Guide To The Impairment Tables

User Manual:

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 85

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

A GUIDE TO THE TABLES
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
WORK-RELATED IMPAIRMENT
FOR DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE GUIDE
INTRODUCTORY NOTES ABOUT THE GUIDE ..................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: ............................................................................................................ 6
GUIDE TO THE “INTRODUCTION” TO THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES ................... 6
(A)

PURPOSE OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPH 1).............................................................. 6

(B)

DEFINITION OF WORK – (PARAGRAPH 1)...................................................................... 6

(C)

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3) .............................. 6

(D)

SIGNIFICANCE OF 20 POINTS IMPAIRMENT LEVEL – (PARAGRAPH 1) ..................... 7

(E)

MEDICAL BASIS TO IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 1, 4)............................................. 7

(F)

DESIGN OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 2, 3) ........................................................... 8

(G)

APPROPRIATE SELECTION OF TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 2, 7, 9, 12) ........................ 8

(H)

DOUBLE COUNTING OF IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 12, 13) ......................... 9

(I)

ASSESSING CHRONIC PAIN AND FATIGUE – (PARAGRAPH 8) ................................. 11

(J)

SCORING SYSTEM OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 10, 11) .................................. 12

(K)

DETERMINING PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 4, 5, 6) ....................... 13

(L)

CONDITION VS IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13) .............. 16

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 2: .......................................................................................................... 20
GUIDE TO TABLE 1. – LOSS OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND/OR RESPIRATORY
FUNCTION: EXERCISE TOLERANCE.................................................................. 20
TABLE 1. LOSS OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND/OR RESPIRATORY FUNCTION: EXERCISE
TOLERANCE 22

CHAPTER 3: .......................................................................................................... 25
GUIDE TO TABLE 2. – LOSS OF RESPIRATORY FUNCTION: PHYSIOLOGICAL
MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................................. 25
TABLE 2. LOSS OF RESPIRATORY FUNCTION: PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS ............. 27

CHAPTER 4: .......................................................................................................... 30
GUIDE TO TABLE 3. – UPPER LIMB FUNCTION ................................................ 30
TABLE 3. UPPER LIMB FUNCTION ................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER 5: .......................................................................................................... 32
GUIDE TO TABLE 4. – FUNCTION OF THE LOWER LIMBS............................... 32
TABLE 4. FUNCTION OF THE LOWER LIMBS................................................................................ 33

CHAPTER 6: .......................................................................................................... 34
GUIDE TO TABLE 5. – SPINAL FUNCTION ......................................................... 34
TABLE 5. SPINAL FUNCTION .......................................................................................................... 35

2

CHAPTER 7: .......................................................................................................... 37
GUIDE TO TABLE 6. – PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT.......................................... 37
TABLE 6. PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT........................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 8: .......................................................................................................... 40
GUIDE TO TABLE 7. – ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE.......................... 40
TABLE 7. ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE ........................................................................... 41

CHAPTER 9: .......................................................................................................... 42
GUIDE TO TABLE 8. – NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION: MEMORY, PROBLEM
SOLVING, DECISION MAKING ABILITIES AND COMPREHENSION................. 42
TABLE 8. NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION: MEMORY, PROBLEM SOLVING, DECISION MAKING
ABILITIES & COMPREHENSION ..................................................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 10: ........................................................................................................ 44
GUIDE TO TABLE 9. – COMMUNICATION FUNCTION – RECEPTIVE AND
EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCY ......................................................... 44
TABLE 9. COMMUNICATION FUNCTION - RECEPTIVE AND EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE
COMPETENCY ................................................................................................................................. 45

CHAPTER 11: ........................................................................................................ 46
GUIDE TO TABLE 10. – INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY........................................ 46
TABLE 10.

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ..................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 12: ........................................................................................................ 49
GUIDE TO TABLE 11.1 – GASTROINTESTINAL: STOMACH, DUODENUM,
LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT ................................................................................ 49
TABLE 11.1 GASTROINTESTINAL: STOMACH, DUODENUM, LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT ... 49

CHAPTER 13: ........................................................................................................ 51
GUIDE TO TABLE 11.2 – GASTROINTESTINAL: PANCREAS, SMALL AND
LARGE BOWEL, RECTUM AND ANUS................................................................ 51
TABLE 11.2 GASTROINTESTINAL: PANCREAS, SMALL AND LARGE BOWEL, RECTUM AND
ANUS
51

CHAPTER 14: ........................................................................................................ 53
GUIDE TO TABLE 12. – HEARING FUNCTION.................................................... 53
TABLE 12.

HEARING FUNCTION ................................................................................................ 54

CHAPTER 15: ........................................................................................................ 61
GUIDE TO TABLE 13. – VISUAL ACUITY IN THE BETTER EYE ........................ 61
TABLE 13.

VISUAL ACUITY IN THE BETTER EYE..................................................................... 62

CHAPTER 16: ........................................................................................................ 63
GUIDE TO TABLE 14. – MISCELLANEOUS EYE CONDITIONS ......................... 63
TABLE 14.

MISCELLANEOUS EYE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 63

3

CHAPTER 17: ........................................................................................................ 64
GUIDE TO TABLE 15. – VISUAL FIELDS............................................................. 64
TABLE 15.

VISUAL FIELDS.......................................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 18: ........................................................................................................ 65
GUIDE TO TABLE 16. – LOWER URINARY TRACT............................................ 65
TABLE 16.

LOWER URINARY TRACT ........................................................................................ 65

CHAPTER 19: ........................................................................................................ 66
GUIDE TO TABLE 17. – RENAL FUNCTION........................................................ 66
TABLE 17.

RENAL FUNCTION .................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 20: ........................................................................................................ 67
GUIDE TO TABLE 18. – SKIN DISORDERS......................................................... 67
TABLE 18.

SKIN DISORDERS ..................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 21: ........................................................................................................ 68
GUIDE TO TABLE 19. – ENDOCRINE DISORDERS............................................ 68
TABLE 19.

ENDOCRINE DISORDERS ........................................................................................ 68

CHAPTER 22: ........................................................................................................ 69
GUIDE TO TABLE 20. – MISCELLANEOUS – MALIGNANCY, HYPERTENSION,
HIV INFECTION, MORBID OBESITY (ie BMI >40), HEART / LIVER/ KIDNEY
TRANSPLANTS, MISCELLANEOUS EAR / NOSE / THROAT CONDITIONS &
CHRONIC FATIGUE OR PAIN .............................................................................. 69
TABLE 20. MISCELLANEOUS - MALIGNANCY, HYPERTENSION, HIV INFECTION, MORBID
OBESITY (ie BMI >40), HEART/LIVER/KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS, MISCELLANEOUS
EAR/NOSE/THROAT CONDITIONS & CHRONIC FATIGUE OR PAIN. ......................................... 70

CHAPTER 23: ........................................................................................................ 72
GUIDE TO TABLE 21. – INTERMITTENT CONDITIONS ...................................... 72
TABLE 21.

INTERMITTENT CONDITIONS.................................................................................. 73

CHAPTER 24: ........................................................................................................ 76
GUIDE TO TABLE 22. – GYNAECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS .............................. 76
TABLE 22.

GYNAECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS........................................................................... 76

INDEX TO THE GUIDE .......................................................................................... 77

4

INTRODUCTORY NOTES ABOUT THE GUIDE
This Guide provides some enhancements to the presentation of the Tables for the Assessment of
Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension (1997) (referred to as the Tables) in order to
improve its user-friendliness. The Guide has not altered the contents of the Tables themselves as
they form Schedule 1B of the Social Security Act 1991, and such amendments can only be enacted
through Parliament.
In order to improve ease of use in the application of the Tables, the Guide also provides clarification
to assist in interpreting the Tables’ contents. These explanations aim to clarify perceived ambiguities
within the contents and to reflect the original intent of the Advisory Committee that developed the
current version of the Tables. The Guide is not intended as a substitute for the explanatory notes
within the Tables but should be read in conjunction with the Tables.
Although examples of specific medical conditions have been used to help illustrate these
explanations, it should be emphasised that they are not intended to be generally prescriptive for the
purpose of assessing impairment caused by such conditions. Each person’s level of medical
impairment must be assessed on an individual basis to account for the varying spectrum of severity
and stability that can occur with a particular medical condition. Individualised assessments are also
necessary to consider the effects of contributory non-medical factors on a person’s work-related
impairment.

5

CHAPTER 1:
GUIDE TO THE “INTRODUCTION” TO THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES
This chapter provides guidance and additional clarification relating to the thirteen paragraphs
contained in the “Introduction” to the Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for
Disability Support Pension. This chapter is divided into subheadings emphasising significant
concepts contained within the “Introduction”. The relevant paragraphs from the “Introduction”
corresponding to each subheading are identified in parenthesis.

(A)
PURPOSE OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPH 1)
Establishing whether medical impairment level reaches minimum qualifying threshold of 20
points for disability support pension purposes.
The purpose of the Tables is to enable the assessment of medical impairment to be made in respect
of persons whose qualification for disability support pension is being determined. The relevance of
such an assessment is that qualification for disability support pension as set under section 94(1)(b) of
the Social Security Act 1991, requires first establishing that the person has an impairment level of
at least 20 points (previously, 20%). This minimum qualifying threshold is meant to be set at the
level at or above which a person’s impairment has a significant adverse impact on their ability to
work. (Refer also to Sections(B), (C),(D), (E).)
(B)
DEFINITION OF WORK – (PARAGRAPH 1)
What is considered “work” for disability support pension purposes.
Work is defined in section 94(5) of the Social Security Act 1991. For these purposes, work should be
for at least 15 hours per week at or above the relevant minimum wage and should exist in Australia,
even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market.
The 15 hour work test applies to people whose start date on DSP is after 30 June 2006 and those
whose start date on DSP is between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 and have been reviewed after
30 June 2006 under the 15 hour rule.
For people whose start date on DSP is prior to 11 May 2005 and transitional DSP recipients work
should be for at least 30 hours per week where wages are at or above the relevant minimum wage
and should exist in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market.
In considering a person’s capacity for “work” as defined, it would be reasonable to expect that they
must be capable of reliably performing such work on a sustainable basis, that is, for a reasonable
period of time without requiring excessive leave or work absences. A reasonable period of time is
taken to be 26 weeks. Further, it would be expected that such work is in open, unsupported
employment and that the person does not require excessive support (ie more than what is usually
considered reasonable adjustments and/or normal supervision) to perform the work. It is considered
that the Tables refer to work in this context with regard to the assessment of work-related
impairment. (Refer also to Sections (C), (D),(E).)
(C)
CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3)
Assessing work-related impairment and loss of functional capacity vs whole person
impairment.
The Tables are designed to assess the loss of functional capacity that affects a person’s ability to
work rather than simply loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or
function. This functional limitation of work-related tasks resulting from a medical condition or disability
is referred to as “work-related impairment” and replaces the concept of “whole person impairment”.

6

Whole person impairment relates more generally to a person’s overall health status and is a
conceptual model used in previous versions of the Tables and in other types of impairment tables (eg
Department of Veterans' Affairs GARP, American Medical Association’s Guides…). Such
assessment tools based on whole person impairment were developed mainly for compensation
assessment purposes and as they do not focus particularly on the effects on a person’s functional
capacity for work, are of less relevance to the intended purpose of assessing disability support
pension eligibility.
The current Tables however, represent an empirically agreed set of criteria for assessing the impact
of impairment on normal functions as they relate to work performance and this is termed work-related
impairment. They are scaled according to a point score system based around the minimum qualifying
threshold set at 20 points. Unlike other models based on whole person impairment, the Tables do not
measure exact percentage loss of function on a nil to 100% scale. (Refer also to Sections (F), (J).)
Although some of the descriptions of functional loss contained in the Tables would more
appropriately be described as “disabilities” within the generally accepted meaning defined by the
World Health Organisation, it was considered more accurate to describe the Tables as dealing
primarily with the assessment of impairment rather than measuring disability. It is recognised that the
terminology used in the Tables is not precise and at times, the term disability is used interchangeably
with impairment. In this context, it should be noted again that the intended purpose of the Tables is to
serve as an instrument of assessment for disability support pension purposes. (Refer also to
Sections (A), (E).)
(D)
SIGNIFICANCE OF 20 POINTS IMPAIRMENT LEVEL – (PARAGRAPH 1)
Reaching the minimum qualifying threshold of 20 points does not automatically mean that the
person is unable to work or that they qualify for disability support pension.
In most cases it is expected that a person’s work capacity should follow from and correlate
reasonably with their level of impairment. It should be recognised however, that if a person has been
rated under the Tables as having an impairment level of at least 20 points, it does not necessarily
follow that they are incapable of working. It does mean that their medical impairment(s) are severe
enough to cause significant difficulties in many work situations but depending on their individual
circumstances, coping mechanisms and reasonable adjustments, they may still be able to sustain
appropriate full-time employment. (Refer also to Sections (B), (C), (E).)
As an example, a person who has lost the use of their lower limbs (eg paraplegia) may be assessed
as having 20 points impairment under Table 4 (Function of the Lower Limbs) but may still retain the
capacity for sedentary type work. Another uncommon example is that of a young person who is
profoundly deaf from birth but has adapted and learned to communicate sufficiently with the aid of a
cochlear implant to enable employment. Such a person may still attract an impairment rating of 40
points under Table 12 (Hearing Function) as this table refers to unaided audiometric results. This is a
somewhat exceptional circumstance as in most cases, an impairment rating significantly more than
20 points would suggest that the person is unable to sustain full-time open employment. (Refer also
to Sections (F), (J), CHAPTER 5 – Table 4, CHAPTER 14 – Table 12.)
As demonstrating a continuing inability to work is the second medically-related criteria required for
disability support pension, it follows that reaching the minimum impairment threshold of 20 points
does not necessarily equate with eligibility for the disability support pension but merely indicates that
the first qualifying criteria has been satisfied. (Refer also to Sections (A), (E).)
(E)
MEDICAL BASIS TO IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 1, 4)
Ratings applied from the Tables should reflect the level of work-related impairment due to the
medical conditions and not due to non-medical factors.
The Tables are intended to assess work-related impairment due to a medical basis and do not
take into account the broader impact of functional impairment in a societal sense. For this reason, no
specific adjustments are made for age and gender. It is recognised that there may be many nonmedical factors (eg elderly age, gender, level of education, level of numeracy and literacy, level of
work skills and experience, social or domestic situation, English language fluency, employment

7

market factors, level of personal motivation unrelated to a medical condition and religious or cultural
factors) that contribute to why a person with a medical condition has difficulty working. Some of these
non-medical factors may also adversely impact on a person’s overall level of functional ability,
affecting their coping abilities or interfering with optimal treatment of their medical conditions. (Refer
also to Sections (C), (F), (K).)
However, under the existing disability support pension rules, the eligibility criteria are medically
based and limitations have been placed on the relevance of non-medical factors. (Refer also to
Sections (A), (D).) Accordingly, it is intended that in applying these Tables, the effects of such nonmedical factors must not be taken into account when assessing a person’s work-related impairment.
For example, a non-English speaking person who is fluent in another language and does not have a
medical condition affecting their communication or language competency should not receive a rating
under Table 9 (Communication Function) just because they have difficulties communicating in
English. (Refer also to CHAPTER 10 – Table 9.)
Work-related impairment of a medical nature may be attributed to physical, psychiatric and/or
intellectual conditions. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine the degree of medical
impairment in cases where contributory non-medical factors are considered relevant to the person’s
functional capacity. This is particularly so when the effects of the impairment are primarily subjective
in nature or when motivational factors are considered significant.
For example, a person who is poorly motivated for work may or may not have a medical basis to their
lack of motivation depending on whether it is an effect of an underlying medical condition such as a
significant depressive disorder. Invariably this requires medical judgement with appropriate
assessment and evaluation of the available medical evidence. (Refer also to Sections (I), (K).)
(F)
DESIGN OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 2, 3)
Most tables relate to a particular body system and are function-based rather than diagnosisbased.
The Tables consist of a number of system-based tables that contain specific sets of criteria
(descriptors) classified into levels of impairment relating to that body system. These allow ratings to
be assigned in proportion to the severity of the impact of medical impairments on functional work
capacity. The impairment descriptors refer to defined functions and are generally scaled to reflect
worsening levels of functional loss. In accordance with the underlying purpose of the Tables, the
descriptor in each table corresponding to the level of impairment where there is significant impact on
work ability (ie the minimum qualifying threshold) has been assigned a value of 20 points. (Refer also
to Sections (A), (C), (D), (J).) Some tables (eg Tables 20, 21) are not specific to a particular body
system and allow assessments of conditions that may cause multiple or global symptoms affecting
more than one body system. (Refer also to Section (I), 22 – Table 20, CHAPTER 23– Table 21.)
In general, the tables are function-based rather than diagnosis-based reflecting their intended
purpose of assessing work-related impairment. Ratings should only be assigned for diagnosed
medical conditions if there is an associated current functional loss or where prolonged loss of
function would be expected in most work situations. It is inappropriate to assign an impairment rating
on the sole basis that a diagnosis has been listed in the explanatory notes for a particular table or
mentioned in its descriptors. When assessing a particular medical condition, the assessor must have
a clear understanding of how to select the most appropriate and relevant impairment table or tables.
(Refer also to Sections (E), (G), (H), (L).)
(G)
APPROPRIATE SELECTION OF TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 2, 7, 9, 12)
The choice of which tables to use depends on determining what functional losses have
occurred. All relevant system-specific table(s) should be applied unless otherwise instructed.
When assessing a person’s level of work-related impairment, the selection of which tables to apply
depends on what functional losses have occurred as a result of their medical condition(s). The
approach should be to determine firstly which body systems have been affected and have a
functional loss due to the medical condition(s). All relevant system-specific tables appropriate to the

