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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for a disability support pension. The applicant's claim related to two conditions: Cervical Myelopathy and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea. The core dispute revolved around whether these conditions, during the relevant qualification period, constituted a "severe impairment" as defined by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), particularly in the absence of having undertaken a program of support.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's impairments, arising from Cervical Myelopathy and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, were fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period. Crucially, the Tribunal had to assess whether these impairments, individually or in combination, attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables, which is the threshold for establishing a severe impairment for the purposes of the disability support pension.

The Tribunal considered evidence including medical reports, an occupational therapist's report, and oral testimony from the applicant and medical professionals. Regarding Cervical Myelopathy, the Tribunal found it attracted a rating of 5 points under Table 2 (Upper Limb Function) and 10 points under Table 3 (Lower Limb Function), based on documented weakness and mobility issues. However, these ratings did not meet the 20-point threshold for severe impairment. Concerning Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, the Tribunal accepted it was fully diagnosed during the qualification period, but the respondent contended it was not fully treated and stabilised, or alternatively, would attract a zero-point rating. The Tribunal's assessment concluded that the applicant's impairments, even when considering both conditions, did not meet the required 20-point rating under the Impairment Tables.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant's impairments did not satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) for a severe impairment.