The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that paragraphs 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Social Security Act 1991 are satisfied in relation to Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim for disability support pension.

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY - disability support pension - mental health condition - whether diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised - predictive assessments - reliance on later evidence - whether 20 points - corroborative evidence - decision set aside

Social Security Act 1991

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Social Security (Tables for Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011

Ally v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 49

Eid and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 558

MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767

Secretary Department of Family & Community Services v Verney [2000] FCA 570

1. Mrs WSLK (the Applicant), who is 61 years of age seeks review of a decision to refuse to grant her 23 February 2024 claim for disability support pension on the basis that she did not meet the medical qualification requirements.
2. On 14 July 2024, Services Australia - Centrelink on behalf the Respondent (Centrelink)[1] decided to reject Mrs WSLK's claim on the basis that whilst Mrs WSLK had a diagnosed condition of depression and anxiety impacting her, the condition was not reasonably treated and stabilised such that an impairment rating could be assigned.
3. Mrs WSLK requested a review of this decision and, on 1 August 2024, a Centrelink authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
4. On 1 November 2024, following application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT)[2] on 12 August 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on first review affirmed the decision of the authorised review officer. The decision was despatched to Mrs WSLK on 11 November 2024.
5. On 4 December 2024, Mrs WSLK lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking second review of the decision to reject her claim for disability support pension stating as follows:

I've followed Centrelink's guidelines re mental illness according to law.

1. See Clinical Psychologist
2. Re 20 points which report I fit criteria
3. Dr M... - not fit for work
4. Mrs WSLK and the Respondent's representative participated in a hearing by telephone before me on 26 June 2025, with Mrs WSLK and her brother giving sworn evidence.
5. In addition to the oral evidence and submissions at hearing, the following documents were before me and marked as Exhibits (or for identification):

(a) Documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act), index and pages 1 to 179, Exhibit 1;

(b) Additional documents provided by the Respondent, index and pages 1 to 30, Exhibit 2;

(c) Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 May 2025; marked for identification as Exhibit 3;

(d) Letter from Mrs WSLK received 6 June 2025, Exhibit 4; and

(e) Letter from Mrs WSLK's brother received 6 June 2025, Exhibit 5.

ISSUES

1. The relevant legislative provisions in relation to this application are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 (the 2023 Impairment Tables) as in operation at the time of Mrs WSLK's claim.
2. The medical qualification requirements for disability support pension include those set out in paragraphs 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. Each much be satisfied for a person to be medically qualified for disability support pension. The relevant date is the date of claim, or in certain circumstances within 13 weeks of the date of claim, that is within the period 23 February 2024 to 24 May 2024 (the qualification period) in relation to Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim for disability support pension.
3. The issues that arise for determination in relation to this application are:

(a) Does Mrs WSLK have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment for the purposes of her 23 February 2024 claim? And, if so,

(b) Have any of the conditions causing impairment been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised with the condition and resulting impairment more likely than not to persist for more than 2 years? And, if so,

(c) Can a total of 20 points or more be allocated? And, if so,

(d) Does Mrs WSLK have a continuing inability to work for the purposes of her 23 February 2024?

1. Mrs WSLK's position includes as set out in a letter to the Tribunal[3] as follows:

I feel this claim should be approved re evidence that has been supplied.

This has already been going on for a long time years.

advised to go on JobSeeker while awaiting disabitily decision.

Declined re needed a Clinical Psy tribunal advised me to see a clinical Psy then reapply...

I was then told to speak to my Psy to see fi the 20 points applied to my condition which they do.

Re report on those points which I supplied. Again declined. My phone call with tribunal and other member was in February 2025.

Then I was advised the issue was continuing inability to work.

To speak to legal aid and ask them what I needed. I did that and supplied it 23 FEB 2024 date I claimed disability.

I have done everything that the tribunal has asked me to do.

I have supplied numerous doctors report and psy reports.

Re - haven't been able to see my psy for the past few months re she has been dealing with her own issues. I have started back seeing her I can ask her for something in you like.

My trips have been for medical as on jobseeker payment not enough for medical in this country.

1. Mrs WSLK's position at hearing was consistent with as set out in her letter to the Tribunal. She submits that she satisfies the medical qualifications requirements for disability support pension based upon the mental health condition impacting her.
2. The Respondent's position is that although Mrs WSLK was impacted by anxiety and depression as at the date of her 23 February 2024 claim, the condition was not reasonably treated and stabilised during the qualification period as required for any impairment points to be allocated.
3. Relevant medical documents in evidence before me included:

(a) Medical certificate from Mrs WSLK's general practitioner (referred to as Dr M in these Reasons), dated 29 November 2022 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'Depression, anxiety, bereavement with irritable bowel syndrome' from 29 November 2022 to 28 February 2023.[4]

(b) Patient health summary of 8 December 2022 noting recent conditions including '29/12/20 - depression, reactive and 29/11/2022 - bereavement'.[5]

(c) St George Hospital Discharge Referral dated 24 February 2023 re Anxiety depression ED presentation. [6]

(d) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 3 March 2023 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'Depression, Anxiety, Bereavement, IBS' from 3 March 2023 to 3 June 2023.[7]

(e) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 9 March 2023 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'Depression and anxiety disorder with panic attacks severe bereavement reaction' and secondary condition of irritable bowel syndrome from 09 March 2023 to 9 June 2023.[8]

(f) Letter from Dr M to a psychologist (referred to in these Reasons as Dr P) dated 10 March 2023 referring Mrs WSLK for management for significant bereavement reaction since the death of her mother.[9]

(g) Letter from Dr P dated 10 March 2023[10] including as follows:

Mrs [WSLK] has attended on 23/12/22, 02/01/23, 23/023 & 10/02/23, and has agreed to come to further sessions.