8

functional impairments should then be applied unless qualifying instructions in the Tables specify
otherwise. (Refer also to Sections (F), (I), (J).)
1. Multiple tables selected to assess a single medical condition:
A single medical condition may result in multiple functional impairments affecting different body
systems and may therefore be assigned ratings from more than one table. For example, a
person who has had a cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) may be assessed as having no
impairment rating or have impairment ratings from up to five different tables depending on what
permanent residual effects they suffer. (Paragraphs 9 and 12 of the “Introduction”.) If they have
recovered completely from their stroke and no longer experience any significant ongoing
impairment, then no rating is applicable regardless of what effects they suffered initially.
Alternatively, permanent functional loss may have occurred in any or all of the following body
systems as a result of the stroke. This would then require an assessment and rating to be
applied from each of the relevant tables:
• Table 3 – Upper Limb Function – if damage to the motor centre of the brain caused
weakness and loss of function in either arm (hemiparesis, hemiplegia).
• Table 4 – Function of the Lower Limbs – if damage to the motor centre of the brain caused
weakness and loss of function in either leg.
• Table 8 – Neurological Function – if damage to the cerebral cortex caused cognitive
impairment.
• Table 9 – Communication Function – if damage to the speech centre of the brain caused
receptive and/or expressive communication impairment (aphasia, dysphasia).
• Table 15 – Visual Fields – if damage to the visual centre of the brain caused loss of visual
fields.
The above example illustrates how one medical condition (diagnosis) can result in multiple
impairments being rated under different tables. Another example of a medical condition that may
cause multi-system effects is that of Diabetes Mellitus. As described in Paragraph 7 of the
“Introduction”, this diagnosis may also require multiple impairment ratings depending on how
long-term complications of the disease have affected the various body systems resulting in end
organ damage. If all functional impairments are not identified and rated accordingly, then the
overall work-related impairment due to the condition may be under-assessed. (Refer also to
Section (L).)
2. A single table selected to assess multiple medical conditions:
Conversely, two or more medical conditions may result in a common impairment and if this is the
case, then only one relevant table should be selected and a single rating assigned to reflect the
combined functional loss. It would be inappropriate to assign a separate impairment rating for
each medical condition as this would result in the same functional loss being assessed more
than once. Examples of how such possible over-assessments may occur are described below.
(Refer also to Sections (H), (L).)
(H)
DOUBLE COUNTING OF IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 12, 13)
Be wary of assessing a functional loss more than once. Rate the resulting functional
impairments and not the individual medical conditions / diagnoses.
As indicated above, inappropriate selection and/or application of the tables may result in double
assessment of the same functional impairment (double counting) and this should be avoided when
assessing work-related impairment. Double counting may occur in the following manner: (Refer also
to Sections (G), (L).)
1. The same functional loss is rated more than once using the same table:
As a general rule, it is expected that regardless of the number of conditions affecting a person,
only one rating may be applied from each system-specific table. There are some exceptions
however, (eg with Table 3) and this does not always apply to non-system-specific tables (eg
Tables 20 and 21). The instructions contained in the “Introduction” to the Tables and preceding
each individual table should be considered before an appropriate rating is assigned. The
following illustrates examples where a table may be inappropriately applied more than once

9

resulting in double counting of the same impairment. This situation is more likely to occur when
multiple medical conditions or diagnoses result in the same functional loss. (Refer also to
CHAPTER 4– Table 3, CHAPTER 22– Table 20, 23 – Table 21.)
•

Paragraph 13 of the ”Introduction” illustrates an example relating to cardiorespiratory
impairment with a person suffering from both heart disease and chronic lung disease. Each
condition may contribute to cause difficulties with breathing and reduce effort tolerance. The
overall loss of function however, is a common and combined effect of the two conditions
resulting in reduced exercise tolerance. Therefore, to avoid double counting, only one
impairment rating should be assigned using Table 1 (Loss of Cardiovascular and/or
Respiratory Function). (Refer also to CHAPTER 2 – Table 1.)

•

A person diagnosed with peripheral vascular disease suffers from calf pain on walking a
certain distance (intermittent claudication) and also suffers significant right knee symptoms
due to osteoarthritis. There is also permanent impairment from chronic ligamentous instability
affecting the left ankle. Although the person suffers from three distinct medical conditions
affecting both legs, it would be inappropriate to apply three separate impairment ratings as
the conditions all result in the same impairment (ie lower limbs functional loss). In this case,
only one rating from Table 4 (Function of the Lower Limbs) is appropriate. (Refer also to
CHAPTER 5 – Table 4.)

•

A person with a psychiatric impairment may have been described as suffering from
depression or anxiety. Alternatively, they may have been formally diagnosed with more
specific conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder. In general, regardless of the number of diagnoses or diagnostic labels used, the
combined functional loss due to their psychiatric conditions should be assessed and a single
rating assigned from Table 6 (Psychiatric Impairment) reflecting the overall psychiatric
impairment. (Refer also to CHAPTER 7 – Table 6.)

•

A person may have several conditions which are considered most appropriately assessed
under Table 20 (Miscellaneous). However, care must be taken not to overassess the level of
impairment when using this table, particularly if there is overlap in the symptoms attributed to
the conditions. For example, if the person has several diagnosed conditions which all
contribute to impairment from symptoms of chronic entrenched fatigue, it would be
inappropriate to assign a separate rating for each condition as this would result in
overassessment of the same functional impairment. Instead, a single rating should be
assigned to reflect the overall (highest) level of impairment due to the fatigue symptoms. In a
similar manner, if a person suffers from symptoms of chronic entrenched pain as well as
fatigue (eg with fibromyalgia), it would be practical to assign a single rating from this table,
reflecting the overall level of impairment due to both types of symptoms. This is discussed
further in Chapter 22. (Refer also to Section(I), CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)

2. The same functional loss is rated more than once using different tables:
Double counting can also occur when more than one table is being selected to assess a single
medical condition. Care must be taken to ensure that the different tables are being used to
assess separate functional losses and not the same functional impairment. The following
illustrates examples where more than one table may be inappropriately applied resulting in
double counting of the same impairment. This situation tends to occur when a single medical
condition is inappropriately assessed as having additional functional losses. It can also occur
when there is an “either-or” choice between tables under which a particular impairment may be
assessed but a rating is inappropriately assigned instead from both tables. (Refer also to Section
(I).)
•

Paragraph 7 of the “Introduction” provides the example of an isolated lumbar spinal condition
being rated inappropriately under more than one table. In most cases, the functional
impairment resulting from this type of condition will be adequately assessed under Table 5.2
(Thoraco-lumbar-sacral Spine) alone. The descriptors in this table take into account the
effects of back pain and referred leg pain on the ability to perform many physical activities
including weight-bearing functions. It is therefore inappropriate in the majority of cases, to
assign a further rating from Table 4 (Function of the Lower Limbs). An additional rating from

10

Table 4 should only be applied if there is a definite and permanent secondary neurological
deficit in the lower limb(s) that has resulted in significant functional impairment. There should
be objective evidence of functional loss in the lower limbs including clinically consistent signs
of significant muscle wasting, loss of power, abnormal reflexes and anatomically appropriate
sensory changes. In most cases, it is expected that such neurological deficits would have
been confirmed with neurosurgical review and appropriate investigations (such as MRI scan).
(Refer also to CHAPTER 5 – Table 4, CHAPTER 6 – Table 5.)
•

Paragraph 12 of the “Introduction” describes a further example where the presence of mental
confusion due to a cognitive impairment may suggest an additional impairment of
communication function. However, if the speech centre of the brain is undamaged, then it is
considered that the overall situation is due to a single impairment which should be rated
under Table 8 (Neurological Function). Double counting would result if an additional rating is
provided from Table 9 (Communication Function). (Refer also to CHAPTER 9 – Table 8,
CHAPTER 10 – Table 9.)

•

Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction” indicates that in certain circumstances, a medical condition
such as a spinal condition may be rated under Table 20 (Miscellaneous) instead of the
specific system-based table (ie Table 5 (Spinal Function) in this case). Double counting
would result however, if a rating is assigned from both the specific table, Table 5, and from
Table 20. Similarly, impairment from a respiratory condition may be rated under Table 2
(Loss of Respiratory Function) instead of Table 1 (Loss of Cardiovascular and/or
Respiratory Function) if a reliable effort tolerance level cannot be established. However,
double counting would occur if ratings are assigned from both tables. (Refer also to
CHAPTER 2 – Table 1, CHAPTER 3 – Table 2, CHAPTER 6 – Table 5, CHAPTER 22 –
Table 20.)

(I)
ASSESSING CHRONIC PAIN AND FATIGUE – (PARAGRAPH 8)
Table 20 may be used instead of the relevant system-specific tables to assess impairments
due to a significant degree of chronic entrenched pain or fatigue.
Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction” indicates that in general, pain and fatigue are assessed in terms of
the underlying medical condition that causes it. In assessing the functional loss related to specific
body systems, the descriptors of relevant system-based tables generally take into account the effects
of symptoms such as pain and fatigue. However, if it is considered that the rating assigned under the
system-specific table underestimates the level impairment due to effects of chronic entrenched
pain or fatigue, then Table 20 (Miscellaneous) may be used instead to assign an alternative rating.
It is emphasised again that to avoid double counting, only one rating should be assigned using either
the system-specific table or Table 20 and not both tables concurrently. (Refer also to Section (H),
CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)
1. Chronic Pain:
This situation commonly occurs with painful orthopaedic conditions such as those causing low
back pain. In many cases, the use of Table 20 will be considered when the degree of impairment
from pain appears to be in excess of what is usually expected for the underlying pathology and a
diagnosis of chronic pain disorder or chronic pain syndrome may be applicable. It may also
be appropriate to consider using Table 20 instead of individual specific tables if the symptoms of
chronic pain are generalised and widespread but somewhat variable in nature (eg some
rheumatological conditions or other multi-system conditions). (Refer also to Section(J),
CHAPTER 6 – Table 5, CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)
2. Chronic Fatigue:
Symptoms of chronic fatigue may be caused by many medical conditions and is usually
assessed under the specific system-based table associated with the causative medical condition.
For example, fatigue as a symptom associated with established chronic liver disease is rated
under Table 11.1 (Gastrointestinal: …Liver…) whereas fatigue and lethargy as a manifestation of
a psychiatric condition such as chronic depression would be rated under Table 6 (Psychiatric
Impairment). However, if the functional loss is predominantly due to the presence of chronic
entrenched fatigue, then the use of Table 20 may be appropriate. Diagnoses of exclusion such

11

as chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia where the specific cause is unknown and
therefore a specific table cannot be applied would also be rated under table 20. (Refer also to
Section (K), CHAPTER 7 – Table 6, CHAPTER 12 – Table 11.1, CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)
It is emphasised in Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction” that in choosing to apply a higher impairment
rating using Table 20 rather than a system-specific table, the medical assessor must be convinced
that pain or fatigue is a significant factor contributing towards the person’s overall functional
impairment. Clinical judgement is required to assess that the severity of the impairment is consistent
with the available medical evidence. It is recognised that this is often difficult to determine in view of
the subjective nature of the symptoms. It is expected that the person’s history, medical reports and
overall clinical presentation should consistently indicate the presence of chronic entrenched pain or
fatigue. (Refer also to Section (E).)
(J)
SCORING SYSTEM OF THE TABLES – (PARAGRAPHS 10, 11)
Impairment ratings should only be assigned in accordance with the instructions in the Tables
and are added together to provide a total work-related impairment.
The scaling system for the Tables is based on points allocation, grading the impact of functional
impairments on a person’s work ability. The points have significance only in relation to the minimum
qualifying threshold set at 20 points rather than being exact measures of percentage loss of function
of the whole person. (Refer also to Section (C).)
Ratings generally appear alongside the impairment descriptors in each table and represent the
number of points allocated for that level of impairment. It should be noted that ratings between tables
are not always comparable although the ratings have been allocated on the basis of likely impact of
an impairment on work ability. The grading of scale points between rating levels in each table does
not always occur in even increments as the proportionate impact on work-related impairment may
vary depending on the particular type of functional loss. As mentioned before, the descriptor in each
table corresponding to the level of impairment where there is significant impact on work ability has
been assigned a value of 20 points. (Refer also to Sections (D), (F).)
1. No idiosyncratic assessment systems are allowed:
• Ratings can only be assigned in accordance with the rating scores in each table.
• Ratings cannot be assigned in excess of the maximum rating specified by each table (eg if
the maximum rating in a table is 30 points, a rating greater than this figure cannot be
assigned).
• Ratings cannot be assigned between consecutive rating levels (eg if the table specifies rating
levels of only 10 or 20 points, an in-between rating of 15 points cannot be assigned).
2. Choice of ratings between tables:
If there is a choice between tables under which a particular impairment may be assessed, then
the general approach unless specified otherwise is to choose the table that enables a higher
rating to be assigned.
For example, if it is considered that a person has significant functional impairment from chronic
severe back pain but retains normal or only minor loss of range of spinal movement, then Table
20 (Miscellaneous) should be selected in preference to Table 5.2 (Spinal Function – Thoracolumbar-sacral Spine) to assign a rating that more appropriately reflects the overall level of
impairment. (Refer also to Sections (G), (H), (I), paragraph 8 of the “Introduction”, CHAPTER 6 –
Table 5, CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)
3. Choice of ratings within a particular table:
If an impairment level appears to fall between two rating levels described within a table, the
general approach is to choose the lower of the two ratings. The higher rating level should not be
assigned unless the entire impairment descriptor at that level has been fully satisfied.
For example, a person with a cervical spine condition may have some restriction of neck
movement such that there is loss of a little more than a quarter normal range of movement with
infrequent symptoms of neck pain. Using Table 5.1 (Spinal Function – Cervical Spine), a rating of

12

5 points should be assigned rather than 10 points as the full descriptor at the 10 points level has
not been fully met. This approach will help avoid the situation where the minimum qualifying
threshold is inappropriately met because of the cumulative assessments of minor impairments
that neither individually nor in combination have a significant effect on work capacity. (Refer also
to CHAPTER 6 – Table 5.)
4. Obtaining the total work-related impairment rating:
When more than one functional impairment is present, separate ratings are assigned from the
appropriate tables relevant to each functional loss and the values are added together to obtain
the total work-related impairment.
5. Significance of nil impairment rating:
It should be noted that a nil rating applied from a particular table does not necessarily indicate
that the person suffers no symptoms or effects from a condition but only that the degree of
functional loss experienced is not of sufficient severity to enable the next rating level to be
assigned.
Additionally, a nil total impairment rating does not necessarily indicate that a person is currently
fit for work as this only reflects the assessment of permanent impairment. The person may still be
disabled due to temporary impairments that prevents them from working. (Refer also to Section
(K).)
(K)
DETERMINING PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 4, 5, 6)
A rating can only be assigned if the impairment resulting from the condition is permanent
(lasting for more than two years). This means that the condition has been fully diagnosed,
treated and stabilised and it is unlikely there will be any significant functional improvement,
with or without reasonable treatment within the next two years.
Note: The concept of permanent vs temporary impairment appears to cause the most confusion in
the application of the Tables. Some of the difficulties may be related to perceived ambiguities
regarding the terminology used in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the “Introduction”. It is emphasised that
the definition of “permanent” as used in assessments for disability support pension purposes is not
the same as its generally accepted meaning in common usage (ie taken to last indefinitely) but is
rather taken to mean, “lasting for at least two years without significant functional improvement”.
Additionally, difficulties arise in applying this particular definition of “permanent” when describing a
“condition” as this is sometimes confused with the resulting “impairment” that the condition causes.
When the Tables refer to a condition, it is usually implied that it is the resulting impairment that is
being considered. As the Tables are function-based rather than diagnosis-based, they are designed
to assess separate impairments rather than conditions. It may therefore be less confusing if the term
“impairment” is substituted whenever “condition” is used in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the
“Introduction”. (Refer also to Section (L).) The criteria for permanence are qualified and explained in
greater detail in this section.
1. Permanence criteria = “fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised & won’t improve significantly
within the next two years”:
A permanent impairment rating can only be assigned if it is considered that the condition and its
resulting level of impairment will persist for at least two years. Further, it should be considered
unlikely that significant functional improvement will occur within that period. This requires that the
condition causing the impairment has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised. Impairments
that do not satisfy such criteria are by definition considered temporary and should not be rated
under the Tables.
Medical judgement is usually required to evaluate the available medical evidence and determine
if the permanence criteria have been satisfied. The question that needs to be answered generally
is whether anything (eg further time or therapeutic intervention) is likely to result in significant
functional improvement within the next two years. It is expected that this will usually require a
comprehensive history and examination.

