5. As noted above the qualification period was from 8 November 2022 to 7 February 2023. The Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (2011 determination) was the table that was in force at the time the application was made on 8 November 2022.
6. A subsequent determination, the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 (2023 determination) came into effect and applied to all new claims for disability support pension lodged on or after 1 April 2023. The Tribunal notes that the 2023 determination made a number of amendments, which may mean that claims to which it applied were assessed differently.
7. However, given that date of effect for the 2023 determination was outside the qualification period for this claim, only the 2011 determination was in effect as that the time the application was taken to be made from 8 November 2022.
8. Part 2 of the 2011 determination sets out the rules which must be satisfied before an impairment rating can be assigned.
9. Subsection 6(3) of the rules provides that an impairment rating can only be assigned for an impairment that arises from a condition that is permanent. Subsection 6(4) provides that a condition is "permanent" if

(a) the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; > > (b) the condition has been fully treated; > > (c) the condition has been fully stabilised; and > > (d) the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.

10. Subsection 6(5) of the rules provides that, in determining whether a condition is fully diagnosed and fully treated for the purposes of paragraphs 6(4)(a) and (b), the following must be considered:

(a) whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and > > (b) what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and > > (c) whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.

11. Subsection 6(6) provides that a condition is fully stabilised if:

(a) either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or > > (b) the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition: > > (i) significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or > > (ii) there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.

12. Subsection 6(8) provided that where a medical condition has no functional impact, no rating will be assigned.

1. In their submissions, the respondent has provided a summary of the medical evidence regarding the applicant's spinal condition as follows:

(a) On 18 May 2021 a GP provided a medical certificate[5] which stated that the applicant was experiencing "back pain because of degenerative Facet joint at L5- S1", which was onset on 16 August 2020, and "disc lesion in neck and canal stenosis" which was onset on 22 June 2010. The prognosis was noted to be "uncertain" and "more than 24 months" for each of the conditions respectively. Symptoms for the two conditions were noted to be neck pain and left shoulder pain. He was previously and currently treated with analgesics and anti-inflammatory medication. The planned treatment was noted to be analgesics, anti-inflammatory medication, and physiotherapy. It was reported that he was able to do work for 15 to 20 hours per week. > > (b) Further medical certificates were provided by another GP on 18 July 2022[6] and 14 October 2022[7]. In summary, they reported that the applicant was experiencing a temporary exacerbation of a permanent condition of cervical and lumbar discopathy, for which he has been diagnosed. The prognosis of this condition was uncertain. Symptoms were noted to be neck and back pain. Previous treatment was noted to be physiotherapy. The applicant was unfit for work between 18 July 2022 and 18 October 2022 inclusive and between 18 October 2022 and 18 January 2022 inclusive. The applicant was unable to do any other work for eight hours or more per week. Hydrotherapy was suggested. > > (c) On 20 December 2022, a report was provided by an orthopaedic surgeon.[8] On 20 December 2022, the same Orthopaedic Surgeon also provided an impairment assessment.[9] It was reported that the applicant was experiencing continuing pain in his neck and was taking Panadol Extra and was having physiotherapy. The applicant underwent an MRI scan of his cervical spine on 10 November 2021, which showed that there was a definite disc pathology at C5/6 and C6/7 with central bulging, 'but no definite nerve root compromise". The applicant was experiencing aggravated pain in a head down posture. He was experiencing pain in the lower part of his back and could not kneel, squat, or climb and he has difficulty on stairs and couldn't climb a ladder. He had a driving tolerance of about half an hour and struggled with household maintenance and cleaning activities. It was observed that the applicant was uncomfortable during the interview and rose slowly. He had no leg length inequality or spinal deformity but walked with a mild right-sided limp. The orthopaedic surgeon concluded that the diagnosis was a soft tissue aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation and deterioration of degenerative disc disease in the cervical and lumbar spines, and rotator cuff injury to the region of the left shoulder, and a probable tear of the medial meniscus in the region of the right knee. The applicant had continued pain and stiffness in all the injured areas and no capacity for work, and his prospects of returning to work were guarded. It was determined that the applicant was totally and permanently incapacitated for work for which he has appropriate levels of education, physical fitness, training and experience and would struggle to do the truck driving work that he was doing at the time of the injury. His prognosis remained very guarded, and he would require ongoing analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication to optimise his outcome.