Her initial K10 score was 30, indicating moderate psychological distress, and the DASS-21 scores indicated extremely severe stress (4) and anxiety (26), and severe depression (22). As well in our sessions Mrs [WSLK] expressed grief about the recent loss of her mother, as well as the trauma of losing other close family members.

• Cognitive restricting, the identification and challenge of unhelpful thoughts.
• Techniques to reduce stress and anxiety.
• Encouragement to socialises and exercise
• Undertake new activities.

We have been also working on sleep hygiene (creating a ritual using the five senses).

(h) Letter from Dr M dated 27 March 2023[11] including as follows:

She is currently suffering with depression, anxiety and a severe bereavement reaction.

The above conditions are causing symptoms of lethargy, tiredness, poor concentration, insomnia, anxiety with frequent episodes of panic attacks and amotivational feeling all of which until resolved make it impossible for her to look for or hold down a job.

She continues on pharmaco and psychotherapy treatment.

(i) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 3 October 2023 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'Depression & anxiety disorder with panic attacks severe bereavement reaction' and a secondary condition of 'left macular schisis' from 30 October 2023 to 3 January 2024.[12]

(j) Letter from Dr M to a further psychologist (referred to in these Reasons as Ms T) dated 20 October 2023 referring Mrs WSLK for assistance with management of her significant bereavement reaction since the recent death of her mother.[13]

(k) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 9 November 2023 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'macular schisis' from 3 September 2023 to 3 December 2023.[14]

(l) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 30 November 2023 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'macular schisis' from 30 November 2023 to 29 February 2024.[15]

(m) Letter from Ms T dated 20 February 2024[16] including as follows:

This letter confirms that [Mrs WSLK] is currently seeing me for psychological therapy. Our first session occurred on 25 October, 2023, and to date we have had five sessions. Our next session is yet to be scheduled, but will likely occur the week commencing 4 March, with sessions to continue fortnightly.

[Mrs WSLK] is, in my opinion, currently experiencing symptoms of psychological distress - including depressed mood, withdrawal, low motivation, worry, rumination, sadness, apathy, reduced confidence, and hopelessness. DASS-21 symptom scores collect in our first session indicated severe depression, extremely severe anxiety, and moderate stress.

Her diagnosis, according to my current assessment is Major Depressive Disorder, with moderate severity and anxious distress (DSM-5 296.22), likely precipitated by grief due to the deaths of her mother, sibling, and dog within a short timeframe. Due to the nature and intensity of her symptoms at the present time, I believe she is currently unfit for work, particular as would need to not just return to work, but source and obtain gainful employment. I have observed reported symptoms over a 4 month period, and have been informed by [Mrs WSLK] that the symptoms have been ongoing for at least two years prior to our first meeting.

I have assessed [Mrs WSLK's] current functioning in respect Centrelink's impairment tables (Table 5), and deem [Mrs WSLK's] overall functional impairment to be at a severe level, as outlined in the table below.

(a) Self care and independent living Mild (5)

(b) Social/recreational activities in travel Moderate (10)

(c) Interpersonal relationships Severe (20)

(d) Concentration and task completion Severe (20)

(e) Behaviour, planning, and decision making Severe (20)

(f) Work/training capacity Severe (20)

Our ongoing treatment plan will focus on cognitive and behavioural techniques to help with emotion regulation, distress tolerance, behavioural activation, supportive counselling and strengths/values; with the view to improve [Mrs WSLK's] wellbeing and build capacity to facilitate integration into social life and vocational pursuits.

(n) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 23 February 2024 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'major depressive disorder with severe anxious distress' and a secondary condition of 'macular schisis' from 23 February 2024 to 23 May 2024.[17]

(o) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 20 May 2024 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'Depression with anxiety' and a secondary condition of 'macular schisis' from 20 May 2024 to 20 August 2024.[18]

(p) Response dated 3 July 2024 from Dr M to questions posed to him as follows:[19]

To the best of your knowledge, do you feel that it is likely that with ongoing Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy that [Mrs WSLK's] Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxiety Distress is likely to show significant improvement in the next two years?

To the best of your knowledge, do you feel that [Mrs WSLK] will return to any sustainable paid employment in the next two years (casual and part time work include)?

Does [Mrs WSLK] require regular support to live independently, that is, needs visits or assistance at least twice a week from a family member, friend, health worker or support worker due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxiety Distress?

Uncertain lives with her brother, notes as friend support, degree of this support I don't know.

(b) Social/recreational activities and interpersonal relationships;

Does [Mrs WSLK] have very limited social contacts and involvements unless these are organised for her due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxious Distress?

Uncertain note that she has said that she goes with her female friend who gives her support.

Does [Mrs WSLK] often have severe difficulty interacting with other people and usually needs assistance or support from a companion to engage in social interaction due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxious Distress?

Uncertain has not mentioned such problems or restrictions with me.

Does [Mrs WSLK] travel alone only in familiar areas (such as the local shops or other familiar venues) due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxious Distress?

Uncertain I think she shops alone locally. She come to the surgery by herself.

Does [Mrs WSLK] usually avoid utilising community facilities such as public transport due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with Severe Anxious Distress?

Uncertain. I'm not fully aware of this, she does not have a car and she attends the surgery by herself. Surgery is some 2km from her place of residence.

Does [Mrs WSLK] have severe difficulty concentrating on or following along with any task or conversation for more than 10 minutes due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxious Distress?

Uncertain has no problem conversing with me and she converses with the secretarial staff when she attends the surgery.

Does [Mrs WSLK] have slowed moments or reaction time due to psychiatric illness or treatment effects from symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxious Distress?

No I have not noted any such problems in my contact with her in the surgery.

Is [Mrs WSLK's] behaviour, thoughts and conversation significantly and frequently distributed due to symptoms stemming from her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxious Distress?

Yes during consultation she does report episodes of anxiety, panic episodes, amotivational and continued grief reaction over the death of her mother one of her brothers.