13

In general, if a medical condition were of sufficient severity to prevent a person from working in
any capacity, it would be reasonable to expect that it has received optimal medical management.
This should include appropriate investigations and/or specialist review and treatment as
indicated. Impairments resulting from conditions that have not been fully diagnosed, treated and
stabilised, should not be assigned a permanent rating but should be considered temporary until
appropriate medical management and stabilisation has occurred. (Refer also to Section (J).)
2. Fully Diagnosed – impact on prognosis and stability:
Confirmation of a medical condition’s exact diagnosis is usually only an issue if the prognosis of
the condition’s impairment lasting for at least two years is likely to be affected depending on the
actual diagnostic cause.
For example, if a person is significantly impaired by symptoms of chronic fatigue, it is important
to identify the cause as the prognosis may change depending on what the diagnosis is. It would
be inappropriate to assign an impairment rating under Table 20 (Miscellaneous) for a person who
has been prematurely labelled with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome before appropriate investigations
and assessments have excluded other treatable diagnoses. If the person’s fatigue symptoms are
due to a treatable condition such as hypothyroidism or depression, then with appropriate
treatment, their level of impairment may potentially improve within the next two years and
therefore should not be considered permanent until fully treated and stabilised. (Refer also to
Section (I).)
In many cases, medical evaluation of the available evidence will indicate the likely prognosis of
the impairment and a presumptive working diagnosis may be sufficient. In cases where the level
of impairment and prognosis is unlikely to change, referral for investigations or specialist review
merely to confirm the diagnosis is unnecessary and inappropriate, as this will not change the
impairment assessment. However, for poorly defined conditions (particularly psychiatric or
intellectual disorders) where the nature or severity is unclear, referral for further investigations
and assessment would be warranted.
3. Fully Treated – impact of “reasonable treatment” on stability:
In determining the permanence of a person’s medical condition and its resulting impairment(s),
one must consider whether the person has received optimal medical management and all
reasonable treatment for the condition. This can be taken to include therapy (eg physiotherapy)
involving the primary and secondary stages of rehabilitation aimed at restoring mental or physical
functional stability but usually does not extend to tertiary rehabilitation involving specific
vocational programs. The stability of a condition and the permanence of its impairment may
depend on whether reasonable treatment has been undertaken.
In this context, reasonable treatment is taken to be:
• treatment that is feasible and accessible (ie available locally at a reasonable cost) – For
example, it would not be appropriate to expect that a person undergo prohibitively expensive
treatment, or treatment that is only available in another state or country in order to satisfy the
permanence criteria.
• treatment or procedure that is of a type regularly undertaken or performed – For example,
treatments that are experimental in nature or not yet widely accepted or performed by the
general medical community would not be considered reasonable. Treatment is taken to refer
to conventional western medical therapy and does not refer to alternative therapies.
• treatment that has a high success rate and where substantial improvement can be
reliably expected – It would be inappropriate to consider an impairment as being temporary
solely because the person has not undertaken a treatment that has a poor success rate or
that is likely to result in only marginal functional improvement.
• treatment that is of a low risk nature – A person may decide against undertaking a certain
treatment because it has serious associated risks (eg a major surgical procedure) or
unavoidable and significant side effects (eg chemotherapy) even though their treating
specialist has indicated that the treatment may have a good chance of a successful outcome.
The risk assessment of whether to proceed with a treatment should be a fully informed
decision that is medically appropriate.

14

It is assumed that a person will generally wish to pursue any reasonable treatment that will
improve or alleviate an impairment. However, if the person has decided against proceeding with
reasonable treatment that is likely to result in significant improvement, the impairment would not
be considered stabilised unless there is a medical or other compelling reason for not
undertaking treatment.
A permanent impairment rating is not assigned if compelling grounds do not exist but the
following should be documented: what reasonable treatment is feasible that will result in
significant improvement, the risks and side effects of the treatment, why the treatment is
considered medically reasonable and the person’s reasons for choosing not to undertake this
treatment. Some reasons that may be considered compelling grounds for not proceeding with
treatment are described below.
4. Fully Stabilised – no improvement over next two years:
For a condition’s impairment to be fully stabilised, it must be considered that with or without
treatment, significant functional improvement is unlikely to occur within the next two years.
Medical evaluation is required to assess the prognosis for further improvement within the next
two years and factors such as the natural history of the condition, response to treatment and
expected rate of recovery will need to be considered. It should be noted that “stability” as used in
this context has a more specific meaning than that in common usage. The following examples
illustrate further the restricted meaning of “fully stabilised”.
•

As indicated above, a medical condition and its resulting impairment is not considered fully
stabilised if available treatment that may result in significant improvement within the next two
years has not been undertaken. However, if the person has a medical or other compelling
reason for not proceeding with such treatment, then it may be reasonable to consider the
condition stabilised if no further improvement is expected. Such compelling reasons may
include:
− The treatment is not considered “reasonable” as defined above (eg high-risk procedure,
poor chance of significant improvement etc.)
− The person has religious or cultural beliefs prohibiting treatment (eg blood transfusions)
− The person lacks insight or the ability to make appropriate judgements due to their
medical condition and are unlikely to comply with treatment (eg a person with a severe
psychotic illness or dementia).
− The person has significant morbid fear of a treatment procedure (eg even minor
surgery).
If a person has not had reasonable treatment due to factors that are not of a compelling
nature, (eg lack of personal motivation that is not related to a medical basis), then their
condition and impairment would not be considered fully treated and stabilised. (Refer also to
Section (E).)

•

A condition which is fluctuating and has a variable course with intermittent episodes of
exacerbation (eg Bipolar Affective Disorder) may still be considered stable if it is being
optimally managed and its current overall impact on work ability is unlikely to improve
significantly within the next two years. However, an intermittent condition (eg epilepsy) would
not be considered fully stabilised if further medical management can significantly improve its
control and reduce the frequency of its episodes (eg by improving treatment compliance,
adjusting dosage or type of anti-convulsant medication to reduce side-effects or improve
therapeutic effect). (Refer also toCHAPTER 7 – Table 6, CHAPTER 23 – Table 21.)

•

A condition may not be stable in the usual sense of the word if the degree of functional
impairment is continuing to deteriorate but if the prognosis is poor and no significant
functional improvement is expected within the next two years, it may be considered stabilised
for the purpose of assigning an impairment rating. This may apply to a terminal illness for
which no further active treatment is indicated other than palliative care. However, in
situations where a person is undergoing or recovering from treatment for a malignant
condition (cancer), stability cannot be established nor a permanent rating assigned until the
prognosis and expected functional ability over the next two years can be reasonably

15

predicted. This often requires advice from the treating specialist in individual cases. (Refer
also to CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)
•

In some situations, even though significant improvement in functional ability and work
capacity will occur in time, a condition may be considered fully stabilised if such improvement
is unlikely to occur within the next two year period. This may occur with conditions’ whose
natural history suggest slow, gradual improvement or with very severe injuries where
recovery is expected to be quite prolonged. Another example is when significant
improvement takes longer than two years to occur because a treatment procedure has to be
delayed for some time. For example, a person may be advised by their treating orthopaedic
specialist that they require a total hip replacement which will significantly reduce their pain
symptoms and improve their level of mobility. However, in view of a long waiting list at the
relevant hospital, they are advised that the surgery will not occur for at least 18 - 24 months.
Taking into account the recovery and rehabilitation period that may be required after such a
major surgical procedure, it may be reasonable in this circumstance to consider their current
impairment stabilised. A permanent impairment rating can therefore be assigned and a
further review in two years may be appropriate to assess the level of residual function once
they have optimally recovered from definitive treatment.

(L)
CONDITION VS IMPAIRMENT – (PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13)
A single medical condition may result in multiple functional impairments and conversely,
multiple medical conditions may result in a single functional impairment. The Tables are
designed to be impairment (function)-based and not condition (diagnosis)-based. A condition
may last more than two years but the resulting impairment level may not last for a
corresponding period.
Although the definition of a “condition” vs an “impairment” is not explicitly addressed in the Tables,
clarification is being provided as confusion has arisen because these terms are often perceived as
being interchangeable. A medical condition refers to the disease or injury to which a medical
diagnostic label has been applied. However, for the purpose of using the Tables, an impairment may
be considered as the functional effects resulting from the condition, that is, how the changes
(symptoms and signs) caused by the condition affect a person’s ability to function.
This is the basis for understanding the design of the Tables, which are impairment (function)-based
rather than condition (diagnosis)-based. (Refer also to Section (F).) If the difference between a
condition and its resulting impairment(s) is not appreciated, then inappropriate selection of tables,
double counting of an impairment or inappropriate rating of temporary impairments are more likely to
occur. Inappropriate assessments may also result from assuming that individuals with the same
condition or diagnosis will have the same level of impairment.
1. Underassessment due to inappropriate selection of tables:
The number of conditions does not always correspond to the number of impairments.
Inappropriate selection of tables resulting in underassessment is likely to occur if it is not
understood that a single medical condition may result in multiple functional impairments. For
example, (as in Paragraph 7 of the “Introduction”) if Diabetes Mellitus has resulted in secondary,
end organ complications with multiple functional effects but is only rated as a single condition
under Table 19 (Endocrine Disorders), then the person’s level of impairment may be significantly
underassessed. (Refer also to Section, CHAPTER 21 – Table 19.)
2. Overassessment due to double counting of a single impairment:
Similarly, double counting of a single functional impairment may occur if it is not recognised that
multiple medical conditions may result in a common functional impairment. For example (as in
Paragraph 13 of the “Introduction”) if Table 1 (Loss of Cardiovascular and/or Respiratory
Function) is used twice to rate heart disease and lung disease as separate conditions, then
double counting of a single functional impairment (reduced cardiorespiratory effort tolerance)
would occur. (Refer also to Section (H),CHAPTER 2 – Table 1.)

16

3. Inappropriate rating of temporary impairments:
Inappropriate rating of temporary impairments may occur if it is not recognised that a functional
impairment may not persist for the same period of time as the condition that causes it. A medical
condition may last indefinitely and be considered permanent in the common meaning of the word
but the resulting level of impairment may fluctuate, improve or even cease within the next two
years depending on multiple factors (eg natural history of the condition, response to treatment,
improvement in the person’s coping ability and adaptive function). The impairment may therefore
be considered temporary for the purpose of assigning an impairment rating even though it is
caused by a “permanent” condition.
For example, a person may have been diagnosed with osteoarthritis or degenerative joint
disease of the knee. The condition is considered permanent in the general sense of the word and
is likely to deteriorate with age as evidenced by radiological changes. It will certainly persist for at
least two years. However, its corresponding level of impairment, may not necessarily be
considered “permanent” for assessment purposes as this depends on how the person’s level of
function improves within the next two years. (It should also be noted that radiological findings do
not always correlate well with the degree of functional ability.)
If, at the time of assessment, the person has evidence of early degenerative joint disease with
symptoms of knee pain but has not received any significant treatment, the resulting level of
impairment may be considered temporary if it has not yet been optimally managed. It may be
considered that with adequate treatment, (eg appropriate use of anti-inflammatory medication,
physiotherapy, exercises), they are likely to experience significant improvement in their pain
symptoms and overall level of function. Alternatively, a person with severe osteoarthritis in the
knee may undergo joint replacement surgery within the two years which could also result in
significant improvement of their level of mobility and overall function.
It is therefore possible for a condition that is considered permanent in the general sense of the
word to have a lower impairment rating or even a temporary impairment assigned on review
some years later. (Refer also to Section (K).)
4. Inappropriate assessment based on diagnoses:
Inappropriate ratings may result from assuming that individuals with the same conditions /
diagnoses will have the same level of impairment. For example, two individuals with the same
condition, “below knee amputation of the left leg” may not necessarily be assigned the same
impairment ratings under Table 4 (Function of the Lower Limbs) even though they may share the
same diagnosis. This reflects assessment of their functional ability rather than their anatomical
loss. Another example referring to the effect of an amputation on upper limb function is described
in Chapter 4. (Refer also to Sections (C), (F), CHAPTER 4 – Table 3, CHAPTER 5 – Table 4.)

INTRODUCTION
1. These Tables are designed to assess whether persons whose qualification or otherwise for disability
support pension is being considered meet an empirically agreed threshold in relation to the effect of their
impairments, if any, on their ability to work. Work is defined in section 94(5) of the Social Security Act 1991.
The Tables represent an empirically agreed set of criteria for assessing the severity of functional limitations for
work related tasks and do not take into account the broader impact of a functional impairment in a societal
sense. For this reason, no specific adjustments are made for age and gender. The outcome of the application of
these Tables following a medical assessment is termed work-related impairment and this term is used
throughout this document.
2. These Tables are designed to assess impairment in relation to work and consist of system based tables that
assign ratings in proportion to the severity of the impact of the medical conditions on normal function as they
relate to work performance. These Tables are function based rather than diagnosis based. The Medical Officer
should not approach the Tables hoping to find various conditions listed for which he or she can read off a
rating. One of the skills which needs to be developed in order to assess impairment in this context is the ability
to select the appropriate tables. The question which must be asked in each and every case is "which body
systems have a functional impairment due to this condition?"

17

3. These Tables give particular emphasis to the loss of functional capacity that a person experiences in
relation to work. This is measured by reference to an individual's efficiency in performing a set of defined
functions in comparison with a fully able person. In using these tables ratings can only be assigned for
conditions where there is an associated current loss of function or where prolonged loss of function would be
expected in most work situations.
4. A rating is only to be assigned after a comprehensive history and examination. For a rating to be assigned
the condition must be a fully documented, diagnosed condition which has been investigated, treated and
stabilised. The first step is thus to establish a working diagnosis based on the best available evidence.
Arrangements should be made for investigation of poorly defined conditions before considering assigning an
impairment rating. In particular where the nature or severity of a psychiatric (or intellectual) disorder is unclear
appropriate investigation should be arranged.
5. The condition must be considered to be permanent. Once a condition has been diagnosed, treated and
stabilised, it is accepted as being permanent if in the light of available evidence it is more likely than not that it
will persist for the foreseeable future. This will be taken as lasting for more than two years. A condition may
be considered fully stabilised if it is unlikely that there will be any significant functional improvement, with or
without reasonable treatment, within the next 2 years.
6.

In order to assess whether a condition is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, one must consider:

•

what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred;

•

whether treatment is still continuing or is planned in the near future;

•

whether any further reasonable medical treatment is likely to lead to significant functional improvement
within the next 2 years.

In this context, reasonable treatment is taken to be:
•

treatment that is feasible and accessible ie, available locally at a reasonable cost;

•

where a substantial improvement can reliably be expected and where the treatment or procedure is of a
type regularly undertaken or performed, with a high success rate and low risk to the patient.

It is assumed that a person will generally wish to pursue any reasonable treatment that will improve or alleviate
an impairment, unless that treatment has associated risks or side effects which are unacceptable to the person.
In those cases where significant functional improvement is not expected or where there is a medical or other
compelling reason for a person not undertaking further treatment, it may be reasonable to consider the
condition stabilised.
In exceptional circumstances, where a condition was considered not stabilised and a permanent impairment
rating not assigned because reasonable treatment for a specific condition has not been undertaken, the medical
officer should:
•

evaluate and document the probable outcome of treatment and the main risks and or side effects of the
treatment; and

•

indicate why this treatment is reasonable; and

•

note the reasons why the person has chosen not to have treatment.

7. A single medical condition should be assessed on all relevant Tables when that medical condition is
causing a separate loss of function in more than one body system. For example, Diabetes Mellitus may need to
be assessed using the endocrine (19), exercise tolerance (1), lower limb function (4), renal function (17), skin
disorders (18) and visual acuity (13) tables. When using more than one Table for a single medical condition
the possibility of double assessment of a single loss of function must be guarded against. For example, it is

18

inappropriate to assess an isolated spinal condition under both the spine table (5) and the lower limb table (4)
unless there is a definite secondary neurological deficit in a lower limb or limbs.
8. In general, pain or fatigue should be assessed in terms of the underlying medical condition which causes
it. For example, Table 5 should be used for spinal pathology. However, where the medical officer is of the
opinion that the Tables underestimate the level of disability because of the presence of chronic entrenched pain,
Table 20 can be used to assign a rating instead of the Table(s) that otherwise would be used to assess the loss
of function to which the pain relates. Medical officers must use their clinical judgement and be convinced that
pain or fatigue is a significant factor contributing towards the person's overall functional impairment. Medical
reports and the person's history should consistently indicate the presence of chronic entrenched pain or fatigue.
9. Always use a Table specific to the functional impairment being rated unless the instructions in a section
specify otherwise. The system-specific Tables provide appropriate criteria with which to rate a disorder. The
procedure is to identify the loss of function, refer to the appropriate system Table and identify the correct rating
eg. a person with a CVA (stroke) could be assessed under five different Tables: upper and lower limbs (3 and
4), neurological (8 and 9) and visual field disorders (15). Table selection would depend on the functions
affected.
10. Ratings can only be assigned in accordance with the rating scores in each Table. Ratings cannot be
assigned between consecutive ratings (eg. a rating of fifteen cannot be assigned between ten and twenty). Nor
can ratings be assigned in excess of the maximum rating specified by each Table (eg. if the maximum rating for
a Table is 30, the medical officer cannot assign a greater rating than this figure). Ratings must be consistent
with these Tables. No idiosyncratic assessment systems are allowed.
11. The scaling system for the Tables is based on points allocation with the number alongside each
impairment descriptor representing the number of points to be allocated for that impairment. Ratings between
Tables are not always comparable although the ratings have been allocated on the basis of the likely impact of
an impairment on work ability. Where more than one impairment is present, separate scores are allotted for
each and the values are added together giving a combined work-related impairment rating.
12. A medical condition such as Vascular disease (Stroke) may cause brain damage to different parts of the
brain eg. damage to the cortex causing cognitive/comprehension impairments, damage to the speech centre
causing aphasia (receptive or expressive communication impairments) and damage to the motor centre causing
hemiparesis. Each separate or additional loss of function must be assessed under the relevant Table(s), in this
case Tables 8, 9, 3 and 4. This is not double counting (also see para 7). Double counting is where one
functional loss is counted twice. For instance, where a condition causes a cognitive impairment, the presence
of mental confusion may suggest an extra communication impairment. However, if the speech centre of the
brain is undamaged, the overall situation is regarded as a single impairment.
13. These Tables have been scaled so that where two conditions cause a common or a combined functional
loss, a single rating should be assigned for both conditions and this should reflect the combined loss of function
from each of the two conditions. For example, the presence of both heart disease and chronic lung disease may
each cause difficulty with breathing and reduced effort tolerance. The overall loss of function is a combined or
common effect with a contribution from each condition. In this case a single impairment rating is assigned
based on overall reduction in effort tolerance using Table 1.

