After 12 October 2018, the applicant's self-treatment (pain management) includes: rest, reducing exercise, applying warm water compresses, rubbing with traditional Chinese herbal medicine wine, applying blood-activating and pain-relieving plasters, physical therapy (self-purchased a multi-functional digital therapy device), using protective gear (including tennis claw braces, thumb braces, and wrist supports), and taking painkillers as Panadol and Meloxicam. In severe cases, allergy medication may be required (allergy medication has a sleep-inducing effect and reduce pain). Attached "attachment 1", it is a digital therapy device, Chinese herbal medicine wine and blood-activating and pain-relieving plasters.

The applicant's pain management, also confirmed by PHYSIOTHERAPY REPORT of the physiotherapist Alex Chan, dated 02/09/2025.

1. Mr TFPS also gave evidence at hearing as to the various treatments he has undertaken over the years in relation to these conditions and referred the Tribunal to a photo (page AP 46 of the joint hearing bundle) of the massage (and other function) device and pain patches that he purchased following the doctor's advice to treat these conditions. He said the device was purchased in 2018 and it was of limited effect.
2. When asked on cross-examination whether he had consulted with a pain specialist, Mr TFPS said that seen Dr Chen, a hand surgeon and his physical therapist who helped him to manage the pain.
3. I discussed with Mr TFPS at hearing that Dr Andrew Lin's 12 April 2023 report indicated that further investigations and treatment were being pursued at that time in relation to the conditions such that it might be considered that the conditions were not fully treated and fully stabilised at that time. I noted that Dr Andrew Lin's 15 May 2025 report and Dr Chan's 2 September 2025 report do not address what the position in this regard was in 2022 (during the qualification period). Mr TFPS responded that although that is not said on the face of the report, he gave Dr Andrew Lin a copy of the directions a Registrar of the Tribunal made before hearing and therefore Dr Andrew Lin's report was addressing the position as at that date.
4. A Registrar of the Tribunal issued a number of directions to the parties prior to hearing, including the following as part of directions on 23 April 2025:
   1. On or before 30 June 2025, the Applicant is to provide to:

the following medical reports on which the Respondent intends to rely.

Medical report/s addressing the Respondent's condition/s affecting the Respondent's Function/s

A medical report or other information from the Respondent's health care practitioner/s about the Respondent's condition/s affecting the Respondent's Function/s under the relevant Table/s of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 as at 9 August 2022 (the date the Respondent applied for the Disability Support Pension) or within 13 weeks of that date.

1. confirm the diagnosis of the Respondent's condition/s;

1. confirm whether the Respondent's condition/s was considered permanent (meaning any condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised (not likely to improve in two years) as at 9 August 2022;

1. assign an impairment rating as at 9 August 2022 (if the condition/s was considered permanent) under the relevant Table of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 - See Attachment 1 for Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension;

1. note which descriptors in the relevant Table/s applied as at 9 August 2022 if the condition/s was considered permanent and provide reasons explaining why the health care practitioner came to that conclusion; and

1. provide an opinion as to whether the Respondent has a continuing inability to:

-undertake a training activity for the next 2 years or

-work for at least 15 hours per week for the next 2 years.

1. Although Dr Andrew Lin's 15 May 2025 report does not expressly refer to a date upon which the impairment rating is assigned, I accept Mr TFPS' evidence that he provided Dr Andrew Lin with a copy of the direction. I also note that Mr TFPS' submissions, at paragraph 3.4 of his 15 December 2025 submissions that the health assessment conducted by Dr Andrew Lin and Alex Chan were both based on his health condition as of 2 August 2022. However, it is not clear that Dr Andrew Lin's evidence in the report is applicable to the 9 August 2022 time period. By way of example, Dr Andrew Lin also refers to short-term memory loss and poor concentration impacting Mr TFPS, symptoms which do not arise in any of the medical documentation until 2025 (and which I will separately address later in these Reasons). Further, Dr Andrew Lin has not noted the descriptors in the relevant Tables for all of the conditions addressed, another of the expressed matters in the Registrar's directions. Taking all matters into account, notwithstanding Mr TFPS' evidence that he provided the Registrar's direction to Dr Andrew Lin, I am not satisfied that it can be inferred that Dr Andrew Lin's 15 May 2025 report expresses the position as of 9 August 2022 or within the qualification period for the 9 August 2022 claim.
2. As to the Respondent's submissions in relation to whether a multi-disciplinary pain management program was reasonable treatment for these conditions, I acknowledge the remarks in Smyrniadou and Lucas. However, the AAT on other occasions has taken a different approach, including in the following cases:

(a) Wicker and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 3337 at [55], where the Tribunal stated:

I do not consider I am bound to apply the reasoning or the decision in Lucas and Secretary Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 2563, in which Tavoularis SM said it would be "inappropriate" to consider a condition permanent if a pain management course has not been completed at a recognised pain clinic. I am not aware of the source of that observation. Nothing in the evidence suggested to me in any event that it would be "inappropriate" to find the Applicant's condition is not permanent because he has not sought out a pain specialist.