2. As noted above, on 26 October 2025 the applicant provided a copy of a letter dated 21 October 2025 from a physiotherapist regarding the applicant's spinal condition. The Secretary submits that as this letter is dated 21 October 2025 and does not pertain to the qualification period, it is not relevant in considering whether the applicant's spinal condition satisfy the legislative criteria for the applicant to be granted disability support pension.
3. In Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922, the Tribunal stated (at [34]):

In the Tribunal's consideration as to whether a condition has been stabilised and is likely to persist for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal must look at the situation as it was, and the evidence that was available, at the time of the application for DSP (and the subsequent 13 weeks). Any subsequent evolution of a particular condition might be relevant to any weight the Tribunal places on competing prognostications or on an assessment of the quality of the medical reports provided (most notably where evidence indicates that the creator of a medical report may not have had access to all relevant information or may not have turned his or her mind to all the relevant issues). This point is important as it is quite frequently the case that appeals on DSP decisions arrive at this Tribunal twelve or more months after the initial DSP application was refused. In many instances, the natural course of illnesses or injuries has then become more obvious, thereby confounding the professional opinions honestly proffered by thorough and conscientious treating doctors. If a medical condition has progressed since the time of the original DSP application, then it is up to the Applicant to make a new DSP application. It is not open in law for this Tribunal to use any evidence of such progression to directly award a DSP because of those changed circumstances.

4. On that basis, medical information that comes into being after the qualification period will only be relevant to the extent that they refer to the applicant's conditions during the qualification period.
5. The physiotherapist notes in the letter of 26 October 2025, that the applicant's function capacity is severely restricted with symptoms aggravated on walking, standing, bending, lifting and difficulty with performing home duties. His treatment has consisted of deep tissue massage, mobilizations, stretches, core stabilization, exercises and postural education. However, it is not identified that the treatments were as of the qualification period. On that basis, the letter is not of assistance to this review.
6. In cross examination the applicant was asked about hydrotherapy which had been suggested by his GP on 18 July 2022 and 14 October 2022. He stated he went to two sessions and did not continue because it was too hot and he did not benefit from it. There was nothing before the Tribunal that corroborated that the applicant had engaged in hydrotherapy or when he did so and if it was as at the qualification period. The applicant could not provide a time of when he undertook the two sessions. At the hearing, the applicant stated he has seen a physiotherapist and had treatment with him for six months to one year. He stated that in the end the physiotherapist said there was nothing more he could do for him. Again, there is corroborating evidence regarding the efficacy of the physiotherapy which the applicant engaged in or when he engaged in it. Having considered the evidence, I accept that the applicant's spinal condition was fully diagnosed during the qualification period, but it was not fully treated and stabilised.

1. The medical evidence regarding the applicant's depression has been summarised by the respondent in their submissions and is as follows:

(a) There is a letter from a psychiatrist dated 19 December 2014.[10] The psychiatrist, reported the applicant had post-traumatic stress symptoms as well as major depression. The applicant was under psychiatric care and placed on medication and referred for counselling. It was recommended that the applicant had an ongoing need for psychiatric treatment and psychological counselling. > > (b) In medical certificates dated 31 March 2016[11] and 12 September 2017[12], a GP reported that as of 31 March 2016 the applicant was experiencing an exacerbation of his existing condition of depression which was onset 1 January 2010. Symptoms included anger, anxiety, mood changes, and stress and the prognosis was that the symptoms were likely to persist. Further, as of 12 September 2017, the applicant was also experiencing an exacerbation of his existing depression, which was onset 1 January 2010. The symptoms were noted to be, very depressed and tearful because he was going to Court in relation to problems with his wife. The prognosis was noted to be uncertain. The applicant was engaging a psychologist as of 31 March 2016 and was undertaking counselling as of 12 September 2017. > > (c) In a medical certificate provided from a GP and dated 18 July 2022,[13] It is reported that the applicant was experiencing a temporary exacerbation of a permanent condition of severe depression. The prognosis of this condition was uncertain. Symptoms were an inability to concentrate. Past treatment was noted to be counselling. It was noted that the applicant was unfit for work/study between 18 July 2022 and 18 October 2022. On 14 October 2022, the same GP, further reported in a medical certificate[14] that the applicant was experiencing depression. He was unable to concentrate and has undergone counselling.