19

CHAPTER 2:
GUIDE TO TABLE 1. – LOSS OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND/OR
RESPIRATORY FUNCTION: EXERCISE TOLERANCE
Table 1 is used to assess cardiorespiratory impairment resulting from conditions affecting the heart
(cardiovascular function) or lungs (respiratory function). This impairment is measured by reference to
exercise (or effort) tolerance which is quantified in terms of METs. One MET is defined as the
energy expenditure at rest which is associated with the average oxygen consumption of 3.5 mL O2/kg
of body weight/min.
The level of effort tolerance is assessed using Table 1.2 by determining the lowest level of activity
(measured in METs) at which restriction occurs as a result of symptoms that are due to cardiac or
respiratory conditions. An impairment rating is then assigned from Table 1 depending on this
symptomatic activity level but only one rating may be applied regardless of the number of cardiac
or respiratory conditions contributing to the restriction. (Refer also to Sections (H), (L)– Chapter 1,
Paragraph 13 of the “Introduction”.)
Exercise/Effort Tolerance:
Effort tolerance is related to a person’s capacity to exercise from a cardiorespiratory point of view
only and should not refer to overall exercise ability which may be restricted by other conditions.
Reduced effort tolerance as a consequence of cardiorespiratory conditions is usually associated with
symptoms such as angina (cardiac chest pain), dyspnoea (shortness of breath) or fatigue. An
appropriate rating for reduced exercise ability cannot always be assigned from this table if the
restriction is not due to cardiac or respiratory pathology (eg if mobility and limb function is restricted
by musculoskeletal or neurological conditions, morbid obesity without cardiorespiratory
complications, non-pathological reasons such as lack of fitness or deconditioning.)
Symptomatic Activity Level (Restrictive METs Level):
The symptomatic activity level is determined with reference to Table 1.2 – Metabolic cost of activities.
It is the lowest METs level at which the majority of activities within the one category consistently give
rise to cardiorespiratory symptoms that restrict the person from persisting with such activities. It is
expected that a person should be unable to perform the activities listed at higher METs levels than
their assessed restrictive METs level but that they remain capable of the activities listed at lower
METs levels. In determining this level, less reliance is place on sporadic activities which can be
completed in less than a few minutes (eg playing one hole of golf) as it may take longer than this for
symptoms to occur. Greater reliance is placed on activities that involve a steady expenditure of
energy.
Although the instructions do not specifically indicate the length of time that each activity is performed
when determining if symptoms occur, it is taken that they are performed for “more than a few
minutes” but perhaps not for excessively prolonged periods. An example of 10 minutes has been
provided for the activity of “walking steadily.” The instructions also do not specify any qualifications
regarding the particular manner in which listed activities are performed even though this could affect
their METs classification in circumstances. It is taken however, that activities described are
performed in what would generally be considered to be the “usual” manner. Hence the activity of
“driving a car” does not refer to situations such as racing cars for sport or engaging in a demolition
derby but rather to personal driving in the manner encountered for usual day to day purposes.
Some of the activities listed in Table 1.2 refer to occupational activities (eg “clerical work…” at 2-3
METs level). It should not be assumed however, that if restrictive symptoms do not occur after
performing the described work activity for a reasonable period of time (eg 10 minutes), the person is
therefore capable of performing such work on a full-time basis. In some cases, the overall impairment
resulting from a cardiac/respiratory condition may still be sufficient to prevent the person from
sustaining such work over a full day or on a long-term term basis. Hence it is not necessarily
inconsistent for a person with a cardiorespiratory restrictive level determined at 3-4 METs to be

20

considered unfit for full-time employment as a clerk even though this work activity is listed at a lower
METs level.
Determining a reliable level of effort tolerance impairment:
Clinical judgement is required in assessing a reliable restrictive activity level that is consistent with
the person’s known cardiorespiratory pathology. This should be based on the available medical
evidence including the person’s medical history, investigation results and clinical findings. In
determining a restrictive symptomatic level, care should be taken to distinguish between activities
that the person does not do as opposed to activities that they are actually restricted from performing
because of their cardiorespiratory condition. Exercise restrictions that are due to noncardiorespiratory reasons should not be considered and this must be taken into account when
determining if a valid impairment rating can be applied (see above).
Sometimes, a reliable exercise tolerance history is difficult to obtain despite discussions with the
treating doctor. Significant inconsistencies may be apparent such as symptoms being inconsistently
reported across varying activity levels or a reported level of function that does not correlate in
severity with the known medical history, investigations results or clinical findings. In most cases, an
appropriate and consistent restrictive level can be determined based on clinical judgement but for
cases where this is not possible, the results of an Exercise ECG (stress test) or Respiratory Function
Test may be obtained. Because of the higher level of objectivity, the results of exercise tests if
available, are usually used in preference to assessments based on subjective self-reported
symptoms.
If the impairment is due to a respiratory condition and a reliable lung function test result is available,
then an assessment under Table 2 instead of Table 1 may be considered for situations where a valid
level of effort tolerance is difficult to assess. (Refer also to CHAPTER 3 – Table 2.)
Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Ischaemic heart disease or coronary artery disease with exercise induced angina. Cardiac disease
which has resulted in chronic cardiac failure such as severe cardiomyopathy or some cardiac
valvular conditions. Cardiac arrhythmias that result in exercise induced restrictive symptoms. Chronic
obstructive airways disease or chronic airways limitation (COAD/CAL), restrictive lung disorders,
exercise induced asthma.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Cardiac or respiratory conditions that are asymptomatic and/or do not decrease effort tolerance (eg
minor cardiac valvular lesions or pleural plaques) should not receive an impairment rating under this
table. Hypertension should be rated under Table 20 and not Table 1 unless it has resulted in
hypertensive heart failure causing restrictive symptoms. Peripheral vascular disease is usually rated
under Table 4. Varicose veins may be rated under Table 4 or Table 18 depending on its effects.
Asthma and cardiac arrhythmias that are not exercise induced but episodic or intermittent in nature
should be rated under Table 21. (Refer also to CHAPTER 5 – Table 4, CHAPTER 22 – Table 20,
CHAPTER 23 – Table 21.)
Restriction of physical activity due to musculoskeletal (eg severe arthritis, spinal problems) or
neurological (eg paresis or paralysis) conditions should generally be rated under the relevant systemspecific tables (usually Table 3, 4, 5) depending on the functional loss. Similarly, symptoms of fatigue
that are not associated with a cardiorespiratory cause should be rated under the relevant table
depending on their underlying cause. Non-pathological causes such as lack of fitness or excessive
weight that is not associated with cardiorespiratory pathology should not be assessed as medical
impairments under this table.
Example of Cardiorespiratory Impairment Assessment using Table 1:
A 58 year-old man diagnosed with chronic obstructive airways disease and angina has had to cease
work as a manual labourer on his specialist physician’s advice because he was becoming too short
of breath performing work activities requiring heavy lifting and loading. He has moved from a third
floor unit into a low set house because he was finding it too difficult to carry his groceries up three
flights of stairs. He is still able to climb such stairs without stopping to rest if not carrying loads but he
describes being “somewhat puffed” by the time he reaches the top.

21

He now lives alone and does not experience major difficulties with performing activities of daily living
and most daily household chores. He is able to mow his small flat lawn at a slow steady pace. He still
enjoys gardening but finds that he becomes short of breath if he does too much digging.
His angina is well controlled on medication and he does not have any regular symptoms of chest
pain now as he no longer performs the heavy manual work activities that used to precipitate them.
Medical examination and assessment has determined that his conditions have been fully diagnosed,
optimally treated and stabilised and that his cardiorespiratory impairment is unlikely to improve
significantly within the next two years. His reported exercise tolerance level is also considered to be
medically consistent with his known cardiorespiratory pathology. His cardiorespiratory impairment is
therefore considered permanent and a reliable symptomatic activity level can be determined to
assign a valid rating from Table 1.
Using Table 1.2, his symptomatic activity level is assessed at the 5-6 METs level as he is restricted
by symptoms of shortness of breath related to his respiratory condition at this level. He is restricted
from activities at a higher level but is still able to perform activities at a lower level without significant
symptoms.
Using Table 1 – Assignment of rating, his symptomatic activity level at 5-6 METs corresponds to a
rating of 15 points. His total cardiorespiratory impairment from his conditions of chronic obstructive
airways disease and angina is therefore assessed at 15 impairment points for their combined effect
on reduced effort tolerance.
TABLE 1.
LOSS OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND/OR RESPIRATORY FUNCTION: EXERCISE
TOLERANCE
Cardiovascular and Respiratory function is measured by reference to exercise tolerance. A rating is obtained
from Table 1 by determining the lowest MET band which causes restriction in activity from a cardiac or
respiratory condition. 1 MET is defined as average oxygen consumption at rest which is 3.5mL O2/kg/min.
The clinical judgement of medical officers based on history and examination is to be used but in cases where a
reliable history is difficult to obtain despite discussions with the treating doctor or the history of exercise
tolerance is inconsistent with clinical findings on examination, the results of an Exercise ECG or Respiratory
Function Test may be obtained.
The appropriate MET level is calculated using the lists in Table 1.2.
Peripheral Vascular Disease is assessed under the lower limb Table 4. Varicose veins are assessed under either
the Lower Limb or Skin Table. Hypertension is assessed under Table 20. Where exercise intolerance is caused
by a combination of cardiac and respiratory conditions, Table 1 is to be used and used only once. Episodic
conditions such as cardiac arrhythmias and episodic asthma should be assessed under Table 21 unless they are
exercise induced.
Assignment of rating
Rating

Symptomatic Activity Level (METs)

NIL

7-8 or higher

FIVE

6-7

FIFTEEN

5-6

TWENTY

4-5

THIRTY

3-4

FORTY

2-3 or less

22

TABLE 1.2

Metabolic cost of activities

INSTRUCTIONS
Listed below is a more comprehensive set of activities, with their corresponding MET level. One MET
represents the energy level expenditure associated with the consumption of 3.5ml O2/kg body weight/minute.
Please use this list to assist you in determining an appropriate symptomatic MET level for the claimant.
In determining the symptomatic activity level, greater reliance is placed on activities which involve a steady
expenditure of energy (eg. walking steadily for 10 minutes) as opposed to a sporadic expenditure of energy (eg.
playing one hole of golf). The former activities are more reliable indicators of exercise tolerance. Less
reliance is placed on activities which can be completed in less than a few minutes, as symptoms may take
longer than this to occur.
Metabolic Cost of Activities
1-2 METs Energy expended at rest or minimal activity
Lying down
sitting and drinking tea
sitting down
sitting and talking on telephone
strolling (slowly)
standing
sitting and knitting

using sewing machine (electric)
travelling in a car as passenger
typing

2-3 METs Energy expended to dress, wash and perform light household duties
Walking 3.5km/hr (slowly)
playing piano/violin/organ
clerical work which involves
moving around
setting table
playing billiards
washing dishes
driving power boat
bench assembly work (sitting)
dressing
light sweeping
using self-propelled mower
light tidying, dusting
horseback riding at walk
polishing silver
driving a car
lawn bowls
making bed
cooking, preparing meals
3-4 METs Energy required for walking at average pace
Walking 5km/hr (average
vacuuming
walking pace)
sedate cycling (10km/hr)
shifting chairs
light gardening (weed/water)
hanging out washing
playing golf (with power buggy)
tidying house (includes
welding
carrying heavy objects)

machine assembly
minor car repairs
light carpentry (chiselling,
hammering, sawing and
planing with hand tools)

4-5 METs Moderate activities: encompasses more active daily activities with the exclusion of manual labour
and vigorous exercise
Mopping floors
gentle swimming
stocking shelves with light
objects
golf (pulling buggy, carrying bag) ballroom dancing
beating carpets
stacking firewood
painting outside of house
polishing furniture
cleaning windows
wallpapering
hoeing (soft soil)
pushing light power mower over
walking 6.5km/hr (sustained
flat suburban lawn at slow,
brisk walk, discomfort
showering
steady
pace
talking
at the same time)
cleaning car (excludes vigorous
polishing)
5-6 METs Heavy exercise: manual labour or vigorous sports
Shovelling dirt (12 throws/min.)
digging in garden
tennis doubles (social
scrubbing floors
non-competitive)

23

walking slowly but steadily up stairs
pushing a full wheelbarrow (20kg)

6-7 METs
loading truck with bricks

pace walking

carrying load upstairs (10kg)

7-8 METs Very heavy exercise
Jogging (8km/hr)
tennis (singles, non-competitive)

sawing hardwood with hand tools
swimming laps (non-competitive)

using pick & shovel to dig
trenches

8-9 METs
Running (9km/hr)

chopping hardwood

10 METs
Running quickly (10km/hr)

cycling quickly (25km/hr)

24

carrying loads (10kg) up a gradient

CHAPTER 3:
GUIDE TO TABLE 2. – LOSS OF RESPIRATORY FUNCTION:
PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS
Table 2 is used to assess respiratory loss of function by reference to physiological measurements.
In the majority of cases, respiratory impairment is assessed by reference to the impact on exercise
tolerance and therefore, Table 1 is used to assign a rating. However, if a reliable and consistent level
of exercise tolerance is difficult to determine, it may be considered more appropriate to assess the
respiratory loss of function by using physiological measurements and Table 2 is used for this
purpose. (Refer also to CHAPTER 2 – Table 1.)
Physiological loss of lung function is assessed by measuring the FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in
one second) and the FVC (Forced Vital Capacity). The measured FEV1 and FVC values are
compared to predicted values obtained from the predictive nomograms in Tables 2.2/2.3 and the
ratios are then expressed as percentages. An impairment rating is then determined from this %
predicted FEV1 or FVC but only one rating should be assigned from Table 2 regardless of whether
the FEV1 or FVC value is selected as being more appropriate. An additional rating should not be
assigned from Table 1 as well as this will result in double counting of the same functional impairment.
(Refer also to Section (H) – Chapter 1.)
Determining a reliable measurement of physiological function:
Measurements of FEV1 and FVC should be performed with a vitalograph or equivalent instrument
without the need for specific administration of a bronchodilator (“puffer” medication). The results
obtained must be considered consistent and reliable so as to reflect optimal effort and provide a
reasonably valid measure of lung function. Ideally, three readings should be taken and the best set of
results (ie that indicating the greatest degree of health and the lowest level of impairment) selected to
calculate a rating. Where available, results reported by a respiratory physician with lung function
tests from a respiratory laboratory should be used in preference as these are likely to provide the
greatest level of accuracy and reliability.
Testing pre- and post-bronchodilatation is unnecessary as this table is intended to assess only
irreversible lung disease that should not respond to bronchodilator medication. Use of
bronchodilatory medication is only beneficial to respiratory conditions with a reversible component
(such as asthma) and these are usually not assessed under this table unless they are of such
severity as to have resulted in persistent and irreversible airways limitation. In deciding whether to
use the FEV1 or FVC values for assigning a rating, it should be considered that the FEV1 is usually
selectively reduced in Chronic Airflow Limitation and the FVC in Restrictive Lung Disorders. The
FEV1 should therefore be used in preference to the FVC where there is a discrepancy between the
two in Chronic Airflow Limitation.
Calculating % Predicted FEV1 or FVC:
1. Obtain the measured FEV1 and FVC values as above.
2. Determine the predicted FEV1 and FVC values for the person depending on their gender, age
and height by applying the nomograms in Table 2.2 (for males) or Table 2.3 (for females).
This is done by ruling a straight line joining the appropriate point on the height column (in cm)
to the corresponding point on the age column (in years). Where this line intersects the FEV1
and FVC columns are the predicted values for FEV1 and FVC.
3. Calculate the ratios of the measured FEV1 and FVC values from 1. against the corresponding
predicted FEV1 and FVC values from 2. as percentages.
(% predicted value = (actual measured value x 100) / predicted value)
4. Select the most appropriate % predicted value (either FEV1 or FVC) and assign a
corresponding rating from Table 2 – Assignment of a rating.
Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Irreversible lung disease such as chronic obstructive airways disease or chronic airflow limitation
(COAD/CAL) and restrictive lung disorders.