(b) Zaporowski and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 4042 (Zaporowski) at [35], where the Tribunal noted that:

... a number of AAT cases where it was said that failure to attend a course in pain management indicated that the relevant condition had not been fully treated and stabilised: Newman and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2002] AATA 917 (Newman); Smalldon and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 575 (Smalldon); Lucas and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 2563 (Lucas); and Smyrniadou and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 2433 (Smyrniadou). In Newman, the Tribunal noted that 3 doctors had recommendation a course of pain management. In Lucas, the treating GP had indicated that the condition was not fully treated and stabilised as further treatment, including pain management was required. In Smyrniadou, the Tribunal noted a history of referral of the Applicant for better management of her pain and a refusal to comply with the referrals. However, in Smalldon, at the second review, the Tribunal did not agree with the decision in AAT1 and held that pain management was not likely to yield significant benefit and so it was accepted that the condition was fully treated and stabilised. These cases suggest that each case must be decided on its own facts.

(c) Steffensen and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 119 at [51], where the Tribunal stated that:

The Tribunal is not persuaded that a blanket reliance on a multi-disciplinary pain management program is reasonable treatment for all DSP applicants who suffer from chronic pain conditions.

1. None of the previous Tribunal cases are binding upon me and in any event, as can be seen, conclusions differ including because, as noted in Zaporowski, each case must be decided on its owns facts. In relation to Mr TFPS, there is no evidence before me that a pain management program or similar would be reasonable treatment in Mr TFPS' circumstances. The medical evidence before me supports that this was a long-standing condition impacting Mr TFPS, in relation to which he had consulted a number of medical practitioners, including a hand surgeon. In the absence of evidence that a pain management program had been recommended to him from his treating health professionals, I am not satisfied that a finding can be made that the absence of participation in such a program means that the condition has not been reasonably treated.
2. As to whether the conditions had been fully treated and fully stabilised within the qualification period, I must look to the evidence before me.
3. Mr TFPS, in a statement dated 21 November 2024, as follows in relation to his hand condition (unedited):

... The specialist Dr Ding Chen told the appellant that there was no more way to heal the appellant's hand and suggested that the appellant seeking help from traditional Chinese medicine in the consultation of the last day which dated 16 October 2018. The appellant never seeing the specialist Dr Ding Chen or seeking another hand specialist after 16 October 2018.

1. However, the most contemporaneous evidence I have before me is the 12 April 2023 medical certificate by Dr Andrew Lin which states that treatment and investigations were being pursued in relation to these conditions. Mr TFPS, in his 28 September 2025 submissions, refers to this condition being a persistent condition. That is not disputed. What is in issue is not whether it is a persistent or long-standing condition but whether, as of the date of Mr TFPS' 9 August 2022 claim, or within the qualification period for that claim, the condition was fully treated and stabilised. Given Dr Lin's certification that treatment and investigations were still being pursued as of 12 April 2023, some months after the qualification period, I am unable to be satisfied that this condition was fully treated and stabilised for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim. It follows that no impairment rating can be assigned for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim.
2. If an impairment rating were able to be assigned, the relevant Impairment Table would be Table 2, which assigns impairment ratings for a permanent condition resulting in functional impairment when performing activities requiring the use of hands or arms.
3. Mr TFPS' evidence was that the pain in relation to these conditions started in his right elbow and then moved to his left elbow. He also had pain spreading from his right thumb to his left thumb and also in his right wrist. There was a protrusion in his right wrist, a ganglion cyst.
4. I asked Mr TFPS how these conditions impacted him during the qualification period. He said he had no grip strength and it affected his ability to drive, to cook and to write. I noted that at the time he was reporting to Centrelink that he was doing 15 hours of work per week, as an uber driver and asked him what he meant when he said it impacted his ability to drive. Mr TFPS said he would use only one hand to steer the wheel and would only use both hands when he was in a dangerous situation. Further, every time he drove, he would apply medicated alcohol to his wrist to help relieve the pain. As regards cooking, he would have difficulty picking up heavier objects. As regards writing, Mr TFPS said that his typing is quite slow and it took him, for example, 3 to 5 weeks to complete his statement for this application.
5. Dr Andrew Lin, in his 15 May 2025 report, refers to these conditions having become chronic and significantly limiting Mr TFPS' ability to perform daily activities. He opines that the functional impact aligns with a moderate impairment rating of 10 points, noting that he experiences 'difficulty with any tasks requiring sustained or repetitive hand or arm movement, including opening containers, gripping tools, using cutlery and performing household tasks'. However, Dr Andrew Lin does not express when it is that the impact of these conditions has 'become chronic' and that those impacts were or began to be experienced.
6. As to the corroboratory medical evidence of the functional impact of these conditions upon Mr TFPS during the qualification period, Dr Andrew Lin's 2 August 2022 report to Mr TFPS having 'He also has chronic right thumb pain scapholunate ganglion MCPJ right thumb with early arthritis of this areas' for which he had previously had surgery but the functional impact of the condition is not mentioned in this report. The 12 April 2023 medical certificate, which is just outside the qualification period, states that the symptoms of right knee pain, right elbow pain, right thumb pain, left index finger pain are 'pain, stiffness, restricted range of motion'.
7. Subsection 6(9) of the Impairment Tables provides as follows as regard pain:

(9) There is no Table dealing specifically with pain and when assessing pain the following must be considered:

(a) acute pain is a symptom which may result in short term loss of functional capacity in more than one area of the body; and

(b) chronic pain is a condition and, where it has been diagnosed, any resulting impairment should be assessed using the Table relevant to the area of function affected; and

(c) whether the condition causing pain has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised for the purposes of subsections 6(5) and (6).

1. The descriptors in Table 2 which include as follows:

0 There is a no functional impact on activities using hands or arms.

(1) The person can pick up, handle, manipulate and use most objects encountered on a daily basis without difficulty.

5 There is a mild functional impact on activities using hands or arms.

(2) The person can manage most daily activities requiring the use of the hands and arms, but has some difficulty with most of the following:

(a) picking up heavier objects (e.g. a 2 litre carton of liquid or carrying a full shopping bag);

(b) handling very small objects (e.g. coins);

(c) doing up buttons;

(d) reaching up or out to pick up objects.

1. There is a moderate functional impact on activities using hands or arms.

(1) The person has difficulty with most of the following:

(a) picking up a 1 litre carton full of liquid;

(b) picking up a light but bulky object requiring the use of 2 hands together (e.g. a cardboard box);

(c) holding and using a pen or pencil;

(d) doing up buttons or tying shoelaces;

(e) using a standard computer keyboard;

(f) unscrewing a lid on a soft-drink bottle.

1. There is a severe functional impact on activities using hands or arms.

(a) the person has limited movement or coordination in both arms or both hands, or has an amputation rendering a hand or arm non-functional;

(b) the person has severe difficulty handling, moving or carrying most objects even when using or waring any prothesis or assistive device that they have and usually use;

(c) the person has difficulty using a computer keyboard despite appropriate adaptions;

(d) the person has severe difficulty using a pen or pencil

(e) the person has severe difficulty turning the pages of a book without assistance.

1. While Dr Andrew Lin, in the 12 April 2023 certificate, speaks of pain, stiffness and restricted range of motion, he does not detail which condition this relates to and no detail is provided of the functional impact of the conditions corresponding to the descriptors in Table 2.
2. In the absence of corroboratory evidence of the symptoms of the conditions in the qualification period, as required by subsection 8(1) of the 2011 Impairment Tables, no impairment rating could be assigned in relation to these conditions even if it was able to be concluded that the conditions were fully treated and stabilised as of 9 August 2022 or during the qualification period, which for the reasons earlier canvassed, I have not been able to conclude.
3. Further, even if I was satisfied that I could take into account Dr Andrew Lin's notes in relation to the symptoms of the condition for Mr TFPS in his 15 May 2025 report, which I have found I cannot for the reasons expressed earlier, I am not satisfied that the identified symptoms of 'difficulty with any tasks requiring sustained or repetitive hand or arm movement, including opening containers, gripping tools, using cutlery and performing household tasks' align with the descriptors in Table 2 which would enable allocation of an impairment rating. For example, allocation of 10 points under Table 2 requires that a person has difficulty with most of the stated functions. There is no corroboratory medical evidence before me as to whether Mr TFPs has difficulty picking up a litre carton, picking up a bulky object requiring the use of 2 hands, holding a pen or pencil (as opposed to tools), doing up buttons, tying shoelaces or using a standard computer keyboard.