2. Again, as noted above, on 26 October 2025, the applicant provided a letter dated 20 May 2025 from a psychologist in relation to his depression.

[the applicant] still has ongoing symptoms of depression and anxiety. He also continues to complain of chronic pain and physical limitations. However, throughout therapy, He demonstrated increased awareness and understanding of his condition. > > [the applicant] would benefit from continuing to receive psychological therapy CBT. It would be appreciated if you would approve further psychological therapy sessions. > > [the applicant] would benefit from continuing to receive antidepressant medication.

3. The letter does not provide that those matters were as at the qualification period and is not of relevance to assessing this claim.
4. At the hearing, the applicant stated he had initially seen a psychiatrist which he had been referred to by Centrelink. Sometimes he could not get himself to the appointment and so he was offered the consultation over the telephone. Originally at the beginning of the year of 2022, he was having two sessions per week and then he said after that it's one session per week. He stated he eventually said there's no more help for you. He stated he had been referred to a psychiatrist by Centrelink and had found the session helpful but that he subsequently missed the sessions and when he went to attend again, the receptionist would not allow him to see him because he had missed the sessions previously and hadn't attended for six weeks. That meant he was no longer able to see the psychiatrist which he had been referred to by Centrelink for free anymore. His doctor offered to refer him to someone else, but he was required to pay for the services and could not do so.
5. In cross examination the applicant further explained that he had seen a psychiatrist for 5-6 sessions and after that the psychiatrist refused to see him because he had failed to attend on two occasions. He initially stated that that session occurred in about 2014 but then clarified he thought it was about 2015 or 2016 when he had a lot of family problems. He stated he could not longer afford to see a psychiatrist after that.
6. The applicant also stated at the hearing that he has been living on painkillers and anti-inflammatory pills since 2022, which resulted in him vomiting blood. He states that subsequently his doctor said he should just take Panadol 500 as it is gentler on the stomach. The applicant tried just to take Panadol and he cut down on other medications including an antidepressant that he was taking to assist with the stomach issues. He continued to take a sleeping tablet just to get some sleep.
7. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal find's that the mental health condition was fully diagnosed but was not fully treated or stabilised as of the qualification period as there is no corroborating evidence regarding the counselling, psychiatrist review and pharmacological treatment for the applicant's depression. There was no corroborating evidence provided regarding the efficacy and nature of treatment the applicant engaged in and the applicant's own evidence as to when he attended was vague. Accordingly, the applicant's mental health conditions were not fully treated and stabilised.
8. Even if it was found that the condition was fully diagnosed and treated, I am of the view that the evidence, would not support anything more than a mild functional impairment, and 5 points should be allocated for the condition.
9. The mental health function is dealt with in Table 5 of the 2011 determination. In relation to mild functional impact, Table 5 provides:

There is a mild functional impact on activities involving mental health function. > > (1) The person has mild difficulties with most of the following: > > (a) self care and independent living; > > Example: The person lives independently but may sometimes neglect self-care, grooming or meals. > > (b) social/recreational activities and travel; > > Example 1: The person is not actively involved when attending social or > > recreational activities. > > Example 2: The person sometimes is reluctant to travel alone to unfamiliar environments. > > (c) interpersonal relationships; > > Example: The person has interpersonal relationships that are strained with occasional tension or arguments. > > (d) concentration and task completion; > > Example 1: The person has difficulty focusing on complex tasks for more than 1 hour. > > Example 2: The person has some difficulties completing education or training. (e) behaviour, planning and decision-making; > > Example 1: The person has unusual behaviours that may disturb other people or attract negative attention and may sometimes be more effusive, demanding or obsessive than is appropriate to the situation. > > Example 2: The person has slight difficulties in planning and organising more complex activities. > > (f) work/training capacity. > > Example: The person has occasional interpersonal conflicts at work, education or training that require intervention by a supervisor, manager or teacher or changes in placement or groupings.