25

Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Lung disease with a reversible component (such as asthma) should not be assessed under this table
unless it has resulted in severe and persistent airflow limitation. Episodic asthma is usually rated
using Table 21 for the intermittent impairment unless it is exercise induced in which case, Table 1
may be more appropriate. Cardiac conditions and other non-respiratory conditions that may result in
feelings of breathlessness should not be assessed under this table. (Refer also to CHAPTER 2 –
Table 1, CHAPTER 23 – Table 21.)
Example of Respiratory Impairment Assessment using Table 2:
A 50 year-old man diagnosed with mild chronic obstructive airways disease describes leading a very
sedentary lifestyle and does not perform many physical activities. He describes inconsistent
symptoms of shortness of breath at low levels of exertion such as walking at an average pace but
also performs higher level activities including mowing his own lawn. It is suspected that he probably
remains capable of sustaining activities at higher levels of exertion even though he does not
undertake them. A reliable level of effort tolerance consistent with his expected level of respiratory
pathology is difficult to establish and it is considered appropriate to assess his impairment by
referring to physiological measurements using Table 2.
From Table 2.2, for his age of 50 years old and his height of 170 cm, his predicted FEV1 is
determined as 3.4 and his predicted FVC as 4.3. A recent review by a respiratory physician has
established that his condition is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and reliable spirometry results
indicate that his measured FEV1 is 2.9 and his measured FVC is 4.1.
His % predicted FEV1 is calculated as (2.9 x 100) / 3.4 = 85.3%.
His % predicted FVC is calculated as (4.1 x 100) / 4.3 = 95.3%.
As he has chronic airflow limitation, the FEV1 value is used in preference to the FVC.
Using Table 2 – Assignment of a rating, his % predicted FEV1 of 85.3% corresponds to a rating of nil
points. His respiratory impairment from the condition of chronic obstructive airways disease is
therefore assessed at nil impairment points based on physiological measurements of lung function.

26

TABLE 2.

LOSS OF RESPIRATORY FUNCTION: PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS

Respiratory function is measured by reference to exercise tolerance in the majority of cases and so Table 1 is
used. Spirometry can be used where the medical officer feels it is more appropriate for example, where a
history of exercise tolerance is difficult to obtain and assess or the history of exercise tolerance is inconsistent
with clinical findings on examination. A rating is then obtained using Table 2.
Predictive nomograms for the forced expiratory volume over one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity
(FVC) are at Tables 2.2 and 2.3.
Measurements of Forced Expiratory Volume in one second and Forced Vital Capacity should be performed
with a vitalograph or equivalent instrument. Ideally, three readings should be taken and the best of these used
to calculate a rating. Calculate the ratio of FEV1 and FVC against the predicted figures as a percent. Testing
pre- and post-bronchodilatation is unnecessary as the aim of assessment under this Table is to assess people in
their "normal" state. Furthermore, this Table is only to be used for people with irreversible lung disease. The
FEV1 is usually selectively reduced in Chronic Airflow Limitation and the FVC in Restrictive Lung Disorders.
The FEV1 should be used in preference to the FVC where there is a discrepancy between the two in Chronic
Airflow Limitation.
Assignment of a rating
Rating

% Predicted FEV1 or FVC

NIL

80+

TEN

75-79

FIFTEEN

70-74

TWENTY

65-69

TWENTY-FIVE

60-64

THIRTY

50-59

FORTY

49 or less

27

TABLE 2.2

Prediction nomogram - males

NOTES:

From Kamburoff, Petia L., and Woitowitz, H.J. & R.H. (1972)

Height
(cm)

FVC
(litre)

FEV1
(litre)

Age
(years)

190

20

6

5
30

180

5
4
40

170

4
3
50

160

3
2

150

60

2
70

140

28

TABLE 2.3

Prediction nomogram - females

NOTES:

From Kamburoff, Petia L., and Woitowitz, H.J. & R.H. (1972)

Height
(cm)

FVC
(litre)

FEV1
(litre)

Age
(years)
20

180

4
170

30
3

160

40
3

150

140

50

2

2

60

70

29

CHAPTER 4:
GUIDE TO TABLE 3. – UPPER LIMB FUNCTION
Table 3 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of upper limb function. Each arm is
assessed separately and therefore more than one rating may be assigned from this table if both
arms are impaired. Hence, for bilateral conditions where both upper limbs are affected, a separate
rating is applied for each arm and the two ratings are added to provide the total upper limb
impairment rating. If only one arm is impaired, then only one rating is applied from this table. (Refer
also to Section (H) – Chapter 1.)

Determining a reliable level of upper limb impairment:
Determination of the level of upper limb impairment must be based on a demonstrable loss of
function. This means that there must be clinical evidence of functional impairment that is consistent
with the reported level of functional loss. Clinical observations and findings on examination (such as
muscle bulk or wasting, power, grip strength, tone, reflexes, sensory changes, coordination, range of
joint movements, dexterity, presence of calluses etc.) should be correlated with the diagnosed
medical pathology, functional history and reported symptom level. It would be inappropriate to apply
a high impairment rating based solely on a person’s self-reported functional history if this level of
functional loss is not consistent with the clinically demonstrable evidence.
Upper limb impairment attributed to cervical spine pathology should only be rated under this table if
there is a definite and permanent secondary neurological deficit in the upper limb that has resulted in
significant functional impairment. There should be objective evidence of functional loss including
clinically consistent signs (eg significant muscle wasting, loss of power, abnormal reflexes and
anatomically appropriate sensory changes). In most cases, it is expected that such neurological
deficits would have been confirmed with neurosurgical review and appropriate investigations (such
as MRI scans). (Refer also to Section (H) – Chapter 1, CHAPTER 6 – Table 5.)
The descriptors in Table 3 are broadly separated into four levels of severity. The first three levels
refer to “Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation
of upper limb which causes … interference with hand function or manual handling”. These are
categorised depending on whether there is “mild”, “moderate” or “significant” “interference…” The
fourth and most severe level of impairment refers to being “Unable to use … upper limb at all.” The
last three levels are further categorised depending on whether it is the dominant or non-dominant
limb affected as impairment of the dominant limb attracts an additional five points.
In terms of benchmarking the qualitative descriptors of “mild”, “moderate” or “significant” impairment,
it should be remembered that in accordance with the underlying purpose of the Tables, the
descriptors at 20 points correspond to the level of impairment where there is a significant impact on
work ability. (Refer also to Sections (A), (C), (D), (F), (J) – Chapter 1.) Hence, on comparing the two
descriptor alternatives at this level, it can be seen that for the functional loss in the “dominant” upper
limb to be considered “significant”, it must be of equivalent severity to being “unable to use” the “nondominant” upper limb at all (eg amputation at the shoulder).
As the Tables are intended to assess work-related impairment rather than whole person impairment,
the person’s usual level of upper limb function with or without assistive aids should be considered in
determining their optimal capacity for “hand function or manual handling.” This is also consistent with
the requirement that the condition and its resulting impairment has been fully treated and stabilised
before a permanent rating can be assigned. It is expected that the impairment rating should reflect
the person’s optimal level of upper limb function and that no significant improvement in adaptive
function will occur within the next two years. (Refer also to Sections (C), (K) – Chapter 1.)
The wording of the descriptors also reflects the design of the Tables as being function-based rather
than diagnosis-based. Hence, it is possible for two individuals with the same diagnosis (eg
amputation of the last three fingers of the right hand) to be assigned different upper limb impairment
ratings from Table 3 depending on factors such as their limb dominance, presence of significant pain

30

and overall adaptive function. This reflects assessment of their functional loss rather than their
anatomical loss. (Refer also to Sections (F), (L) – Chapter 1.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Upper limb musculoskeletal conditions including specific degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis),
other permanent forms of arthritis, chronic rotator cuff lesions. Upper limb amputations, fractures,
dislocations and long-term effects of musculoskeletal injuries. Neurological conditions including
strokes (CVAs) causing hemiparesis, hemiplegia, dyspraxia. Chronic carpal tunnel syndrome, ulnar
nerve palsies.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Difficulties handling and manipulating objects due to severe visual impairment should not be
assessed under this table if there are no inherent medical conditions affecting the upper limbs. Such
impairment should be assessed under the relevant visual impairment tables, Tables 13, 14 or 15.
Intermittent conditions that do not cause chronic impairment but result in discrete episodes of
impairment (eg gout causing intermittent joint pain) would be better assessed under Table 21. (Refer
also to CHAPTER 23 – Table 21.)

TABLE 3.

UPPER LIMB FUNCTION
All upper limb problems are assessed under the upper limb Table (Table 3). Each arm is
assessed separately. Determination of upper limb impairments must be based on a
demonstrable loss of function.

Rating
NIL

Criteria
Can use dominant limb effectively and/or
Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation
of upper limb which causes mild interference with hand function or manual handling.

FIVE

Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation
of non-dominant upper limb which causes moderate interference with hand function or
manual handling.

TEN

Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation
of dominant upper limb which causes moderate interference with hand function or manual
handling.

FIFTEEN

Demonstrable evidence of major loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or
sensation of non-dominant upper limb which causes significant interference with hand
function or manual handling.

TWENTY

Demonstrable evidence of major loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or
sensation of dominant upper limb which causes significant interference with hand function
or manual handling or
Unable to use non-dominant upper limb at all.

THIRTY

Unable to use dominant upper limb at all.

31

CHAPTER 5:
GUIDE TO TABLE 4. – FUNCTION OF THE LOWER LIMBS
Table 4 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of lower limb function. It should not be
used to assess impairment of lower spinal function. Because the two lower limbs act to constitute a
single functional unit, both legs are assessed together and only one rating may be assigned from
this table even when both legs are impaired. Hence, regardless of the number of conditions involved
and whether one or both lower limbs are affected, a single rating is provided from this table for the
total lower limb impairment rating. (Refer also to Section (H) – Chapter 1 and CHAPTER 6– Table 5.)

Determining a reliable level of lower limb impairment:
Determination of the level of lower limb impairment must be based on a demonstrable loss of
function. This means that there must be clinical evidence of functional impairment that is consistent
with the reported level of functional loss. Clinical observations and findings on examination (such as
gait, mobility, muscle bulk or wasting, power, tone, reflexes, sensory changes, coordination, range of
joint movements etc.) should be correlated with the diagnosed medical pathology, functional history
and reported symptom level. It would be inappropriate to apply a high impairment rating based solely
on a person’s self-reported functional history if this level of functional loss is not consistent with the
clinically demonstrable evidence.
This table should not be used to assess the effects of back pain which is usually rated under Table
5.2. Lower limb impairment attributed to lumbar spinal pathology should only be rated under this
table if there is a definite and permanent secondary neurological deficit in the lower limb(s) that has
resulted in significant functional impairment. There should be objective evidence of functional loss
including clinically consistent signs (eg significant muscle wasting, loss of power, abnormal reflexes
and anatomically appropriate sensory changes). In most cases, it is expected that such neurological
deficits would have been confirmed with neurosurgical review and appropriate investigations (such
as MRI scans). (Refer also to Section (H) – Chapter 1, Paragraph 7 of the “Introduction” and
CHAPTER 6 – Table 5.)
The descriptors in Table 4 refer to “Demonstrable loss of strength, mobility, stability, balance,
coordination and/or sensation such as to cause … interference with walking and one or more of the
following: climbing, squatting, sitting or kneeling.” These are categorised depending on whether there
is “moderate” or “major” “interference…” The alternative descriptors refer to restriction of walking
distance due to “pain or claudication”. In determining an accurate walking distance it is usually
more reliable to establish a maximal duration for performing the activity rather than relying on selfreported perceptions of maximal distance achieved. This measure of impairment is usually more
consistently reliable with conditions such as intermittent claudication.
In terms of benchmarking the qualitative descriptors of “moderate” or “major” impairment, it should be
remembered that in accordance with the underlying purpose of the Tables, the descriptors at 20
points correspond to the level of impairment where there is a significant impact on work ability. (Refer
also to Sections (A), (C), (D), (F), (J) – Chapter 1.) Hence, on comparing the descriptor alternatives
at this level, it can be seen that for functional loss in the lower limbs to be considered “major”, it must
be of equivalent severity to being “unable to walk or stand but independently mobile using a selfpropelled wheelchair” (eg paraplegia).
As the Tables are intended to assess work-related impairment rather than whole person impairment,
the person’s usual level of lower limb function with or without assistive aids should be considered in
determining their optimal capacity for “walking...” and general mobility. This is also consistent with the
requirement that the condition and its resulting impairment has been fully treated and stabilised
before a permanent rating can be assigned. It is expected that the impairment rating should reflect
the person’s optimal level of lower limb function and that no significant improvement in adaptive
function will occur within the next two years. (Refer also to Sections (C), (K) – Chapter 1.)
The wording of the descriptors also reflects the design of the Tables as being function-based rather
than diagnosis-based. Hence, it is possible for two individuals with the same diagnosis (eg below

32

knee amputation of the left leg) to be assigned different lower limb impairment ratings from Table 4
depending on factors such as their overall adaptive function, presence of significant pain and the
effects on walking and general mobility. This reflects assessment of their functional loss rather than
their anatomical loss. (Refer also to Sections (F), (L) – Chapter 1.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Lower limb musculoskeletal conditions including specific degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis),
other permanent forms of arthritis. Lower limb amputations, fractures, dislocations and long-term
effects of musculoskeletal injuries. Neurological conditions including peripheral neuropathy and
strokes (CVAs) causing paraplegia, ataxia, gait disturbance. Some permanent vascular conditions
that have been optimally treated and stabilised (eg peripheral vascular disease, varicose veins).
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Difficulties mobilising independently due to severe visual impairment should not be assessed under
this table if there are no inherent medical conditions affecting the lower limbs. Such impairment
should be assessed under the relevant visual impairment tables, Tables 13, 14 or 15. Intermittent
conditions that do not cause chronic impairment but result in discrete episodes of impairment (eg
gout causing intermittent joint pain) would be better assessed under Table 21. (Refer also to
CHAPTER 23 – Table 21.)

TABLE 4.

FUNCTION OF THE LOWER LIMBS
Table 4 is used to assess lower limb not spinal function (see Table 5). Assess both limbs
together. Determination of lower limb impairments must be based on a demonstrable loss of
functions.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Walks without difficulty on a variety of different terrains and at varying speeds for distances
of more than 500m.

TEN

Demonstrable loss of strength, mobility, stability, balance, coordination and/or sensation such
as to cause moderate interference with walking and one or more of the following: climbing,
squatting, sitting or kneeling or
Pain or claudication restricts walking to 250-500m or less, at a slow to moderate pace
(4km/h). Can walk further after resting.

TWENTY

Demonstrable loss of strength, mobility, stability, balance, coordination and/or sensation such
as to cause major interference with walking and one or more of the following: climbing,
squatting, sitting or kneeling or
Pain or claudication restricts walking (4km/h) to 50-250m or less at a time. Can walk further
after resting or
Unable to walk or stand but independently mobile using a self-propelled wheelchair.

THIRTY

Pain or claudication restricts walking (4km/h) to 50m or less at a time. Can walk further after
resting or restricted to walking in and around home and:
•
•

FORTY

requires quad stick, crutches or similar walking aid, or
is unable to transfer without assistance.

Unable to walk or stand and mobile only in a motorised wheelchair or wheelchair with an
attendant.

33

CHAPTER 6:
GUIDE TO TABLE 5. – SPINAL FUNCTION
Table 5 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of spinal function. Table 5.1 is used to
assess impairment of the cervical spine (neck) and Table 5.2 to assess thoraco-lumbar-sacral spine
(upper and lower back) impairment. A separate rating may be assigned from each table depending
on which parts of the spine have been affected.

