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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Wylie against a decision affirming the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision that she did not qualify for a disability support pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Ms Wylie met the eligibility requirements under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) during a specified qualification period. The case was heard by Dr I Alexander, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Wylie's impairments attracted 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables, and consequently, whether she had a continuing inability to work. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if Ms Wylie's various medical conditions, including a rectum disorder, degenerative spine disease, mental health symptoms, diverticular disorder, and impaired vision, were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and if they were likely to persist for more than two years, as required by the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011* (Cth). The Tribunal also considered whether Ms Wylie had actively participated in a program of support for at least 18 months within the 36 months prior to her claim, as required by section 94(2)(aa) of the Act, to establish a continuing inability to work, unless her impairment was considered severe.

The Tribunal reasoned that to qualify for a DSP, Ms Wylie needed to satisfy section 94(1) of the Act, which includes having an impairment rated at 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables and demonstrating a continuing inability to work. While Ms Wylie had several medical conditions that caused some functional impairment, satisfying paragraph 94(1)(a), the Respondent contended, and the Tribunal accepted, that her total rating under the Impairment Tables during the qualification period was 15 points. This rating was comprised of 5 points under Table 4, 5 points under Table 10, and 5 points under Table 13 for her rectum condition, which was found to have a mild functional impact on bowel continence. The Tribunal noted that the Impairment Tables require corroborating evidence, and self-report alone is insufficient.

As Ms Wylie did not satisfy the requirement of having an impairment rated at 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables (section 94(1)(b)), the Tribunal concluded that it was unnecessary to consider whether she had a continuing inability to work. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Wylie did not qualify for a DSP.