Does [Mrs WSLK] have severe difficulty attending work, education or training on a regular basis over a lengthy period due to ongoing mental illness?

Yes she does display amotivation, reduced concentration and depressed affect.

(q) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 13 August 2024 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'depression with anxiety' and a secondary condition of 'macular schisis' from 13 August 2024 to 30 November 2024.[20]

(r) Letter from Dr M dated 30 October 2024[21] including as follows (unedited):

I note that [Mrs WSLK] has been a patient for the past 40 years. I note that for a period of some seven years she was the principle career for her aged and significantly sick mother. Her mother died in August 2022. Her mother's death saw [Mrs WSLK] develop a significantly deep bereavement reaction with significant depression and anxiety. This was further compounded by the sudden death of a sibling and the death of her very value dog.

Since 2022 [Mrs WSLK] has battled with major depression and anxiety. Her severe symptoms continue despite use of an antidepressant and intense psychotherapy. Her significant symptoms of social withdrawal, depressed effect, amotivation, lack of confidence and sense of hopelessness make it impossible for her to seek and retain any gainful employment.

Her treatment with pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy continues and success will be measured by the passage of time.

As noted above, she continues to be unfit for work.

(s) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 17 January 2025 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'depression with anxiety' and a secondary condition of 'macular schisis' from 17 January 2025 to 17 March 2025.[22]

(t) Patient health summary of 22 January 2025 noting recent conditions including '29/11/2022 - bereavement, 11/09/2023 - left macular schisis, 23/02/24 - depression, 17/05/24 - weight gain, 30/08/2024 - disc prolapse and 11/10/2024 - hypothyroidism, primary).[23]

(u) Medical certificate from Dr M dated 13 March 2025 certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated by a primary condition of 'Depression with anxiety' and a secondary condition of 'macular schisis' from 17 March 2025 to 30 June 2025.[24]

(v) Letter from Dr M dated 24 March 2025[25] stating as follows:

[Mrs WSLK] since 23/02/2024 has been suffering with depression and anxiety and due to her continued mental condition, despite treatment, has been unable to work since the 23/02/2024 and due to the chronicity of her problem will be unable to participate in any work for the next two years.

1. Additionally, the letter from Mrs WSLK's brother was in evidence before me includes as follow (unedited):[26]

I am writing this letter in regards to my sister .... Since the death of her mother whom [Mrs WSLK] was her full time carer and the death of her beloved dog Domino I have witnessed her first hand as I live at home with her I have seen her go from depression to severe depression where she doesn't sleep at night, screams and constantly crys and is very difficult for her to get out of bed I find my self constantly trying to help her I do all her shopping and washing and try and assist her as much as possible as I to suffer from depression and have my own issues. It's been very difficult sine the passing of our mother.

Issue 1 - Does Mrs WSLK have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment for the purposes of her 23 February 2024 claim?

1. Paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act requires that a person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment.
2. The Respondent, at paragraph 5.10 of its SFIC,[27] accepts that Mrs WSLK was diagnosed with depression and anxiety pursuant to the 2023 Impairment Tables during the qualification period. The Respondent further notes that the diagnosis was only made 3 days prior to the 23 February 2024 claim. Presumably this reference is to the report of Ms T dated 20 February 2024. It is not clear why such a submission is made in relation to paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act. That paragraph requires that a person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. Multiple certificates and reports in evidence support that Mrs WSLK had a number of impairments at the time of her 23 February 2024 claim. Most contemporaneously, the medical certificate of her long-standing general practitioner, Dr M, dated 23 February 2024 certifies that the functional impact of the certified conditions upon Mrs WSLK as of that date include depressed affect, amotivational, sadness, apathy and visual disturbance. This is also consistent with the other medical certificates and reports evidencing impairment of Mrs WSLK leading up to the date of claim that I have outlined earlier in these Reasons.
3. I am satisfied based on the medical reports and certificates in evidence that as of 23 February 2024, Mrs WSLK had impairments caused by depression and anxiety and macular schisis. I therefore find Mrs WSLK satisfies paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act for the purposes of the 23 February 2024 claim.

Issue 2 - Have any of the conditions causing impairment been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised with the condition and resulting impairment more likely than not to persist for more than 2 years?

1. To satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act, a person must have an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables. As at the date of Mrs WSLK's claim, the applicable Impairment Tables were the 2023 Impairment Tables.
2. The Impairment Tables may only be applied to a person's impairment after their medical history in relation to the condition causing the impairment has been considered (subsection 8(2)). Subsection 8(3) of the Impairment Tables requires that an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if:

(a) the condition has been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner;

(b) the condition has been reasonably treated;

(c) the condition has been stabilised; and

(d) the condition and the resulting impairment is more likely than not, in the light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.

1. Subsections 8(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Impairment Tables address what is required to be satisfied for a condition to be considered diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised.

1. Diagnosis requires corroborating evidence as set out in the requirements for the relevant Table (subsection 8(4)).
2. The relevant Impairment Table in relation to mental health conditions is Table 5. As regards diagnosis, the introduction to Table 5 states as follows:
   • The diagnosis of the condition causing the impairment must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (such as a general practitioner or a psychiatrist) with evidence from a registered psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).
3. General practitioner Dr M's 23 February 2024 medical certificate and registered psychologist Ms T's 20 February 2024 report together support that Mrs WSLK was diagnosed with anxiety and depression (variously descried) as of 23 February 2024 in satisfied of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Impairment Tables by reference to the introduction to Table 5. This is not disputed by the Respondent.[28]

1. As regards paragraph 8(3)(b), (c) and (d) of the Impairment Tables, subparagraphs 8(5), (6) and (7) provide as follows:

(5) In determining whether a condition has been reasonably treated for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(b), the following is to be considered:

(a) what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and

(b) whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years and is likely to result in significant functional improvement.[29]

(6) For the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(c) a condition is stabilised if either:

(a) the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement; or

(b) the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:

(i) significant functional improvement is not expected, 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.