Determining a reliable level of spinal impairment:
Determination of the level of spinal impairment must be based on a demonstrable loss of function.
This means that there must be clinical evidence of functional impairment that is consistent with the
reported level functional loss. Clinical observations and findings on examination (such as physique,
posture, gait, mobility, sitting and weight-bearing tolerances, straight leg raising, range of spinal
movements etc.) should be correlated with the diagnosed medical pathology, functional history and
reported symptom level. It would be inappropriate to apply a high impairment rating based solely on a
person’s self-reported functional history if this level of functional loss is not consistent with the
clinically demonstrable evidence.
It should be emphasised that although the descriptors refer to loss of normal range of spinal
movement as part of the criteria, this factor alone does not necessarily correlate well with a person’s
overall level of functional impairment. A person may be significantly impaired from symptoms of
chronic spinal pain but still retain reasonable range of movement and conversely, a person with
significant loss of spinal movement but minimal pain may retain a high level of functional ability. The
spinal range of movement may also fluctuate over time if the restriction in movement is related to
fluctuating levels of pain.
It is therefore important to assess the additional criteria in relation to pain when determining an
appropriate impairment level. Table 5.1 includes the presence and frequency of neck pain as an
additional factor and Table 5.2 considers further the impact of back pain on a person’s usual
functional tolerances (eg standing / sitting). Table 5.2 also takes into account the effects of back
pain and referred leg pain on the ability to perform many physical activities including weight-bearing
functions. It is inappropriate in the majority of cases, to assign a further impairment rating from Table
4 for the effects of back pain on walking and general mobility as this would result in double counting.
In general, an additional rating would only be applied from Table 3 or 4 if there is a definite and
permanent secondary neurological deficit caused by the spinal condition(s) resulting in demonstrable
upper or lower limb impairment. (Refer also to Section (H) – Chapter 1, Paragraph 7 of the
“Introduction” and CHAPTER 4 – Table 3, CHAPTER 5 – Table 4.)
Where it is considered that the rating assigned under Table 5.1 or 5.2 underestimates the level of
impairment due to the effects of chronic entrenched pain, Table 20 may be used instead to assign
an alternative rating. For example, if it is considered that a person has significant and permanent
functional impairment from chronic severe back pain but retains normal or only minor loss of range of
thoraco-lumbar-sacral spinal movement, Table 20 may be selected in preference to Table 5.2 to
assign a rating that more appropriately reflects the overall level of impairment.
It is emphasised in Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction” that in choosing to apply a higher impairment
rating using Table 20, the medical assessor must be convinced that pain is a significant factor
contributing towards the person’s overall functional impairment. Clinical judgement is required to
assess that the severity of the impairment is consistent with the available medical evidence. It is
recognised that this is often difficult to determine in view of the subjective nature of pain symptoms. It
is expected that the person’s history, medical reports and overall clinical presentation should
consistently indicate the presence of chronic entrenched pain. (Refer also to Section (E) – Chapter
1.)
Table 20 is often considered when the degree of impairment from pain appears to be in excess of
what is usually expected for the underlying spinal pathology and a diagnosis of chronic pain disorder
or chronic pain syndrome may be applicable. It is emphasised again that to avoid double counting,

34

only one rating should be assigned using either Table 5 or Table 20 and not both tables concurrently.
(Refer also to Sections (H), (I), (J) – Chapter 1, Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction” and CHAPTER 22 –
Table 20.)
The full descriptor at a particular impairment level must be satisfied before the rating can be
assigned. For example, when using Table 5.1, a person with loss of a little more than a quarter
normal range of neck movement and with infrequent symptoms of pain should be assigned 5 points
rather than 10 points as the full descriptor at the 10 points level has not been fully met. (Refer also to
Section (J) – Chapter 1.)
It should be noted that an “unstable joint” as mentioned in the descriptor at the forty points level
does not specifically refer to the diagnosis of spondylolisthesis as this condition can be an incidental
radiological finding that is asymptomatic and stable. As the Tables are primarily function-based rather
than diagnosis-based, it should be evident that a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis alone does not
automatically equate to forty points impairment. This descriptor level is intended to reflect instead,
the impairment caused by extreme cases of gross spinal instability or equivalent impairment caused
by ankylosis in an unfavourable position. It is likely that with such severe cases of spinal instability,
surgical intervention would be necessary because of a high probability of serious damage to the
spinal cord. (Refer also to Section (F) – Chapter 1.)
It should also be noted that as spinal mobility is a composite movement, Table 5.2 measures the
overall mobility of the trunk including hip movement and is not intended to measure the mobility of
individual spinal segments.

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Neck and low back pain attributed to various musculoskeletal/orthopaedic causes.

TABLE 5.

SPINAL FUNCTION
Determination of spinal impairments must be based on a demonstrable loss of function.

TABLE 5.1
Rating

Cervical spine
Criteria

NIL

Normal or nearly normal range of movement.

FIVE

Loss of quarter of normal range of movement.

TEN

Loss of half of normal range of movement and frequent/constant neck pain or loss of three
quarters of normal range of movement with infrequent neck pain.

TWENTY

Loss of three-quarters of normal range of movement and constant neck pain.

THIRTY

Loss of almost all movement, or complete ankylosis in position of function.

FORTY

Ankylosis in an unfavourable position, or unstable joint.

35

TABLE 5.2

Thoraco - lumbar-sacral spine
As spinal mobility is a composite movement, this Table measures overall mobility of the
trunk including hip movement and is not intended to measure mobility of individual spinal
segments.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Normal or nearly normal range of movement.

FIVE

Loss of one-quarter of normal range of movement.

TEN

Loss of one-quarter of normal range of movement as well as back pain or referred pain:
with many physical activities and
with standing for about 30 minutes and
with sitting or driving for about 60 minutes.
or
Loss of half of normal range of movement.

•
•
•

TWENTY

Loss of half of normal range of movement as well as back pain or referred pain:
with most physical activities and
with standing for about 15 minutes and
with sitting or driving for about 30 minutes.
or
Loss of three-quarters of normal range of movement.

•
•
•

FORTY

Ankylosis in an unfavourable position, or unstable joint.

36

CHAPTER 7:
GUIDE TO TABLE 6. – PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT
Table 6 is used to assess permanent impairment resulting from psychiatric conditions. As clinical
signs and investigation results are generally of limited benefit in the assessment of these conditions,
medical judgement is required to establish a detailed psychiatric and functional history and to
provide a mental state assessment. If there is insufficient clinical information available, it may be
necessary to obtain a current or recent specialist report. This may be required to determine the
severity of the psychiatric impairment and its prognosis over the next two years.
In general, regardless of the number of psychiatric diagnoses or diagnostic labels used, only one
rating should be assigned from this table to reflect the overall psychiatric impairment. (Refer also to
Section (H) – Chapter 1.)

Determining a reliable level of psychiatric impairment:
It is important to distinguish between temporary and permanent psychiatric disorders as this table is
only used for assessing psychiatric conditions that result in permanent impairment. A permanent
rating can only be assigned if it is considered that the psychiatric condition and its resulting
impairment will last for at least two years and significant functional improvement is unlikely to occur
within that period. This requires that the condition causing the impairment has been fully diagnosed,
treated and stabilised. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)
Establishing an exact psychiatric diagnosis however, is only important if this will determine the
prognosis over the next two years. For example, the prognosis may vary depending on whether a
depressed person is diagnosed with a severe chronic depressive disorder or an acute adjustment
disorder with reactive depression due to a personal stressor (eg recent marital breakdown). The
latter diagnosis is usually considered to be temporary in nature as it is likely to improve and hence an
impairment rating should not be assigned initially. However, if it is apparent that regardless of what
the exact psychiatric diagnosis is and regardless of what treatment is received, a person’s
impairment is not expected to improve significantly within two years, then it would be unnecessary to
refer for specialist review solely to confirm a diagnosis. A permanent rating can be assigned
accordingly in this case.
In determining whether the psychiatric disorder has been fully treated and stabilised, one should
consider whether the person has received optimal and “reasonable” psychiatric treatment and
whether with or without such treatment, the person’s level of function will improve within two years. If
for example, specialist advice is that a person would benefit from treatment with long-term
psychotherapy but that significant functional improvement is not expected to occur for many years,
then the psychiatric impairment may be considered permanent and rated accordingly.
If optimal treatment has not been undertaken, it should be determined whether the person has a
reasonable medical or other compelling reason for not doing so. For example, the person may have
a psychotic illness that impairs their insight and ability to make sound judgements and this may affect
their compliance with treatment. Such a person’s psychiatric impairment could then be considered
stable and permanent if it is unlikely that any significant improvement will occur within two years.
However, if they retain good insight and judgement and their decision to abstain from reasonable
treatment is due to personal choice without medical or other compelling grounds, then the
impairment should be considered temporary and not rated under this table.
Some established psychiatric conditions such as Bipolar Affective Disorder (“Manic Depression”)
may be highly variable in their clinical presentation with a fluctuating course. They may still be
considered stable and rated accordingly if they are being optimally managed and their current overall
impact on work ability is unlikely to improve significantly within the next two years. In determining the
work-related impairment for such fluctuating conditions, one should consider their impact on the
person’s ability to reliably sustain full-time work over two years without significant absences. (Refer
also to Section (B), (K)– Chapter 1.)

37

Some psychiatric disorders may be associated with somatic effects such as dyspepsia, irritable
bowel symptoms and headaches. Symptoms of fatigue, lethargy and impaired memory and
concentration are commonly described with depressive illnesses. It these symptoms are considered
to be psychogenic in origin and due primarily to the underlying psychiatric condition rather than to
separate organic diseases, then it may be appropriate to assess their combined effects as part of the
psychiatric impairment. A single rating may then be assigned from Table 6 to reflect the overall
impairment if the permanence criteria have been satisfied. (Refer also to Section (I) – Chapter 1,
CHAPTER 9 – Table 8, CHAPTER 13 – Table 11.2, CHAPTER 22– Table 20.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Chronic depressive/anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder, eating disorders,
somatoform disorders, pathological personality disorders, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) manifesting with predominantly behavioural
problems. Behavioural problems related to acquired brain injury/frontal lobe syndrome.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Acute, short-term psychiatric conditions such as adjustment disorders, reactive depression. Other
psychiatric conditions that have not been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised. “Difficult” personality
traits which are not of sufficient severity to be diagnosed as personality disorders. Lack of personal
motivation or apathy that is not considered to be due to a psychiatric condition.

TABLE 6.

PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT
It is important to record a detailed psychiatric history, a mental state examination, and to
distinguish between temporary and permanent psychiatric disorders. People with established
psychiatric disorders (eg. Bipolar Disorder) may be highly variable in their clinical
presentation and this factor must be taken into account in the assessment. The assessment of
psychiatric impairment may benefit from investigating; reports from mental health case
managers, compliance with and the effects of medication, support systems that people have in
place, the degree of insight present and the presence of psychotic illness. Where a person has
a short term problem, for example an adjustment disorder with depression following an
illness or marital breakdown, initially this should usually be considered to be of a temporary
nature. Table 6 is used for permanent psychiatric disorders only. If there is insufficient
clinical information available, a current or recent specialist report should be obtained.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Mild but regular symptoms which tend to cause subjective distress. On most occasions able
to distract themselves from this distress. Minimal interference with function in everyday
situations. Exacerbation of symptoms may cause occasional days off work. (eg. There may
be some loss of interest in activities previously enjoyed. There may be occasional friction
with family, colleagues or friends) Medical therapy or some supportive treatment from
treating doctor may be required.

TEN

Moderate and regular symptoms and generally functioning with some difficulty. (eg.
noticeable reduction in social contacts or recreational activities, or the beginnings of some
interference with interpersonal or workplace relationships). May have received psychiatric
treatment which has stabilised the condition. Minor effects on work attendance and/or ability
to work but the impairment would not prevent full-time work. (eg. short periods of absence
from work)

TWENTY

Psychiatric illness or disorder with either serious symptomatology OR impairment in
functioning that requires treatment by a psychiatrist (eg. frequent suicidal ideation, severe
obsessional rituals, frequent severe anxiety attacks, serious anti-social behaviour, diagnosed
psychotic illness with continuing symptoms ). There is significant interference with
interpersonal or workplace relationships with serious disruption of work attendance or ability
to work.

38

THIRTY

Serious psychiatric illness with major impairments in several areas, such as work,
interpersonal relations, judgement, thinking, or mood (eg. depressed person avoids friends,
neglects family, unable to do housework), OR some impairment in reality testing or
communication (eg. speech is at times obscure, illogical or irrelevant).

FORTY

Major chronic psychiatric illness which results in an inability to function in almost all areas,
OR behaviour is considerably influenced by either delusions or hallucinations, OR serious
impairment in communication (eg. sometimes incoherent or unresponsive) or judgement (eg.
acts grossly inappropriately).

39

CHAPTER 8:
GUIDE TO TABLE 7. – ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE
Table 7 is used to assess impairment resulting from alcohol and drug dependence. Only one rating
may be assigned from this table to reflect overall impairment regardless of the number of substances
(alcohol or drugs) that the person is dependent on.

Determining a reliable level of impairment from alcohol and drug dependence:
Before a rating other than nil is assigned from this table, it must be considered that the person’s
medical, functional history and clinical presentation consistently indicate chronic entrenched drug
and/or alcohol dependence. The dependence should also be causing functional impairment (eg
secondary medical problems, legal or forensic problems, impact on work performance/attendance,
interference with social and interpersonal relationships.)
High levels of intake will increase health risks but the use of alcohol or drugs in itself does not
necessarily indicate significant and permanent functional impairment. For example, a person with a
high level of alcohol intake may not have developed any medical complications or experienced
significant problems in how they function. Each person should be assessed on an individual basis, as
the level of impairment cannot be predicted from the reported level of drug or alcohol use alone. It
should not be assumed for example, that a person on a methadone program is severely functionally
impaired and has no work capacity.
Before a permanent rating is assigned, it should be determined that the impairment has been
optimally managed and stabilised and that no further treatment (eg medication, detoxification or
rehabilitation programs, psychiatric or psychological counselling) will result in significant functional
improvement within two years. If optimal treatment has not been undertaken, it should be considered
whether the person has a reasonable medical or other compelling reason for not doing so. For
example, due to their condition, the person may have lost their insight and ability to make sound
judgements and this may therefore affect their compliance with recommended treatment. Such a
person’s impairment could then be considered stable and permanent if it is unlikely to improve
significantly within two years.
However, in cases where the person is considered to retain good insight and judgement and their
decision to abstain from reasonable treatment is due to a fully informed personal choice without
medical or other compelling grounds, then the impairment should be considered temporary if
significant improvement is expected to occur with reasonable treatment. (Refer also to Section (K) –
Chapter 1.)
If complications of end organ damage are associated with the alcohol and drug dependence, then
any resulting permanent impairments should be assessed under the appropriate tables (eg Table 4
for peripheral neuropathy, Table 8 for cognitive impairment, Table 11.1 for cirrhosis or chronic liver
disease). The separate ratings are then added together to obtain the total work-related impairment.
(Refer also to Sections (G), (J) – Chapter 1.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Alcohol dependence, dependence on illicit drugs (eg heroin) and other substances including
analgesic medications and prescription drugs.

40

TABLE 7.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE
Alcohol and drug dependence is assessed using Table 7. A rating other than NIL on this
Table should only be assigned where the person's medical and other reports, history and
presentation consistently indicate chronic entrenched drug and alcohol dependence. It should
also be causing a functional impairment; the use of drugs or alcohol does not in itself
constitute or necessarily indicate permanent impairment. Any associated neurological
functions or end organ damage should also be assessed on the appropriate tables in addition
to Table 7. The ratings are then added together to obtain a total work-related impairment
rating.
When applying this Table, consideration should be given to the known biological and
behavioural effects of particular substances.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

A pattern of alcohol or drug use with no or only minor effects on daily functioning or work
capacity.

FIVE

A pattern of alcohol or drug use sufficient to cause intermittent or temporary absence from
work.

TWENTY

Dependence on alcohol or other drugs, well established over time, which is sufficient to
cause prolonged absences from work. Reversible end organ damage may be present.

THIRTY

Dependence on alcohol or other drugs, well entrenched over many years, with minimal
residual work capacity. Irreversible end organ damage may be present.

FORTY

Pattern of heavy alcohol or other drug use with severe functional disability and irreversible
end organ damage.

41

CHAPTER 9:
GUIDE TO TABLE 8. – NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION: MEMORY,
PROBLEM SOLVING, DECISION MAKING ABILITIES AND
COMPREHENSION
Table 8 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of higher neurological functions of
memory, problem solving, decision making ability and comprehension. Only one rating should be
assigned from this table to assess this loss of cognitive impairment. This type of impairment is
usually the result of an acquired brain injury which may also be associated with other functional
losses. Any such additional impairments should be rated using the relevant tables and the ratings
added together to assess the overall work-related impairment.
For example, a person who has suffered a severe head injury may have associated upper and lower
limb impairments as a consequence of the injury and these should be assessed under Tables 3 and
4 respectively. Associated problems with behaviour or loss of insight that have been diagnosed and
are considered permanent may also attract an additional rating from Table 6. Care however, must be
taken to avoid overassessment, particularly with double counting the same functional impairment
with regards to the additional use of Tables 9 or 10. (Refer also to Sections (G), (H), (J) – Chapter 1,
Paragraph 12 of the “Introduction”, CHAPTER 7 – Table 6, CHAPTER 10 – Table 9, CHAPTER 11 –
Table 10.)