1. The Respondent accepts that the lower back spinal condition impacting Mr TFPS was fully diagnosed for the purposes of Mr TFPS' 9 August 2022 claim but contends that it was not fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period.[48]
2. Mr TFPS, in his 28 September 2025 written submissions, refers to having had initial X-rays in 2012 which showed no abnormalities, with recent CT and MRI scans revealing moderate injury to the lower back at the L5 level. He states that 'Pain management includes medication, injections, physical therapy, continue taking Chinese herbal medicine and a Chinese herbal herbs wine to the affected area'. He further states that 'The condition has persisted for over a decade and continues to worsen'.
3. As already noted, Dr Andrew Lin in his 2 August 2022 report, refers to Mr TFPS having significant osteoarthritis with chronic pain of his lumbar back with restricted range of motion and symptoms occurring on a daily basis.
4. Dr Andrew Lin, in his 15 May 2025 reports, states as follows in relation to spinal function:

(Mr TFPS) suffers from chronic lumbar back pain. A previous CT lumbosacral spine demonstrated moderate central canal stenosis at the L4/5 level, with effacement of the lateral recesses and bilateral impingement of the descending L5 nerve roots. Clinically, he has difficulty with prolonged sitting, standing, bending, lifting items over 2 kilograms, and walking more than 100 metres without resting. These limitations algin with a moderate to severe functional impairment of the spine, and warrant 10 points under Table 4.

1. Physiotherapist, Mr Chan, states in his 2 September 2025 report, that Mr TFPS developed lower back pain in 2020, particularly aggravated after prolonged sitting while working as an Uber driver. He states that Mr TFPS continued to experience an inability to sit for long periods with increasing back pain when driving or remaining seated and that 'Despite ongoing physiotherapy intervention, his musculoskeletal conditions have remained chronic, requiring repeated treatment across multiple years'.
2. Similarly, as in relation to the upper limb conditions, at issue in relation to the spinal condition is whether that condition has been fully treated and stabilised and, if so, when that position was reached and whether that was as of the date of the 9 August 2022 claim or within the qualification period for that claim.
3. The Respondent's submissions in relation to whether this condition was fully treated and stabilised within the qualification period include as follows:[49]

(a) There is no evidence that Mr TFPS has been reviewed by a specialist or referred for pain management;

(b) It is accepted that Mr TFPS has had physiotherapy sessions but contends that a CT-guided epidural or a selective perineural injection, as recommended by radiologist Dr Chew on 11 July 2024, after the qualification period, are reasonable treatments that could result in functional improvement.

1. Mr TFPS, in his 15 December 2025 submissions, repeats that the back pain has been present since 2012, with him consulting Dr Donald Lin, Dr Lam and Dr Andrew Lin between 2012 and 2022 for the condition. He states that treatment methods have included, but not been limited to, chiropractic, manual therapy, acupuncture, cupping, electrotherapy, stretching exercises, massage chair therapy and injection therapy with none, other than rest therapy having significant effects.
2. When queried at hearing as to whether and when he had the recommended CT-guided epidural or injection, Mr TFPS said that he had recently had this in 2025.
3. I accept, as noted in Mr TFPS' submissions that he has now undertaken extensive treatment options for this condition. However, it is clear that investigations and treatment options were continuing in relation to this condition well after the qualification period in relation to the 9 August 2022 claim for disability support pension. In July 2024, a CT scan was undertaken and treatment was recommended with Mr TFPS confirming at hearing in his evidence that this occurred recently in 2025. I am therefore unable to be satisfied that this condition was fully treated and stabilised for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim. It follows that no impairment rating can be assigned for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim.

