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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by the Applicant, who suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, obstructive sleep apnoea, anxiety, and depression. The Applicant's claim was initially rejected by the Department, a decision affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer, and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on the basis that her conditions were not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and therefore did not attract the required 20-point impairment rating under the Impairment Tables. The Applicant sought a review of the AAT's decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's various medical conditions were permanent, meaning they were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised and likely to persist for at least two years, and whether the functional impairments resulting from these conditions attracted a total rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was required to assess the Applicant's eligibility for DSP as at 21 April 2017, the date of her claim, or within 13 weeks thereafter.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the criteria for assigning an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables, which are based on functional loss rather than diagnosis. Crucially, for an impairment rating to be assigned, the impairment must be permanent and more likely than not to persist for two years. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, obstructive sleep apnoea, and depression were not considered permanent as they had not been fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. Consequently, no impairment rating could be assigned to these conditions. The Tribunal also noted that pain itself is not assessed directly but through the functional impact on the area of the body affected, and that chronic pain, where diagnosed, should be assessed using the relevant table for the affected area, provided the underlying condition meets the permanence criteria.

As the Applicant's conditions did not meet the threshold for permanence, the Tribunal concluded that she did not have a total impairment rating of 20 points or more. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the previous decisions and dismissed the Applicant's application for review.