Determining a reliable level of cognitive impairment:
Before assigning a rating from this table, it is important to establish that the cognitive impairment
from an acquired brain injury has stabilised and will not improve significantly over the next two years.
Some severe brain injuries may take up to two years before optimal recovery and function is
achieved. It may be necessary to obtain a current or recent specialist’s evaluation (usually a
neuropsychological assessment) to quantify the person’s level of cognitive deficits and to provide a
prognostic opinion regarding when optimal function is likely to be achieved (Refer also to Section (K)
– Chapter 1.)
It is expected in most cases that there should be a history of a significant head injury or brain insult
that is the likely cause of the cognitive impairment. This table is not intended for assessing memory
and concentration problems that are temporary in nature and unrelated to acquired brain injuries. For
example, it would be inappropriate to rate such symptoms under this table if they are the result of
untreated depression. Referral for formal neuropsychological evaluation may also be inappropriate in
the presence of mood disorders that have not been treated and stabilised as these may affect the
validity and interpretation of the results. (Refer also to CHAPTER 7 – Table 6.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Any type of acquired brain injury (ABI) that has caused cognitive impairment. This can be the result
of traumatic injury, infections (eg meningitis/encephalitis), alcohol or drug abuse, strokes
(cerebrovascular accidents), epilepsy or tumours. Dyslexia which is a specific reading disability can
be rated under this table but should generally attract nil impairment. Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADD/ADHD) may be assessed under this table if the manifestations of the condition relate
mainly to learning difficulties; otherwise it may be assessed under Table 6 for associated behavioural
problems.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Intellectual impairment should be rated under Table 10. Specific dysphasia/aphasia communication
conditions are assessed under Table 9. Memory and concentration problems associated with
psychiatric conditions should be assessed as part of the overall permanent psychiatric impairment
under table 6. Illiteracy and innumeracy are not medical impairments as such and should not be
rated under this table. (Refer also to CHAPTER 7 – Table 6, CHAPTER 10 – Table 9, CHAPTER 11
– Table 10.)

42

TABLE 8.
NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION: MEMORY, PROBLEM SOLVING, DECISION
MAKING ABILITIES & COMPREHENSION
Table 8 is used to rate impairment of higher neurological functions of memory, problem
solving, decision making ability and comprehension. Loss of function within this group is
rated only once using this Table. If there are additional functional losses, these are also
assessed using other relevant Tables.
People with acquired brain injury may have associated problems with behaviour and/or
insight. These impairments may be rated using both Table 8 and Table 6.
If there is insufficient clinical information available on cognitive function, a current or recent
specialist report should be obtained (eg. neurologist, specialist physician or
neuropsychologist). The report should address functions of comprehension, memory, ability
to concentrate, problem solving, loss of motivation, fatigue or any associated behavioural
abnormalities or disorders.
Rating

Criteria

NIL

Comprehension, reasoning and memory are comparable with peers or only minor difficulties.

TEN

Can understand movies, radio programs or group discussions, but with some difficulty.
Comprehension is good in most situations, but understanding is difficult in large groups, or
when tired and upset. Has difficulty coping with rapid changes of topic or
Mild impairment of problem solving and ability to concentrate: appropriate use is made of
accumulated knowledge, and reasonable judgement is shown in routine daily activities most
of the time. Difficulties are apparent in new circumstances or
Mild impairment of memory. Can learn, although at a slower rate than previously.
Impairment has little impact on everyday activity because of compensation through reliance
on written notes, schedules, checklists and colleagues.

TWENTY

Can understand speech face-to-face, but confusion or fatigue occurs rapidly in any group. Is
unable to cope with rapid change in topic, or with complex topics and is unable to understand
a series of work instructions from a supervisor or
Moderate impairment of memory: has frequent difficulty in recalling details of recent
experiences; frequently misplaces objects; fails to follow through with intentions or
obligations; tends to get lost more easily in unfamiliar areas. Compensation through use of
aids, eg, lists or diaries is normally adequate. If restricted to familiar schedules, activities,
procedures and areas, is largely independent or
Moderate impairment of problem-solving ability and ability to concentrate: relies on
accumulated knowledge. Suffers significant disadvantage in circumstances requiring
complex decision-making or non-routine activities, ie, when past decision-making is not
directly relevant. Has reduced initiative/spontaneity, reduced ability to concentrate and/or
reduced capacity for abstract thinking or
Significant perceptual problems (visual, space or time) making learning and complying with
work tasks very difficult.

THIRTY

Can understand only simple sentences, and follow simple sentences from context and gesture,
although frequent repetition is needed.

FORTY

Can understand only single words. Shows some understanding of slowly-spoken simple
sentences from context and gesture, although frequent repetition is needed or
Severe loss of problem solving ability. Is partially able to compensate, but unable to function
with complete independence.

43

CHAPTER 10:
GUIDE TO TABLE 9. – COMMUNICATION FUNCTION – RECEPTIVE
AND EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCY
Table 9 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of communication function and
language competency. Only one rating should be assigned from this table even if the
communication or language impairment is both receptive (processing) and expressive in nature.
This table is intended to assess medically based language difficulties and is not used to assess
fluency or competency of the spoken English language. (Refer also to Section (E) – Chapter 1.)
Impairment of language and communication may be a consequence of cognitive loss in which case,
a single rating should be assigned under Table 8. Care must be taken not to double count the same
overall functional loss in this situation. However, where language impairment is a separate or
additional loss to cognitive impairment (eg if damage to the specific speech centre of the brain has
occurred), then a separate rating may be applied from this table. This is described in Paragraph 12 of
the “Introduction” with reference to double counting. (Refer also to Sections (G), (H) – Chapter 1,
Paragraph 12 of the “Introduction” and CHAPTER 9 – Table 8.)
Impaired language processing or expression may also occur with hearing loss particularly with
congenital causes of profound deafness. In these cases, a rating may be assigned from this table as
well as from Table 12 for the degree of hearing loss. However, if there is normal language
competency (eg where hearing loss is acquired after language has developed), then it would be
inappropriate to assign an additional score from this table and only Table 12 is applicable. (Refer
also CHAPTER 14 – Table 12.)

Determining a reliable level of communication or language impairment:
In determining an appropriate impairment rating, one should consider the person’s optimal level of
communication function. This should take into account the ability to utilise compensatory aids and
strategies including the use of assistive devices (eg hearing aids), non-verbal language (eg reading,
writing or signing) and environmental cues and resources to reduce the impact of the impairment.
Where there is insufficient clinical information to determine the level of communication ability, a
current or recent specialist assessment (eg from a speech pathologist or neuropsychologist) may be
required.
Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Any trauma or injury that has damaged the speech/language centre of the brain – dysphasia,
aphasia. Some cases of profound congenital deafness may also be associated with impaired
language processing or expression.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Cognitive impairment without a separate loss of language impairment should only be rated under
Table 8. Psychiatric conditions that may appear to cause communication impairment should be
assessed under Table 6. Dyslexia is a specific reading disability that is usually rated under Table 8
and should generally attract nil impairment. Illiteracy and innumeracy are not medical impairments as
such and should not be rated under this table. (Refer also to CHAPTER 7 – Table 6, CHAPTER 9 –
Table 8.)

44

TABLE 9.
COMMUNICATION FUNCTION - RECEPTIVE AND EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE
COMPETENCY
This Table measures communication and language competency and addresses both receptive
(processing) and expressive language impairment. Hearing loss with impaired language
processing or expression should be scored using this Table and Table 12. Hearing loss with
normal language competency should only be scored on Table 12. Where language
impairment is an effect of cognitive loss, a single rating should be assigned using Table 8 to
reflect the combined loss of cognitive and language function. Where language impairment is
separate or additional to a cognitive impairment, these losses may be rated using Table 8 and
Table 9. The following factors should be considered in determining an impairment rating:
The ability to independently and successfully use appropriate assistive devices, aids or
strategies to reduce the impact of the impairment;
The ability to make use of environmental cues and resources (including sign interpreters in
the case of deaf people) to reduce the impact of the impairment;
Intactness of other channels of communication:
reading, writing, non-verbal language;
The degree of effort required by the communication partner(s) in any particular
communication setting;
Appropriateness and degree of success of communicative interactions.
If there is insufficient clinical information available on communication skills, a current or
recent specialist report should be obtained (eg. speech pathologist, neurologist or
neuropsychologist). The report should comment on functional communication status,
including the capacity to utilise compensatory strategies/aids to reduce the impact of the
impairment.
Rating

Criteria

NIL

Satisfactory or only minor difficulties with communication

FIFTEEN

Difficulty with unfamiliar, lengthy or complex verbal situations and unable to adapt or
manage interruption but competent communication in favourable settings. Could work in a
wide range of occupations but high public contact and high communication content jobs may
be too demanding.

TWENTY

Communication is effortful and limited. A communication partner is required to assist in
interpreting the information. Unable to cope with rapid change in topic or complex/abstract
information but can understand simple sentences & follow information from context and
gestures. Could work in open employment in a limited range of occupations but could not
manage jobs which require high communication demands or public contact.

THIRTY

Communication is very limited. May be able to use context to convey message and may be
able to comprehend material if it is repeated, rephrased or represented in another format.
May convey information via a YES/NO response. Unlikely to cope with open employment
unless work tasks had minimal communication requirements.

FORTY

There is little or no functional understanding of verbal language and communication relies
entirely on someone else to interpret meaning. May have an augmentative/communication
device or board but only able to use it effectively in familiar settings. Unlikely to cope with
any open employment.

45

CHAPTER 11:
GUIDE TO TABLE 10. – INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
Table 10 is used to assess conditions that have resulted in intellectual impairment. Intellectual
disability indicates a significantly below average level of intelligence functioning (as measured by
standardised Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores) and associated problems in adaptive functioning
which begins prior to the age of eighteen. Only one rating should be assigned from this table after
assessment of the following three key criteria:
IQ score – full scale score - Revised Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R)
Adaptive Behaviour
Capacity for Independent Living
A score is assigned for each criteria from the corresponding columns and the three scores are then
added. The final score is then converted to an impairment rating using the Table for conversion to
work-related impairment rating.

Determining a reliable level of intellectual disability:
This table is not used to assess cognitive impairment as a consequence of a brain injury acquired at
a later stage in life (which is assessed under Table 8) but is intended to measure intellectual
disability. (Refer also to CHAPTER 9 – Table 8.) In assessing a person’s capacity for independent
living, one should not just consider whether they are currently performing the required daily activities
but rather whether they are capable of doing so (with or without assistance).
A score can only be assigned for the second two (social functioning) criteria if a score has first been
assigned for a low IQ (ie an IQ of less than 80). If the person is classed as being of low average
intelligence, their IQ score remains within the “normal” range and therefore an impairment rating
cannot be applied from this table. If such a person experiences significant behavioural problems
and/or has difficulties with independent living, it needs to be established whether there is a medical
basis for these difficulties that can then be assessed accordingly (eg a psychiatric impairment that
can be rated under Table 6).

WAIS-R vs WAIS-III:
Currently, Table 10 specifies the use of the WAIS-R for assessing an IQ score. It should be noted
however, that this assessment scale has now been updated and the latest version (WAIS-III), reflects
the phenomenon of IQ score inflation over time. This means that an IQ score obtained using the
WAIS-R will in general differ by a few points from a score assessed under the WAIS-III. However, as
the Tables are a legislative instrument, amendments to update their contents cannot be made
without formal enactment through Parliament. Where a WAIS-R IQ assessment cannot be obtained,
discussion with a psychologist may be beneficial to determine an appropriate score for rating
purposes.
Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
There are many childhood developmental or congenital disorders that can result in intellectual
impairment/disability. Some examples are chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome
(Trisomy 21), congenital/perinatal or early childhood infections (eg rubella, CMV, HIV, bacterial
meningitis, encephalitis), extreme prematurity or birth trauma.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Cognitive impairment due to acquired brain injury is usually assessed under Table 8. Diagnosed
behavioural problems unrelated to intellectual impairment should be assessed under Table 6.
Dyslexia is a specific reading disability that is usually rated under Table 8 and should generally
attract nil impairment. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) is usually assessed under
either Table 6 or Table 8 depending on the manifestations of the condition. Illiteracy and innumeracy
are not medical impairments as such and should not be rated under this table. (Refer also to
CHAPTER 7 – Table 6, CHAPTER 9 – Table 8.)

46

Example of Intellectual Disability Assessment using Table 10:
A person with intellectual disability is assessed as having a full scale IQ score of 70 points. No
significant behavioural problems are identified but it is noted that some supervision with routine
financial transactions is required. Prompting and reminders are also required regarding performing
some routine tasks.
IQ Score – a score of 3 points is assigned under the first criteria
Adaptive Behaviour – a score of 0 points is assigned for the second criteria
Capacity for Independent Living – a score of 3 points is assigned for the third criteria
The total score is: 3 + 0 + 3 = 6
Using the Table for conversion to work-related impairment rating, a score of 6 corresponds to a rating
of 25 points. The total impairment from intellectual disability is therefore assessed at 25 impairment
points using Table 10.

TABLE 10.

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
This Table is only to be used for intellectual disability. Three key criteria are assessed, IQ
using the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (Revised WAIS-R) and two areas of social
functioning: adaptive behaviour and capacity for independent living. The claimant is given a
score for each and the three scores are then added. The final figure is converted to a workrelated impairment rating using the table below. A score can only be assigned for the two
social functioning criteria if a score has been assigned for a low IQ. Where it is clear that the
person is moderately to severely intellectually impaired, formal psychometric testing may not
be necessary but in borderline and mild cases where no formal testing has been performed,
this should be arranged.

INTELLIGENCE (IQ)

SCORE

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR

SCORE

Normal

0

No or only mild
behavioural problems

0

70 - 79

3

Moderate to severe
behavioural problems

3

50 - 69

5

30 - 49

6

Below 30

8

CAPACITY FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING

SCORE

Self-sufficient

0

Needs supervision of daily activities and
routine financial transactions eg. needs to be
reminded to perform routine tasks/personal care

3

Needs regular help with daily activities and
routine financial transactions

4

Needs major help with daily activities and
routine financial transactions

5

Totally dependent

6

(Conversion Table over page)

47

Table for conversion to work-related impairment rating.

RATING

SCORE
3

TEN

5

TWENTY

6

TWENTY FIVE

7

THIRTY

8

THIRTY FIVE

9 or above

FORTY

48

CHAPTER 12:
GUIDE TO TABLE 11.1 – GASTROINTESTINAL: STOMACH,
DUODENUM, LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT
Table 11.1 is used to assess impairments resulting from conditions affecting the upper part of the
gastrointestinal tract. This includes conditions affecting the oesophagus, stomach, duodenum, liver
and biliary tract which tend to result in symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, epigastric or upper
abdominal pain and sometimes fatigue. In general, only one rating reflecting the highest (most
severe) level of gastrointestinal impairment should be applied from this table, regardless of the
number of conditions affecting the person.

Determining a reliable level of upper gastrointestinal impairment:
Before a rating is assigned, it must be determined that the condition has been appropriately
diagnosed, optimally managed and that significant functional improvement is unlikely to occur within
the next two years. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)
The diagnosis of established chronic liver disease should not be based on (potentially reversible)
elevated liver function tests alone. In many cases, the diagnosis may have been confirmed with the
results of liver biopsy. Some liver conditions may remain asymptomatic (eg some people with
positive Hepatitis C serology) and clinical judgement is required to assess if subjective symptoms
such as fatigue and nausea are consistent with the known pathology and are permanently and
significantly disabling before an appropriate rating is assigned. (Refer also to Sections (E), (I), –
Chapter 1.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Reflux oesophagitis, refractory peptic ulcer disease, established chronic liver disease. Chronic
symptoms from renal disease such as persistent intractable vomiting despite optimal treatment may
also be assessed under this table.

TABLE 11.1

Rating

GASTROINTESTINAL: STOMACH, DUODENUM, LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT

Criteria

NIL

Peptic ulcer/oesophagitis/liver disease: mild symptoms despite optimal treatment.

TEN

Nausea and vomiting: moderate symptoms despite optimal treatment
Peptic ulcer/oesophagitis: continuing frequent symptoms despite optimal treatment
Past gastric surgery with moderate dyspepsia and dumping syndrome
Established chronic liver disease. Symptoms (eg fatigue, nausea) may cause minor loss of
efficiency in daily activities but rarely prevent completion of any activity.

49

TWENTY

Constant dysphagia requiring regular dilatation
Vomiting: severe, not controlled despite optimal medication, and causing significant weight
loss
Peptic ulcer refractory to all treatment including surgery or with complications eg bleeding
or outlet obstruction
Established chronic liver disease. Symptoms (eg, more persistent fatigue, nausea, abdominal
pain) may prevent or lead to avoidance of some daily tasks and simple tasks will usually
aggravate symptoms of fatigue. Most daily activities can be completed but only with some
difficulty.

THIRTY

Diet limited to liquid or to pureed food or long term total parenteral nutrition
Gastrostomy
Established chronic liver disease. Symptoms (eg, ascites, bleeding disorders, hepatic
encephalopathy, more severe fatigue, nausea, vomiting) may cause substantial difficulty with
most daily tasks.

50

CHAPTER 13:
GUIDE TO TABLE 11.2 – GASTROINTESTINAL: PANCREAS,
SMALL AND LARGE BOWEL, RECTUM AND ANUS
Table 11.2 is used to assess impairments resulting from conditions affecting the lower part of the
gastrointestinal tract. This includes conditions affecting the pancreas, small and large bowel,
abdominal wall (hernias), rectum and anus which tend to result in symptoms such as lower
abdominal pain, bowel dysfunction, diarrhoea, constipation or faecal soiling. In general, only one
rating reflecting the highest (most severe) level of gastrointestinal impairment should be applied from
this table regardless of the number of conditions affecting the person.