10. Table 5 provides that criteria for moderate functional impact as follows:

There is a moderate functional impact on activities involving mental health function. > > (1) The person has moderate difficulties with most of the following: > > > (a) self care and independent living; > > > > Example: The person needs some support (that is, an occasional visit by or assistance from a family member or support worker) to live independently and maintain adequate hygiene and nutrition. > > > > (b) social/recreational activities and travel; > > > > Example 1: The person goes out alone infrequently and is not actively involved in social events. > > > > Example 2: The person will often refuse to travel alone to unfamiliar environments. > > > > (c) interpersonal relationships; > > > > Example: The person has difficulty making and keeping friends or sustaining relationships. > > > > (d) concentration and task completion; > > > > Example 1: The person finds it very difficult to concentrate on longer tasks for more than 30 minutes (such as reading a chapter from a book). > > > > Example 2: The person finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (such as from an operating manual, recipe or assembly instructions). > > > > (e) behaviour, planning and decision-making; > > > > Example 1: The person has difficulty coping with situations involving stress, pressure or performance demands. > > > > Example 2: The person has occasional behavioural or mood difficulties (such as temper outbursts, depression, withdrawal or poor judgement). > > > > Example 3: The person‟s activity levels are noticeably increased or reduced. > > > > (f) work/training capacity. > > > > Example: The person often has interpersonal conflicts at work, education or training that require intervention by supervisors, managers or teachers or changes in placement or groupings.

11. The applicant stated that he is often drowsy and sleeps and he struggles to get out of bed. Again, there is very little corroborating evidence regarding the applicant's mental health condition in the qualification period.

1. The evidence regarding the applicant's thumb injury, which has been summarised by the respondent in their submissions, is as follows:

(a) On 15 November 2021, following an x-ray of the applicant's right hand a radiologist, reported[15] that "there is diffuse osteopaenia changes in the exposed bones". And that "a CT scan or progress x-ray in 7-10 days is recommended if there is a clinical concern of an occult fracture of the carpal bone". > > (b) In various letters on 28 October 2021, 18 November 2021, and 25 November 2021,[16] an orthopaedic surgeon addressed the thumb injury and in summary reported that the applicant was experiencing "posttraumatic symptoms in the carpometacarpal joint of the right thumb caused by contusion of the articular surfaces and spraining of the supporting capsular and ligamentous structures."[17] > > (c) On 17 November 2021, following a whole body scan of the applicant, a radiologist concluded that there was evidence of arthritis in the applicant's bilateral upper and lower limb joints, which is particularly active in his left thumb.[18] > > (d) On 20 December 2022, in the letter from the orthopaedic surgeon[19], it was reported that the applicant had "no restriction of elbow, wrist or hand movements, and grip strength is normal", but that he was experiencing "some early degenerative change in the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb" The surgeon concluded that the applicant has a very guarded prognosis and would require ongoing analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication to optimise his outcome.

2. The applicant stated at hearing that his injury was because of the accident. He agreed he had not engaged in any treatment or intervention for the condition.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the medical evidence as set out above supports the finding that the applicant's thumb injury is fully diagnosed. However, even on his own evidence it has not been fully treated and stabilised as of the qualification period.

1. The evidence regarding this injury is summarised by the respondent in their submissions is as follows:

(a) In the letter from the orthopaedic surgeon dated 28 October 2021, 18 November 2021, and 25 November 2021 (referred to above) it is reported that the applicant was experiencing post-traumatic symptoms in the right knee joint caused by contusion of the articular surfaces and spraining of the supporting capsular and ligamentous structures. An Isotope scan and MRI were done and further isotope bone studies and MRI scans for the applicant's right knee were also arranged for further evaluation of the current situation. > > (b) In the radiologist report dated 11 November 2021 and 17 November 2021 (after the whole scan) conclude that, following a whole-body scan of the applicant, that there was evidence of arthritis in the applicant's bilateral upper and lower limb joints, which was particularly active in his knees. > > (c) In a medical certificate dated 18 July 2022,[20] the GP reported that the applicant was experiencing a temporary exacerbation of a permanent condition of right leg pain, for which he has been diagnosed. The prognosis of this condition was uncertain. It is also noted on the certificate that the applicant has symptoms of pain and suggested treatment was physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. > > (d) In his letter dated 20 December 2022,[21] the orthopaedic surgeon, reported that the applicant was taking Panadol Extra and having physiotherapy. He had pain in his right knee and could not kneel, squat, or climb, and he has difficulty on stairs, and he cannot climb a ladder. He has "no leg length inequality or spinal deformity, but he does walk with a mild right-sided limp". It is also stated that the applicant was experiencing > > "straight leg raising is 70 degrees on each side and there is some hamstring tightness but there is no evidence of nerve root irritability. There is no reflex abnormality or sign of sensory impairment. He has a slight restriction of knee movement on the right side, and the range of movement in each knee is recorded in table which follows: The ligaments are stable. There is no restriction of ankle or subtalar movement, and no clinical sign of radiculopathy".