1. The Respondent submits that the lower limb condition of leg/knee pain was not fully diagnosed within the qualification period for the 9 August 2022 claim, noting that reference is made in medical certificates to leg pain and osteoarthritis but with no evidence of a diagnostic process, such as medical imaging, physical tests or assessment confirming a diagnosis in relation to lower limbs.[50]
2. Mr TFPS does not address the lower limb condition in his written submissions other than to refer to Mr Chan's references in his 2 September 2025 report to Mr TFPS having knee pain when driving or remaining seated and to having limited walking tolerance, unable to walk more than approximately 100 metres without rest. Upon being questioned by me at hearing, Mr TFPS said he has recovered from the leg pain from the motor vehicle accident and that his current lower limb problems arise from his spinal condition, with the pain starting in his lower back and travelling down. Mr TFPS referred the Tribunal to the evidence in relation to his spinal condition but said that he does not have any evidence in relation to his lower limb conditions.
3. In the absence of evidence as to diagnosis of a lower limb condition, I am unable to be satisfied that Mr TFPS was impacted by a condition or conditions, distinct from a spinal condition which I have already canvassed, impacting lower limb functions, which condition or conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim. It follows that no impairment rating can be assigned for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim in relation to any lower limb condition.

1. Reference to urinary impairment is found in the 24 May 2021 and 8 January 2022 medical certificates of Dr Andrew Lin with Dr Andrew Lin referring Mr TFPS to the urology outpatient's clinic of Concord Hospital on 21 March 2022. Further references in the medical documents to this condition include the 13 July 2022 medical certificate of Dr Andrew Lin noting a temporary urinary tract condition and reference in the 2 August 2022 letter to past history, on 22 May 2017, of lower urinary tract symptoms. The next reference in the medical documents to the condition is the discharge referral of 4 August 2024 following a surgical procedure used to treat urinary symptoms.
2. The Respondent accepts that the urinary condition impacting Mr TFPS was fully diagnosed for the purposes of Mr TFPS' 9 August 2022 claim but contends that it was not fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period.[51]
3. Mr TFPS, in his written submissions and evidence, refers to first experiencing severe urinary urgency in 2017 and remaining under the care of a urologist. He has trialled multiple medications over several years and underwent prostate surgery on 1 August 2024 but says symptoms persist, with significant side effects. He contends that the condition was adequately treated and stabilised during the qualification period because he was taking the medications prescribed by doctors, confirmed to be the most effective medication by the doctors at Concord Hospital. He submits that surgery is not necessary for adequate treatment to have been received.
4. Mr TFPS' submission that surgery is not necessary for adequate treatment to have been received is noted. However, the evidence shows that Mr TFPS was referred to the Urology Outpatients Clinic Hospital in March 2022 with surgery subsequently occurring in August 2024. As of the 9 August 2022 claim, and the qualification period for that claim, investigations were continuing and treatment was being pursued. It appears that that treatment has not been successful for Mr TFPS as symptoms persist. However, recommended treatment was yet to be pursued as of the time of the 9 August 2022 claim and within the qualification period for that claim. Dr Andrew Lin's 15 May 2025 also refers to 'further urological review' as 'pending' at that time.
5. Given the continuing investigations and treatment past the date of the 9 August 2022 claim and qualification period, this condition cannot be found to have been fully treated and stabilised and no impairment rating can be assigned for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim in relation to the urinary condition impacting Mr TFPS.

1. Mr TFPS' 28 September 2025 submissions state that in recent years he has noticed a significant decline in his memory and concentration and that he is currently receiving treatment from specialist physician Dr Seo Lung Ling. In his 15 December 2025 submissions, Mr TFPS refers to Dr Andrew Lin's 15 May 2025 assessment stating that Mr TFPS experiences short-term memory loss, poor concentration and difficulty retaining new information reflecting a moderate 10-point impairment under Table 5 of the 2011 Impairment Tables. Reference is also made to a 25 June 2025 sleep studies report diagnosing severe obstructive sleep apnoea, accounting for his memory decline. Mr TFPS' evidence included that the sleep apnoea investigation was delayed because of delays occasioned by COVID-19.
2. 12 December 2023 and 27 December 2023 statements of Mr TFPS include details of memory difficulties such as forgetting items when going shopping, forgetting where he is going when driving his child to school, forgetting where he is and what he is doing when working at his taxi (rideshare job), having trouble with multiple step instructions etc, difficulty recalling events of the past few days, inability to remember routines, common tasks and instructions, being unable to focus on a task for more than 10 minutes and being easily distracted. However, there is no reference in the medical documentation prior to 2025 of Mr TFPS having memory issues. As canvassed earlier, Mr TFPS' submission is that Dr Andrew Lin's 15 May 2025 report speaks to his position as of 9 August 2022. However, that clearly cannot be the case when Dr Andrew Lin, without differentiating, addresses upper limb function, spinal function, functions requiring physical exertion and stamina, continence function and mental health function (memory issues) in the 15 May 2025 report without specifying a time frame in which they are addressed and speaking of conditions which were evident in 2022 but also of conditions/symptoms (the memory issues) in relation to which there is reference in the medical documentation until 2025. There is no mention at all by Dr Andrew Lin in his 2 August 2022 letter of any memory or concentration issues, whether as a current or past issue. I note Mr TFPS' evidence that there was a delay in investigations of his sleep apnoea because of COVID-19. However, there is no evidence of diagnosis or treatment as required for this, or any condition referrable to memory issues, being diagnosed at the relevant time to be taken into account for the 9 August 2022 claim.
3. I am not satisfied that there was any diagnosed condition causing memory and concentration symptoms as at the time of the 9 August 2022 claim, or within the qualification period for that claim. It follows that no impairment rating can be allocated in relation to any such symptoms. I note that even if I was satisfied that an impairment rating could be allocated, Table 5 would not ordinarily be the relevant Table. Table 5 is the relevant Table which assigns impairment ratings for permanent conditions resulting in functional impairment due to a mental health condition. Diagnosis by a psychiatrist with evidence from a clinical psychologist is required under the 2011 Impairment Tables before a mental health condition can be taken into account under Table 5. Table 7 (Brain Function), Table 8 (Communication Function) and Table 9 (Intellectual Function) are of potential relevance in relation to the symptoms now said to be affecting Mr TFPS. However, as I have already concluded there is no evidence of a diagnosed condition impacting Mr TFPS causing the memory and concentration symptoms as at the time of the 9 August 2022 claim or within the qualification period for that claim.
4. It follows that no impairment rating can be assigned for the purposes of the 9 August 2022 claim in relation to the memory and concentration symptoms impacting Mr TFPS.

