshold under the Impairment Tables, and that he did not have a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Wilson’s impairments, specifically Bipolar Affective Disorder and bilateral Osteoarthritis of the knees, attracted 20 or more impairment points under the relevant Impairment Tables at the time of his claim. A further issue was whether, if the point threshold was met, Mr Wilson had a continuing inability to work within two years of the relevant period. The Tribunal also considered, and ultimately rejected, evidence relating to a left shoulder injury that had not been raised in earlier stages of the claim.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an impairment to attract points under the Impairment Tables, it must be fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. In Mr Wilson’s case, the Bipolar Affective Disorder was not considered fully treated or stabilised as he was not engaged in current treatments, and a psychiatric review was suggested. Similarly, the bilateral Osteoarthritis of the knees was deemed not fully treated or stabilised due to a lack of recent conservative treatments. Consequently, neither condition, nor his Anxiety Disorder, attracted the necessary impairment points. The Tribunal also noted that even if the point threshold had been met, the Job Capacity Assessor’s assessment of Mr Wilson’s work capacity suggested he would not satisfy the requirement of a continuing inability to work.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Wilson did not qualify for a DSP because his impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and he likely did not meet the criterion of a continuing inability to work.