Note 1: For reasonable treatment see subsection 8(7).

Note 2: Degenerative conditions that result in progressive and irreversible loss of function, can be considered stabilised if reasonable treatment is not expected to result in significant functional improvement.

(7) For the purposes of subsection 8(5) and (6), reasonable treatment is treatment that:

(a) is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person;

(b) is at a reasonable cost;

(c) can reliably be expected to result in a significant functional improvement;

(d) is regularly undertaken or performed;

(e) has a high success rate; and

(f) carries a low risk to the person.

1. The evidence shows that, in addition to consulting with Dr M, Mrs WSLK has been consulting with psychologists. Dr M referred her to Dr P in March 2023 with Dr P reporting, as already noted, of the treatment being provided. Additionally, the evidence shows that Mrs WSLK was taking medication for this condition from March 2023 until October 2024.[30] Mrs WSLK's evidence at hearing, as supported by medical evidence from Dr M and Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence, was that she ceased taking the medication due to a significant weight gain side effect.
2. Mrs WSLK was subsequently referred to another psychologist and Ms T reported on 20 February 2024 detailing ongoing treatment aimed at improving Mrs WSLK's 'wellbeing and build capacity to facilitate integration into social life and vocational pursuits'. The Respondent submits that based upon this evidence, it cannot be said that reasonable treatment had yet occurred.[31] The Respondent also submits that Dr M's 6 July 2024 response supports that Mrs WSLK's mental health conditions were temporary. In particular, reference is made to the following responses by Dr M:

To the best of your knowledge, do you feel that it is likely that with ongoing Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy that [Mrs WSLK's] Major Depressive Disorder with severe Anxiety Distress is likely to show significant improvement in the next two years?

To the best of your knowledge, do you feel that [Mrs WSLK] will return to any sustainable paid employment in the next two years (casual and part time work include)?

1. The Respondent also noted[32] that 5 of the 7 certificates provided by Dr M between 29 November 2022 and 13 August 2024 refer to the duration of the functional impact of the condition upon Mrs WSLK as being '13 weeks up to 24 months'. As is also noted by the Respondent, medical certificates of 17 January 2024 and 13 March 2025 refer to functional impact duration of 24 months or more. I note that the other 2 of 7 certificates referred to by the Respondent, dated 3 October 2023 and 13 August 2024, also refer to functional impact duration of 24 months or more.
2. The Respondent further refers to Dr M's 30 October 2024 report stating as to the success (of treatment) being measured with the passage of time. As regards Dr M's 24 March 2025 report, the Respondent submits that the report is after the qualification period and, further, that although Dr M now anticipates that Mrs WSLK will be unable to participate in work for the next 2 years, it does not address reasonable treatment or provide an assessment of Mrs WSLK's functional impairment within the qualification period.
3. I note the Respondent's submissions in this regard. As regards the report being after the qualification period, I note that Deputy President Forgie recognised in Eid and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 558 that medical evidence does not need to be contemporaneous in order to speak to the position at a different point in time. I note that this conclusion was reached in relation to the issue of diagnosis rather than whether the condition was reasonably treated and stabilised and, further, that Deputy President Forgie contrasted this to whether a condition was fully treated and fully stabilised noting that 'A condition cannot be said to meet those criteria on a particular date if further treatment is feasible and accessible at a reasonable cost, that treatment is of a type regularly taken or performed with a high success rate and leading to a substantial improvement in the person's condition while being at low risk to the person'. However, that of itself does not mean that evidence outside of the qualification period cannot inform whether a condition was reasonably treated and stabilised with the qualification period. I further had regard to the Federal Court's reasoning in Secretary Department of Family & Community Services v Verney [2000] FCA 570 (Verney) where Cooper J stated:

53 Where previous evidence is in the nature of assessments or predications and evidence later becomes available which falsifies the factors on which the assessment was based or demonstrates that the predictions did not prove to be correct,[33] the later evidence is admissible and relevant to the judicial process. To allow the assessments or predications to stand in the face of the falsifying material would not be credible to the judicial process: Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 at 680; Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 2) [1989] FCA 246; (1989) 40 FCR 76 at 88. So too with administrative review. Later evidence may be relied upon by the AAT to demonstrate the falsity of any assessment or prediction and the AAT would not be entitled to ignore material of which it had notice which demonstrated that earlier material was incorrect, incomplete or misleading: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd at 44 - 45.

1. Consistent with this approach, the Full Federal Court in Ally v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 49 (Ally) stated that:

33 The authorities to which Smith FM referred support the proposition that, subject to certain provisos, it is open to an administrative tribunal to look at subsequent events to see whether they assist in determining the state of affairs at an earlier point in time: e.g. Hospital Benefits Fund of WA Inc v Minister [1992] FCA 599; (1992) 39 FCR 225 at 234; Comptroller-General of Customs v Akai Pty Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 511 at 521.

34 This is particularly so where the tribunal is required to make a predictive assessment and the later events demonstrate that earlier material was incorrect, incomplete or misleading: Verney at [53]. The principle qualification to the general rule is that the tribunal's use of later events must be limited to considering whether that material throws light upon the position as at the date when the determination was required to be made. This qualification was mentioned in the authorities to which Smith FM referred.