It was concluded by the surgeon that the applicant has a probable tear of the medial meniscus in the region of the right knee and has a "very guarded" prognosis. Treatment would require ongoing analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication to optimise his outcome. In his assessment the surgeon reported in relation to the applicant's right knee that there was a "rateable restriction of knee movement"

1. In cross examination the applicant explained that he tried everything, including physiotherapy and painkillers and there was no efficacy from them.
2. The Tribunal finds that the medical evidence supports a diagnosed condition in relation to the applicant's right knee injury. However, the evidence does not support that the condition has been fully treated or stabilised as of the qualification period. As stated above in relation to hydrotherapy, physiotherapy and medication there is a lack of corroborating evidence regarding the treatment and stabilisation of the applicant's knee condition as of the qualification period.

1. The medical evidence in relation to this condition, which has been summarised by the respondent in their submissions provides:

(a) In the radiologist report dated 17 November 2021, following a whole-body scan of the applicant, it is noted that there was evidence of arthritis in the Applicant's bilateral upper and lower limb joints. > > In the reports from the orthopaedic surgeon dated 28 October 2021, 18 November 2021, and 25 November 2021, it was reported that the applicant was experiencing "post-traumatic recurrence of symptoms of subacromial impingement in the left shoulder joint caused by further contusion of the articular surfaces and spraining of the supporting capsular and ligamentous structures including squashing of the subacromial bursa against the acromion."

The MRI also showed "supraspinatus tendinopathy, infraspinatus tendinopathy, long head of biceps tendinopathy and a SLAP tear."

(b) On 20 December 2022, the orthopaedic surgeon, reported that the applicant was taking Panadol Extra and having physiotherapy and experienced continuing pain over the top of his left shoulder. He experienced aggravated pain when he uses his left arm overhead and struggles with household maintenance and cleaning activities. He also reported there is the rateable restriction of left shoulder movement

1. In cross examination the stated he had twisted and broken his left shoulder and that he relied on his right shoulder to carry everything. He stated that physiotherapy had not helped and that his doctor has stated he needed a nail in his shoulder and it would cost about $100,000 which was money he did not have.
2. The Tribunal accepts, based on the medical evidence, that the applicants left shoulder injury was diagnosed. However, the supporting evidence does not establish that the condition was fully treated or stabilised as of the qualification period, particularly in relation to the physiotherapy and medication.

1. The letters from the orthopaedic surgeon dated 28 October 2021, 18 November 2021, and 25 November 2021, reported that the applicant was diagnosed with a laceration on the front of his right leg that was slow to heal and left scarring. At the hearing the applicant explained that he had a big cut that comes from the top of the leg to the middle. He states that it was because of the way the injury was treated and the gel that was used instead of stitches. He stated that there remains a scar and that if he scratches it, it starts to bleed, but it is otherwise healed.
2. Based on the evidence the Tribunal accepts that while there is some evidence that the condition was diagnosed, however there is no supporting evidence the condition was treated or stabilised as of the qualification period or that there is a functional impairment in relation to the injury.

1. The Tribunal finds that while the conditions claimed by the applicant were diagnosed, they were not treated or stabilised. The applicant does not satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act as at the qualification period. The applicant does not satisfy subsection 6(3) of the rules and an impairment rating can't be assigned as it has not been demonstrated that the condition was permanent during the qualification period.
2. It is noted that the applicant was informed at hearing that it is open to him to make a further claim for disability support pension, and that Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 now applies.