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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to reject the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The applicant had lodged a claim for DSP listing several conditions, including systemic lupus erythematosus, depression and anxiety, polycythaemia vera, and haemochromatosis. Following initial assessments and reviews by a Job Capacity Assessor and an Authorised Review Officer, the applicant's claim was rejected. A previous review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) affirmed this decision, assigning only 10 impairment points to the applicant's arthritis. The current proceedings were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment of Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables), as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991. This required the Tribunal to determine the extent of the applicant's functional impairment from his diagnosed conditions, specifically his arthritis, and whether these impairments met the threshold for DSP qualification.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the applicant's arthritis, including medical reports and the applicant's own testimony about his symptoms and functional limitations. While previous assessments had assigned only five points to his arthritis, the applicant provided further evidence detailing the widespread impact of his condition on his joints, including his legs and back, and the significant morning stiffness and pain that affected his mobility. He also described difficulties with fine motor skills, such as using a keyboard, and limitations in lifting capacity. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant suffered from relevant impairments during the qualification period, satisfying paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not establish that the applicant's impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, as required by paragraph 94(1)(b). The Tribunal noted that the applicant's arthritis was considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and that the previous AAT1 finding of 10 impairment points for arthritis was not demonstrably incorrect based on the evidence before the Tribunal.