1. Notably, Dr M's report dated 24 March 2025 specifically refers to Mrs WSLK having been impacted by depression and anxiety since 23 February 2024 and that despite treatment she has been unable to work since that date and will remain unable to participate in work for the next 2 years. I accept, as the Respondent submits, that the report does not expressly address 'reasonable treatment' referable to the Impairment Tables. However, what is clear from Dr M's report is that the impact of the mental health condition upon Mrs WSLK is continuing despite treatment, has prevented her from working and is expected to render her unable to work for a further 2 years. This is consistent with the chronic nature of her condition, notwithstanding Dr M's earlier medical certificates which refer to an incapacity period between 13 weeks and 24 months.
2. I am satisfied that those earlier certificates were predictions in the sense discussed in Verney and that subsequent evidence shows the predictions did not ultimately prove correct. I recognise the qualification to the general rule that later events may be considered only to the extent they illuminate the state of affairs as at the date when the determination was required to be made, as explained in Ally. Dr M's 24 March 2025 report is consistent with the overall medical evidence - including evidence subsequent to the qualification period - when viewed together regarding treatment of, and impact of, these conditions upon Mrs WSLK since 2022. I am satisfied that the subsequent material does throw light on, and assists in assessing, the position at the earlier time consistent with Ally.
3. For completeness, I also considered whether all reasonable treatment had been undertaken. The Respondent refers to Mrs WSLK last being supplied with medication in relation to the mental health condition impacting her in October 2024 and last consulting with a psychologist, Ms T, on 9 July 2024. Mrs WSLK's evidence at hearing was that the medication led to a significant weight gain for her, gaining almost 30 kilograms (going from 47 to 76 kilograms). Mrs WSLK's evidence was that she spoke to Dr M about stopping the medication and he assisted her in weaning off it. When queried as to whether alternative medication was suggested, she said that blood tests at the time showed that she had some other issues and they are now also trying to sort out those issues. As regards Ms T, Mrs WSLK's evidence was that Ms T had her own issues going on for several months and was not available to continue seeing her. Mrs WSLK said that she did recommence seeing her again a few months ago,[34] and again had to stop because Ms T had to have surgery. When queried as to whether she had spoken to Dr M about seeing someone else instead, Mrs WSLK said that it is deeply personal relationship, the relationship with a psychologist, and as soon Ms T was again available, she saw her, and now she is unavailable again. Mrs WSLK's brother gave evidence consistent with Mrs WSLK's in relation to Mrs WSLK's appointments with Ms T and having to stop and start them again.
4. Including having regard to subparagraph 8(7) of the Impairment Tables, I am satisfied that continued use of the medication prescribed was not at low risk for Mrs WSLK given the significant weight gain Mrs WSLK experienced, which I accept was likely due to the medication. Further, I accept the circumstances in which Mrs WSLK had a break in consultation with Ms T after July 2024 and do not consider this inconsistent with reasonable treatment, in consulting with psychologists, being undertaken in the circumstances.
5. Although not determinative of the issue, I consider Dr M's 24 March 2025 report, together with the other evidence before me, as all supportive of the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK having been reasonably treated and stabilised by 23 February 2024. By that date, notwithstanding his predictive assessments of duration of incapacity from time to time, Dr M had been certifying Mrs WSLK as incapacitated for work for over 15 months, Mrs WSLK had continuously been consulting with him, she had engaged in treatment with Dr P and Ms T[35] and had taken medication for a not insignificant period.
6. I accept that there is treatment that Mrs WSLK might continue, and is continuing, to access, including further psychological consultations and possibly attendance at a bereavement support group. It is not unusual for a person to condition to access treatment for a condition impacting upon them, even when further treatment may not result in significant functional improvement, that is improvement likely to enable them to undertake work in the next 2 years. Rather, treatment might be directed to other results such as preventing worsening of a condition or some improvement, albeit not to a level of 'significant functional improvement' as defined.
7. Notably, I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK has at all times continued to also consult with her very long-standing general practitioner, Dr M, in relation to the impact of the mental health conditions upon her as also shown in the Medicare records. Given the long-standing nature of his professional relationship with Mrs WSLK (over 40 years), I am satisfied that Dr M is best placed to consider treatment options for Mrs WSLK. Dr M clearly states in his 24 March 2025 report that the impact upon Mrs WSLK of the mental health conditions, from 23 February 2024 and continuing for 2 years, is despite treatment. Based on this report and inferences I have drawn having regard to all of the medical evidence considered together, I find that the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK were reasonably treated and stabilised for the purposes of Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim.

More likely than not to persist for more than 2 years

1. As already canvassed, I am satisfied based upon Dr M's 24 March 2025 report, that despite earlier medical certificates predicting a shorter duration of between 13 weeks and 24 months, that the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK and associated impairment are more likely than not to persist for more than 2 years from the date of the 23 February 2024 claim.

1. It follows that I find that the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK were diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, with the conditions and resulting impairment more likely than not to persist for more than 2 years for the purposes of Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim.

Issue 3: Can a total of 20 points or more be allocated?

1. Each Impairment Table includes a set of descriptors, which provide examples of functional impact (impairment) of conditions, to which an applicant's symptoms are compared to arrive at a point allocation. Symptoms and impairment must be corroborated by medical or similar evidence before they can be taken into account (see subsection 10(1) of the Impairment Tables and the introduction to each Table).
2. The relevant Impairment Table is Table 5, which assigns impairment ratings for the functional impact of a diagnosed mental health condition. Table 5 relevantly provides in part as follows:

There is a mild functional impact on activities involving mental health function.

(1) The person has mild difficulties with at least 4 of the following:

Example: the person lives independently but sometimes neglects self-care, grooming or meals.

(b) social/recreational activities and interpersonal relationships;

Example 1: the person is not actively involved when attending social or recreational activities.

Example 2: the person has interpersonal relationships that are strained, with occasional tension or arguments.

Example 1: the person is sometimes reluctant to travel alone to unfamiliar environments.

Example 2: the person is sometimes reluctant to utilise community facilities such as local shops or other familiar venues.

Example 1: the person has mild difficulty focusing on complex tasks for more than 1 hour.

Example 2: the person has mild difficulties completing education or training.