Issue 3: Can an impairment rating of 20 points or more be allocated for Mr TFPS' 9 August 2022 claim?

1. I have found that 10 points can be allocated under Table 1 in relation to the coronary artery condition impacting Mr TFPS for the purposes of his 9 August 2022 claim but that an impairment rating cannot be assigned in relation to any of the other conditions for the reasons canvassed. As the assigned points are less than 20 points, Mr TFPS does not satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act and was not medically qualified for disability support pension pursuant to his 9 August 2022 claim.

Issue 4: Does Mr TFPS have a continuing inability to work for the purposes of his 9 August 2022 claim for disability support pension?

1. In addition to earlier written submissions and evidence as to a continuing inability to work, Mr TFPS provided a supplementary statement dated 6 February 2026 after the hearing addressing this issue (with that statement marked as Exhibit A7). It is not necessary for me to consider this issue as I have already concluded that Mr TFPS does not meet the necessary requirements of paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.

1. I have found that paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act is satisfied but not paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act for the purposes of Mr TFPS' 9 August 2022 claim. Mr TFPS therefore does not meet all the requirements necessary to medically qualify for disability support pension for the purposes of his 9 August 2022 claim. That claim must therefore be rejected. It follows that the decision under review is affirmed.
2. I accept that Mr TFPS was impacted by a number of medical conditions at the time of his 9 August 2022 claim for disability support pension. However, the grant of disability support pension is required to be assessed on corroboratory evidence of diagnosis and treatment, and further where appropriate, corroboratory evidence of impairment for the allocation of impairment ratings. That evidence must be in relation to the date of claim, or the qualification period for that claim. I have no discretion to disregard the legislative requirements necessary to medically qualify for disability support pension.
3. Should Mr TFPS wish to retest his eligibility for disability support pension at any point in the future, a new claim must be lodged. The 9 August 2022 claim does not operate as an ongoing claim.

[1] Services Australia delivers social security payments and services and is overseen by the Department of Social Services. The Respondent is responsible for the overall management and administration of the Department of Social Security. Centrelink is the Government Agency that delivers social security payments and services as part of Services Australia and as the Agency with whom pension and benefit applicants/recipients interact, the Respondent may be variously referred to as Centrelink or the Respondent throughout these Reasons.

[2] On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.

[11] TD Pages 77, 79, 81, 83, 88, 90, 107, 109, 111, 113 and 115.

[44] Paragraph 4.27 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.

[45] Paragraph 4.32 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.

[46] Paragraph 4.34 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.

[47] See _Newman and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Service_s [2002] AATA 917 at [31]- [32], Smalldon and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 2 at [16] and Lucas and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 2563 at [51]- [52].

[48] Paragraph 4.42 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.

[49] Paragraph 4.34 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.

[50] Paragraphs 4.45 and 4.46 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.

[51] Paragraph 4.42 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit R3.