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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Yousif against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to refuse him a disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Yousif's various physical and psychiatric impairments met the threshold for a severe impairment under the Impairment Tables. The decision was made by Linda Kirk SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Yousif's conditions, specifically his depression and respiratory disorder, were diagnosed and stabilised during the qualification period, and whether his diabetes and peripheral neuropathy warranted an impairment rating of at least five points under the relevant Impairment Tables. The Tribunal was required to determine if the evidence supported the conclusion that these conditions constituted a severe impairment for the purposes of a disability support pension.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a condition to be assigned an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables, it must be diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and, in the case of psychiatric conditions, supported by evidence from a clinical psychologist if not diagnosed by a psychiatrist. Mr. Yousif's depression was not considered fully diagnosed or stabilised during the qualification period as he commenced treatment with a clinical psychologist only after this period. Similarly, his respiratory disorder was not deemed permanent as it was not fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period, with medical advice indicating a need for further review and potential treatment changes. While diabetes and peripheral neuropathy were accepted as diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, the Tribunal found insufficient contemporaneous corroborating evidence to assign more than five points.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr. Yousif's impairments did not total 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and therefore, the decision under review was affirmed.