Example 1: the person has unusual behaviours that may disturb other people or attract negative attention and is sometimes more effusive, demanding or obsessive than is appropriate to the situation.

Example 2: the person has mild difficulties in planning and organising more complex activities.

Example: the person has occasional interpersonal conflicts or poses some risk to the safety of themselves or co-workers due to ongoing mental illness at work, education or training that requires intervention by a supervisor, manager or teacher or changes in placement or groupings.

There is a moderate functional impact on activities involving mental health function.

(1) The person has moderate difficulties with at least 4 of the following:

Example: the person requires 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 interpersonal relationships;

Example 1: the person goes out alone infrequently and is not actively involved in social events.

Example 2: the person has moderate difficulty making and keeping friends or sustaining relationships.

Example 1: the person will often avoid travelling alone to unfamiliar environments.

Example 2: the person will often avoid utilising community facilities such as local shops or other familiar venues.

Example 1: the person has moderate difficulty concentrating on longer tasks, and following along with the task, for more than 30 minutes (such as reading an article, watching a television program or playing a video game).

Example 2: the person has moderate difficulty following complex instructions (such as from an operating manual, recipe or assembly instructions).

Example 1: the person has moderate 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.

Example: the person often has interpersonal conflicts or poses a risk to themselves or co-workers due to ongoing mental illness at work, education or training that requires intervention by supervisors, managers or teachers or changes in placement or groupings.

There is a severe functional impact on activities involving mental health function.

(1) The person has severe difficulties with at least 4 of the following:

Example: the person requires regular support to live independently, that is, needs visits or assistance at least twice a week from a family member, friend, health worker or support worker

(b) social/recreational activities and interpersonal relationships;

Example 1: the person has very limited social contacts and involvement unless these are organised for the person.

Example 2: the person often has severe difficulty interacting with other people and usually needs assistance or support from a companion to engage in social interactions.

Example 1: the person travels alone only in familiar areas (such as the local shops or other familiar venues).

Example 2: the person usually avoids utilising community facilities such as public transport.

Example 1: the person has severe difficulty concentrating on or following along with any task or conversation for more than 10 minutes.

Example 2: the person has slowed movements or reaction time due to psychiatric illness or treatment effects.

Example: the person's behaviour, thoughts and conversation are significantly and frequently disturbed.

Example: the person has severe difficulty attending work, education or training on a regular basis over a lengthy period due to ongoing mental illness.

1. As already noted, Ms T's 20 February 2024 report includes assessment of Mrs WSLK's functional impairment as severe under Table 5, with assignment of the following ratings:

(a) Self care and independent living Mild (5)

(b) Social/recreational activities in travel Moderate (10)

(c) Interpersonal relationships Severe (20)

(d) Concentration and task completion Severe (20)

(e) Behaviour, planning, and decision making Severe (20)

(f) Work/training capacity Severe (20)

1. The Respondent submits that the assessment by Ms T of impairment is brief, does not include descriptors of Mrs WSLK's functional impairments and cannot be relied upon as Mrs WSLK has not yet engaged in reasonable treatment.[36]
2. I have already concluded that the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK have been reasonably treated. I do not accept that Ms T's impairment assessment cannot be relied upon because it is brief and does not include descriptors. Ms T makes it clear in her report that she has considered the Impairment Tables in reaching her conclusions. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she has considered the relevant descriptors in reaching a conclusion in relation to each of the categories. I am satisfied that Ms T's assessment is relevant evidence in relation to allocation of points to be taken into account together with all other relevant evidence.
3. Other evidence in relation to functional impairment caused by the mental health conditions includes Dr M's 6 July 2024 response to the queries posed to him, as set out in detail earlier in these Reasons.
4. The Respondent's submissions in this regard include that Dr M's responses include that:

(a) Mrs WSLK had not mentioned any problems or restrictions with interacting with other people nor mentioned she needs assistance or support to engage with social interactions due to symptoms stemming from her depression and anxiety;

(b) Mrs WSLK shops alone locally and attends the surgery by herself;

(c) Mrs WSLK has no problem conversing with him and she converses with secretarial staff when she attends the surgery;

(d) Mrs WSLK does not have slowed movements or reaction time due to her depression and anxiety;

(e) Mrs WSLK reported to him that she has episodes of anxiety, panic episodes, amotivation and continued grief related to the death of her mother and one of her brothers; and

(f) Mrs WSLK displays amotivation, reduced concentration and depressed affect,[37]

and that that evidence suggests the functional impairment is limited.

1. In addition to his 6 July 2024 responses, Dr M also provided a report dated 30 October 2024 where he stated that Mrs WSLK's 'significant symptoms of social withdrawal, depressed effect, amotivation, lack of confidence and sense of hopelessness make it impossible for her to seek and retain any gainful employment'.
2. Other evidence before me in relation to the functional impairment for Mrs WSLK caused by the condition includes Ms WSLK's and her brother's evidence.
3. Mrs WSLK's evidence at hearing relevant to the Table 5 descriptors at the relevant time and now included:

(a) She lives with her brother. He takes her to do the shopping. She does not feel she is capable of doing it on her own because of panic attacks she has. She cries most of the day and is very emotional. Her brother pushes her to get up (out of bed) and out of the house otherwise she basically sits in her room 24/7.

(b) Her brother helps her around the house. He basically maintains the house because she can't do anything. Since her mother passed away, she hasn't done anything. She lost both her mother and her (other) brother.

(c) Prior to her mother passing away, she was always out of the house. She has never really had a lot of friends, but she had previously always gone out. The female friend that Dr M refers to in his response of 6 July 2024 is not someone she sees anymore - she hasn't seen her in about a year.

(d) As Dr M noted, she goes into the doctor's surgery by herself but that is because her brother drops her at the door and then picks her up when she is ready.

1. Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence at hearing relevant to the Table 5 descriptors included:

(a) His sister has had a mental breakdown. He is forever doing shopping for her. He helps her all the time. She goes to the doctor and to the hospital but otherwise is in her bedroom 24/7 and doesn't leave her room.

(b) She had a lot of pain in her teeth a little while ago but couldn't afford to have her teeth fixed in Australia, so he went with her to Thailand because it was a lot cheaper to have her teeth dealt with there.

(c) His sister looked after his mother for many years. It was very difficult for her. On one occasion when she took their mother to hospital, their mother picked up COVID-19 and she later died and that has been very difficult for his sister - she has felt responsible. He thinks that broke her mentally - and then her dog died shortly after and also their brother was found dead in the back granny flat. His sister was very close to their oldest brother. He passed away only about a month before their mother.

(d) He has seen his sister deteriorate. He hears her screaming through the night and goes in to check on her. She is all sweaty. She is up about five times in the night. She is constantly up and down through the night.

(e) His sister was on medication at one stage, but she put on so much weight and was huffing and puffing. He told her she had to see her doctor and stop the medication because it was not good for her.

(f) His sister would not be able to be on her own given what she is like. She needs someone to help her out and he does as much as he can since their mother passed away. She is actually deteriorating not getting better. He takes her to the shops if he can get her to go but 90% of the time she won't come out of her room and she has to write a list for him to get what she needs.

(g) His sister did at one stage have one friend, but that friend has cut his sister off now - she is pretty much on her own now. She has one other friend that she briefly talks to on the phone every now and again.

(h) Before their mother passed away, his sister was much more active - she would go to the plaza or the shopping centre when she had free time. Everything has changed since his mother (and brother and the dog) have passed away.

(i) He now pays the bills when they arrive - his sister just can't do these things now - she is not well.

(j) He went overseas with his sister to get treatment for her teeth. He was basically her right hand. They tried to look around a bit, but his sister just didn't feel comfortable being out and about. She was also scared of the dentist, but he was there for her. The other overseas trip was for his sister to go and visit a long-time friend of hers in Montreal - her friend was unwell. He dropped her at the airport and her friend picked her up. He went into the airport and helped her check in and then her friend picked her up on the other end. He encouraged his sister to go as he kept telling her she just couldn't stay in her room all the time. He told her to give it a try and it would be good for her to visit her friend. Her friend has known his sister for many years and knows that she suffers depression.

(k) As regards dentist appointments in Australia, once his sister was able to access her superannuation when she turned 60, she started seeing a dentist in Australia. That was after the Thailand trips.

1. Pursuant to the introduction to Table 5, there must be corroborating evidence of the person's impairment and self-report of symptoms must be supported by corroborating medical evidence. Example of corroborating evidence given for the purposes of Table 5 include a report from the person's treating doctor, supporting letters, reports or assessments relating to the person's mental health or psychiatric condition and interviews with the person and those providing care or support to the person. The introduction also refers to evidence from a range of sources being considered in determining which rating applies. I have before me evidence fitting in relation to each of those categories, including from the Mrs WSLK's brother who I am satisfied provides care or support to Mrs WSLK.
2. Some of the evidence is inconsistent with other evidence, including in part, as submitted by the Respondent, inconsistencies between Dr M's 6 July 2024 responses and his 30 October 2024 report. This is not surprising in itself. The descriptors are not black and white. Further although I am satisfied that Ms T has taken into account relevant descriptors in reaching her conclusions, because she has not addressed any of the descriptors or examples, there is limited comparison of her evidence to other evidence that I can take into account.
3. I note that Dr M's evidence is limited in part in relation to some of the descriptors with him noting in a number of his 6 July 2024 responses that he is uncertain, he is not fully aware of certain things and that other things have not been mentioned to him, with him noting in relation to some descriptors that he 'thinks' rather than knows certain things. There are therefore also some limits on the assistance Dr M's evidence provides. However, the Impairment Tables also allow consideration to be given to evidence of a person who provides care or support. As already noted, I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK's brother is such a person. Having had regard to all the evidence, I find as follows in relation to each of the Table 5 descriptors:

Mrs WSLK lives with her brother and does not live independently. Dr M's 6 July 2024 response included that he did not know the degree of support provided. Ms T did not detail her assessment of this descriptor other than to assess 5 points on the basis of mild impairment. However, based upon Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence, I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK requires regular support from her brother at least twice per week. It follows that Mrs WSLK has severe difficulties with self-care and independent living based on the descriptor example.

(b) social/recreational activities and interpersonal relationships

The evidence before me is that Mrs WSLK has had very limited social contact since her mother's death, whereas she previously was 'out and about' when she had spare time. Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence was that she has one friend who she speaks to on the phone but has been cut off by another friend she previously had. I note that Mrs WSLK also visited a friend in Montreal in August 2024 for approximately 8 days, but I have taken into account that her brother encouraged her to undertake this travel and assisted her in being able to do so; dropping her at the airport and going through check-in with her. As regards other overseas trips, for medical purposes, I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK was accompanied and assisted by her brother on these trips. I acknowledge the Respondent's submission[38] that 3 overseas trips since January 2023 may be seen as evidence of functional abilities in the areas of social activities, interpersonal relationships, travel, accessing the community, planning and decision-making. As regards Mrs WSLK's ease of conversing with Dr M and his staff, I note these are persons very familiar to her (with Dr M being her general practitioner for over 40 years) and do not consider these interactions inconsistent with her having severe difficulties with social/recreational activities and other interpersonal relationship. Taking all of these matters into account, including the circumstances of the overseas travel with Mrs WSLK being accompanied by her brother and/or assisted by her brother, I am satisfied, including having regard to the differences before and after her mother's death, that Mrs WSLK has severe difficulties with social/recreational activities and interpersonal relationships.

Dr M's 6 July 2024 response includes that he thinks Mrs WSLK shops alone locally and that she comes to the surgery by herself. Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence provided further information in relation to this descriptor and I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK does not shop alone nor come to the surgery by herself. Rather, if she is able to go out to the shops it is in company with her brother. Further, I am satisfied that her brother drops her at and picks her up from the surgery. Even if accepted that she did these things alone, I note they would be considered familiar areas. As regards her overseas travel to Montreal, which I accept would not be a familiar area, I am satisfied that except for the duration of the flight Mrs WSLK was not alone, being accompanied to the airport by her brother and picked up at the other end by her long-term friend. I also accept that this was once off travel to see an ill friend. Having had regard to all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK has severe difficulties with travel and accessing the community.

Dr M's 6 July 2024 response in relation to concentration and task completion functions is that Mrs WSLK has no problem conversing with him and the secretarial staff. This is not a responsive answer to the question. He further states that he has not noted any problems with slowed movements or reaction time in his contact with Mrs WSLK. Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence relevantly includes that he now has to pay the bills. Having regard to all of the evidence I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK has moderate difficulty with concentrating and task completion on the basis that she cannot now pay bills.

Dr M's 6 July 2024 response is that Mrs WSLK's behaviour, thoughts and conversation are significantly and frequently disturbed due to symptoms, with him noting that she reports episodes of anxiety, panic episodes, amotivation and continued grief reaction. Further, consistent with one of the examples for this descriptor, Mrs WSLK's brother's evidence was that her activity levels are noticeably reduced with her staying in her room 90% of the time and no longer getting 'out and about'. Having regard to all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mrs WSLK has severe difficulty with behaviour, planning and decision-making.

Dr M's 6 July 2024 response in relation to work/training capacity is that Mrs WSLK has severe difficulty, displaying amotivation, reduced concentration and depressed affect. Dr M's 24 March 2025 report is also consistent with this. I am satisfied and find that she has severe difficulty with work/training capacity.

1. I have concluded that the evidence overall supports findings of severe functional impact on 5 of the 6 descriptors set out in Table 5, that is at least 4. It follows that an impairment rating of 20 points can be allocated in relation to the functional impact of the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK for the purposes of her 23 February 2024 claim.
2. The requirements of paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act are therefore met in relation to Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim.

Issue 4: Does Mrs WSLK have a continuing inability to work for the purposes of the 23 February 2024 claim for disability support pension?

1. To satisfy paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act a person not part of the supported wage system, which Mrs WSLK is not, must also have a 'continuing inability to work'. This term is defined in subsection 94(2) of the Act and requires consideration of paragraphs 94(2)(aa), (a) and (b) of the Act.
2. As I have found Mrs WSLK had an impairment rating of 20 points or more under one Impairment Table for the purposes of her 23 February 2024 claim, she has a "severe impairment", as defined in subsection 94(3B) of the Act. This means that the program of support requirement in paragraph 94(2)(aa) does not apply to her.
3. To satisfy paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 94(2) of the Act, Mrs WSLK's impairment must have prevented her from working at least 15 hours per week independently of a program of support within 2 years and prevented her from being able to undertake a training activity that would allow her to do such work. A Centrelink Job Capacity Assessment of 12 July 2024[39] assesses Mrs WSLK as having a temporary work capacity of 0-7 hours per week until 11 January 2025 with a capacity for work within 2 years with intervention of 15-22 hours per week. Dr M, her long-standing general practitioner, on the other hand has continually assessed Mrs WSLK as having no capacity to work, referrable to the mental health conditions impacting her, from November 2022 until March 2025. Further, in his 24 March 2025 report Dr M states that Mrs WSLK will be unable to participate in work for the next 2 years.
4. Having the benefit of evidence post-dating the Job Capacity Assessment, including Mrs WSLK's continuing incapacity for work beyond that time, and further as stated by her long-standing general practitioner, I am satisfied that the impairments caused by the mental health conditions impacting Mrs WSLK are of themselves sufficient to prevent her from doing any work at all within the next 2 years. Further, although not specifically stated, I am satisfied that a reasonable inference to be made from the evidence overall is that the impairments are of themselves are sufficient to prevent her from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years.
5. It follows that the requirements of subsection 94(2) are met such that paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act is satisfied for the purposes of Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim.

1. The evidence also includes that Mrs WSLK is impacted by an eye condition. The Respondent submits that the eye condition does not cause any functional impact and attracts 0 impairment points under the relevant Impairment Table, Table 12. Mrs WSLK did not dispute this submission and I have not considered it necessary to consider this issue.[40]

1. I have concluded that Mrs WSLK satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act for the purposes of her 23 February 2024 claim. It follows that Mrs WSLK is medically qualified for disability support pension for the purposes of that claim. The decision under review to reject Mrs WSLK's claim will be set aside and the matter returned to Centrelink so that the non-medical aspects of her claim may be considered. If the non-medical requirements are also satisfied, it will follow that disability support pension must be granted from the date of her claim.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that paragraphs 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Social Security Act 1991 are satisfied in relation to Mrs WSLK's 23 February 2024 claim for disability support pension.

[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.

[28] Paragraph 5.25 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[29] With 'significant functional improvement' defined in section 5 of the Impairment Table to be 'improvement that is likely to enable to person to undertake work in the next 2 years'.

[30] Paragraph 5.26(g) of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[31] Paragraphs 5.26(a) of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[32] Paragraph 5.26(d) of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[34] This is consistent with the Medicare records in evidence up to 30 April 2025 - pages 19 to 24 of Exhibit 2.

[35] Medicare records support that Mrs WSLK has had several consultations with Dr P and Ms T - pages 18 to 24 of Exhibit 2.

[36] Paragraph 5.30 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[37] Paragraph 5.29 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[38] Paragraph 5.31 of the Respondent's SFIC, Exhibit 3.

[40] Section 53 of Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.