Determining a reliable level of lower gastrointestinal impairment:
Before a rating is assigned, it must be determined that the condition has been appropriately
diagnosed, optimally managed and that significant functional improvement is unlikely to occur within
the next two years. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)
The diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome should be reasonably confirmed in that other treatable
diagnoses have been excluded before a permanent impairment rating is assigned. If such symptoms
are precipitated by “stress” and are exacerbated by or related to an untreated psychiatric condition,
then the impairment may be considered temporary if it is determined that treatment of the psychiatric
impairment will also result in significant improvement of the bowel symptoms within two years. (Refer
also to CHAPTER 7 – Table 6.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease, Ulcerative Colitis),
haemorrhoids, established chronic pancreatic disease, abdominal hernias.

TABLE 11.2
AND ANUS

Rating
NIL

GASTROINTESTINAL: PANCREAS, SMALL AND LARGE BOWEL, RECTUM

Criteria
Anal disorder: infrequent and minor symptoms, eg, haemorrhoids, anal fissures, controlled
by medication
Bowel disorder, eg, irritable bowel, diverticulosis: infrequent and minor symptoms such as
constipation, or bowel disorder which respond to dietary treatment alone.

TEN

Bowel disorder: frequent moderate symptoms despite optimal treatment
Occasional faecal soiling despite optimal treatment
Anal disorder: marked symptoms despite regular treatment
Colostomy, ileostomy - well controlled
Established chronic pancreatic disease with moderate symptoms (pain/steatorrhoea)
Large abdominal hernia not easily reduced and resulting in persistent moderate symptoms.

51

TWENTY

Faecal soiling necessitating frequent changes of underwear and an incontinence pad despite
optimal treatment
Bowel disorder: marked symptoms, such as regular diarrhoea and frequent abdominal pain,
only partially controlled by optimal treatment
Colostomy, ileostomy - poorly controlled
Large abdominal hernia and/or repeated unsatisfactory hernia repairs resulting in frequent
and persistent severe symptoms
Established chronic pancreatic disease with severe symptoms (pain/steatorrhoea).

THIRTY

Bowel disorder: diarrhoea and abdominal pain on most days, with poor response to treatment
and considerable interference with daily routine
Jejunostomy
Established chronic pancreatic disease with severe symptoms (pain/steatorrhoea) and with
intractable complications.

FORTY

Complete faecal incontinence.

52

CHAPTER 14:
GUIDE TO TABLE 12. – HEARING FUNCTION
Table 12 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of hearing function. This impairment is
measured by reference to the hearing threshold results of unaided audiometric testing (ie
conducted without hearing aids). A recent audiogram is usually required unless the level of hearing
loss is unlikely to have changed significantly (eg profoundly deaf since birth). Although it is not
specifically indicated, air conduction results alone are accepted as sufficient for rating purposes. The
hearing thresholds (measured in decibels (dB)) for both ears are used to calculate the percentage
loss of hearing across a range of frequencies (500Hz, 1000Hz, 1500Hz, 2000Hz, 3000Hz, 4000Hz)
using Tables 12.2 – 12.7. These six percentages are added to obtain the total Percentage Loss of
Binaural Hearing and a corresponding rating is then assigned using Table 12.

Only one rating may be assigned from this table regardless of whether the person has both
conductive and sensorineural types of hearing loss. However, if there is an associated loss of
communication function from impaired language processing or expression (eg in some people with
congenital profound deafness) then an additional rating may be assigned from Table 9 as well.
(Refer also to CHAPTER 10 – Table 9.)
In general, the ratings have been scaled to reflect the impact of the degree of hearing loss on
functional work ability. If significant hearing loss is not apparent clinically and communication ability
appears reasonable, then a nil impairment rating using this table is likely to result from audiometric
evaluation. For example, a person who is totally deaf in one ear but still retains normal hearing
thresholds in the other ear will attract nil points under table 12. The ratings from this table however,
may not reflect the clinical impairment of a person who uses effective hearing aids or has a cochlear
implant in place as the table refers to unaided audiometric results. (Refer also to Section (D) –
Chapter 1.)

Example of Hearing Impairment Assessment using Table 12:
A person has a degree of hearing impairment and the results of their audiometric testing are as
follows:

500Hz

1000Hz

1500Hz

2000Hz

3000Hz

4000Hz

RIGHT

35dB

30dB

45dB

45dB

55dB

60dB

LEFT

30dB

30dB

35dB

55dB

55dB

80dB

Using Tables 12.2 to 12.7, the percentage (%) loss of hearing corresponding to the hearing threshold
levels in the better and worse ears are calculated for each frequency. The results are summarised in
the following table:

53

Tables

12.2 500Hz

12.3
1000Hz

12.4
1500Hz

12.5
2000Hz

12.6
3000Hz

12.7
4000Hz

BETTER
EAR

30dB (L)

30dB

35dB (L)

45dB (R)

55dB

60dB (R)

WORSE
EAR

35dB (R)

30dB

45dB (R)

55dB (L)

55dB

80dB (L)

% LOSS

3.4

3.5

5.5

6.4

5.6

6.3

Adding the six figures of % loss of hearing for each frequency gives the total percentage loss of
binaural hearing:
3.4 + 3.5 + 5.5 + 6.4 + 5.6 + 6.3 = 30.7%
Using Table 12 – Assignment of work-related impairment rating, the Percentage Loss of Binaural
Hearing of 30.7% corresponds to a rating of 5 points. The total impairment from hearing loss is
therefore assessed at 5 impairment points using Table 12.

TABLE 12.

HEARING FUNCTION

Testing to be carried out without a hearing aid.

Assignment of work-related impairment rating

Percentage Loss of
Binaural Hearing

Rating

0 - 24.9

NIL

25 - 34.9

FIVE

35 - 44.9

TEN

45 - 54.9

FIFTEEN

55 - 64.9

TWENTY

65 - 74.9

TWENTY FIVE

75 - 84.9

THIRTY

85 - 94.9

THIRTY FIVE

95 - 100

FORTY

54

TABLE 12.2 500 Hz
VALUES OF PERCENTAGE LOSS OF HEARING CORRESPONDING TO GIVEN
HEARING THRESHOLD LEVELS IN THE BETTER AND WORSE EARS AT 500Hz
HTL - BETTER EAR
≤15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

≥95

HTL - WORSE EAR
≤15
20

0.0
0.4

0.6

25

0.6

1.0

1.4

30

1.0

1.4

2.0

2.8

35

1.3

1.8

2.5

3.4

4.5

40

1.7

2.2

3.0

3.9

5.1

6.4

45

2.0

2.6

3.4

4.3

5.5

6.8

8.1

50

2.3

2.9

3.7

4.7

5.8

7.1

8.4

9.7

55

2.5

3.2

4.0

5.0

6.1

7.3

8.6

9.9

11.2

60

2.7

3.4

4.2

5.2

6.3

7.5

8.8

10.0

11.3

12.6

65

2.8

3.5

4.4

5.4

6.5

7.7

8.9

10.2

11.5

12.7

14.0

70

2.9

3.7

4.5

5.5

6.6

7.8

9.1

10.3

11.6

12.9

14.2

15.5

75

3.0

3.8

4.7

5.7

6.8

8.0

9.2

10.5

11.8

13.1

14.5

15.7

16.9

80

3.1

3.9

4.8

5.8

6.9

8.1

9.3

10.6

12.0

13.3

14.7

16.0

17.2

18.2

85

3.2

4.0

4.9

5.9

7.0

8.2

9.4

10.7

12.1

13.5

14.9

16.2

17.4

18.4

19.1

90

3.4

4.1

5.0

6.0

7.1

8.1

9.5

10.8

12.2

13.6

15.0

16.3

17.6

18.5

19.2

19.7

≥95

3.4

4.2

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.5

10.8

12.2

13.6

15.0

16.4

17.6

18.6

19.3

19.7

55

20.0

TABLE 12.3 1000 Hz
VALUES OF PERCENTAGE LOSS OF HEARING CORRESPONDING TO GIVEN
HEARING THRESHOLD LEVELS IN THE BETTER AND WORSE EARS AT 1000Hz
HTL - BETTER EAR
≤15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

≥95

HTL - WORSE EAR
≤15

0.0

20

0.5

0.8

25

0.8

1.2

1.8

30

1.2

1.7

2.5

3.5

35

1.7

2.3

3.1

4.3

5.7

40

2.1

2.8

3.7

4.9

6.3

8.0

45

2.5

3.3

4.2

5.4

6.9

8.5

10.2

50

2.8

3.6

4.7

5.9

7.3

8.8

10.5

12.1

55

3.1

3.9

5.0

6.2

7.6

9.1

10.7

12.4

14.0

60

3.3

4.2

5.3

6.5

7.9

9.4

11.0

12.6

14.2

15.7

65

3.5

4.4

5.5

6.7

8.1

9.6

11.2

12.8

14.4

15.9

17.5

70

3.7

4.6

5.7

6.9

8.3

9.8

11.3

12.9

14.6

16.2

17.8

19.4

75

3.8

4.7

5.8

7.1

8.5

10.0

11.5

13.1

14.8

16.4

18.1

19.7

21.1

80

3.9

4.9

6.0

7.3

8.6

10.1

11.7

13.3

15.0

16.7

18.4

20.0

21.5

22.7

85

4.1

5.0

6.2

7.4

8.8

10.3

11.8

13.4

15.1

16.9

18.6

20.3

21.7

23.0

23.9

90

4.2

5.2

6.3

7.5

8.9

10.3

11.9

13.5

15.2

17.0

18.7

20.4

21.9

23.2

24.1

24.6

≥95

4.3

5.3

6.4

7.6

8.9

10.3

11.9

13.5

15.2

17.0

18.7

20.5

22.0

23.3

24.2

24.7

56

25.0

TABLE 12.4 1500 Hz
VALUES OF PERCENTAGE LOSS OF HEARING CORRESPONDING TO GIVEN
HEARING THRESHOLD LEVELS IN THE BETTER AND WORSE EARS AT 1500Hz
HTL - BETTER EAR
≤15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

≥95

HTL - WORSE EAR
≤15

0.0

20

0.4

0.6

25

0.6

1.0

1.4

30

1.0

1.4

2.0

2.8

35

1.3

1.8

2.5

3.4

4.5

40

1.7

2.2

3.0

3.9

5.1

6.4

45

2.0

2.6

3.4

4.3

5.5

6.8

8.1

50

2.3

2.9

3.7

4.7

5.8

7.1

8.4

9.7

55

2.5

3.2

4.0

5.0

6.1

7.3

8.6

9.9

11.2

60

2.7

3.4

4.2

5.2

6.3

7.5

8.8

10.0

11.3

12.6

65

2.8

3.5

4.4

5.4

6.5

7.7

8.9

10.2

11.5

12.7

14.0

70

2.9

3.7

4.5

5.5

6.6

7.8

9.1

10.3

11.6

12.9

14.2

15.5

75

3.0

3.8

4.7

5.7

6.8

8.0

9.2

10.5

11.8

13.1

14.5

15.7

16.9

80

3.1

3.9

4.8

5.8

6.9

8.1

9.3

10.6

12.0

13.3

14.7

16.0

17.2

18.2

85

3.2

4.0

4.9

5.9

7.0

8.2

9.4

10.7

12.1

13.5

14.9

16.2

17.4

18.4

19.1

90

3.4

4.1

5.0

6.0

7.1

8.3

9.5

10.8

12.2

13.6

15.0

16.3

17.6

18.5

19.2

19.7

≥95

3.4

4.2

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.3

9.5

10.8

12.2

13.6

15.0

16.4

17.6

18.6

19.3

19.7

57

20.0

TABLE 12.5 2000 Hz
VALUES OF PERCENTAGE LOSS OF HEARING CORRESPONDING TO GIVEN
HEARING THRESHOLD LEVELS IN THE BETTER AND WORSE EARS AT 2000Hz
HTL - BETTER EAR
≤15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

≥95

HTL - WORSE EAR
≤15

0.0

20

0.3

0.5

25

0.5

0.7

1.1

30

0.7

1.0

1.5

2.1

35

1.0

1.4

1.9

2.5

3.4

40

1.3

1.7

2.2

2.9

3.8

4.8

45

1.5

1.9

2.5

3.3

4.1

5.1

6.1

50

1.7

2.2

2.8

3.5

4.4

5.3

6.3

7.3

55

1.9

2.4

3.0

3.7

4.6

5.5

6.4

7.4

8.4

60

2.0

2.5

3.1

3.9

4.7

5.6

6.6

7.5

8.5

9.4

65

2.1

2.6

3.3

4.0

4.9

5.7

6.7

7.6

8.6

9.6

10.5

70

2.2

2.7

3.4

4.1

5.0

5.9

6.8

7.8

8.7

9.7

10.7

11.6

75

2.3

2.8

3.5

4.3

5.1

6.0

6.9

7.9

8.9

9.9

10.8

11.8

12.7

80

2.4

2.9

3.6

4.4

5.2

6.1

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

12.9

13.6

85

2.4

3.0

3.7

4.4

5.3

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.1

10.1

11.1

12.1

13.0

13.8

14.3

90

2.5

3.1

3.8

4.5

5.3

6.2

7.1

8.1

9.1

10.2

11.2

12.2

13.2

13.9

14.4

14.8

≥95

2.6

3.2

3.8

4.6

5.4

6.2

7.1

8.1

9.1

10.2

11.3

12.3

13.2

14.0

14.5

14.8

58

15.0

TABLE 12.6 3000 Hz
VALUES OF PERCENTAGE LOSS OF HEARING CORRESPONDING TO GIVEN
HEARING THRESHOLD LEVELS IN THE BETTER AND WORSE EARS AT 3000Hz
HTL - BETTER EAR
≤15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

≥95

HTL - WORSE EAR
≤15

0.0

20

0.2

0.3

25

0.3

0.5

0.7

30

0.5

0.7

1.0

1.4

35

0.7

0.9

1.2

1.7

2.3

40

0.8

1.1

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.2

45

1.0

1.3

1.7

2.2

2.7

3.4

4.1

50

1.1

1.4

1.9

2.3

2.9

3.5

4.2

4.8

55

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.6

4.3

4.9

5.6

60

1.3

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.1

3.7

4.4

5.0

5.6

6.3

65

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.7

3.2

3.8

4.4

5.1

5.7

6.4

7.0

70

1.5

1.8

2.3

2.8

3.3

3.9

4.5

5.2

5.8

6.5

7.1

7.7

75

1.5

1.9

2.3

2.8

3.4

4.0

4.6

5.2

5.9

6.6

7.2

7.8

8.4

80

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.9

3.4

4.0

4.7

5.3

6.0

6.6

7.3

8.0

8.6

9.1

85

1.6

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.1

4.7

5.4

6.0

6.7

7.4

8.1

8.7

9.2

9.5

90

1.7

2.1

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.1

4.7

5.4

6.1

6.8

7.5

8.2

8.8

9.2

9.6

9.8

≥95

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.0

3.6

4.1

4.7

5.4

6.1

6.8

7.5

8.2

8.8

9.3

9.6

9.8

59

10.0

TABLE 12.7 4000 Hz
VALUES OF PERCENTAGE LOSS OF HEARING CORRESPONDING TO GIVEN
HEARING THRESHOLD LEVELS IN THE BETTER AND WORSE EARS AT 4000Hz
HTL - BETTER EAR
≤20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

≥95

HTL - WORSE EAR
≤20

0.0

25

0.2

0.3

30

0.3

0.5

0.8

35

0.5

0.7

1.0

1.5

40

0.6

0.9

1.3

1.8

2.5

45

0.8

1.1

1.5

2.1

2.7

3.5

50

0.9

1.3

1.7

2.3

2.9

3.6

4.4

55

1.0

1.4

1.9

2.4

3.1

3.8

4.5

5.2

60

1.2

1.5

2.0

2.6

3.2

3.9

4.6

5.3

6.0

65

1.2

1.6

2.1

2.7

3.3

3.9

4.6

5.3

6.0

6.7

70

1.3

1.7

2.2

2.7

3.4

4.0

4.7

5.4

6.1

6.8

7.5

75

1.4

1.8

2.3

2.8

3.4

4.1

4.8

5.5

6.2

6.9

7.6

8.2

80

1.4

1.9

2.3

2.9

3.5

4.2

4.9

5.6

6.3

7.0

7.7

8.4

8.9

85

1.5

1.9

2.4

3.0

3.6

4.2

4.9

5.7

6.4

7.1

7.8

8.5

9.0

9.5

90

1.6

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.6

4.3

5.0

5.7

6.5

7.2

7.9

8.6

9.1

9.5

9.8

≥95

1.6

2.0

2.5

3.1

3.7

4.3

5.0

5.7

6.5

7.2

8.0

8.7

9.2

9.6

9.8

60

10.0

CHAPTER 15:
GUIDE TO TABLE 13. – VISUAL ACUITY IN THE BETTER EYE
Table 13 is used to assess conditions that result in impairment of visual acuity. This is assessed by
reference to the best corrected vision in the better eye with the aid of corrective spectacles or
contact lenses (if applicable). Referral for an optometrist or ophthalmologist assessment may be
required if there is doubt as to whether best corrected vision has been achieved or with the accuracy
of the Snellen’s Chart assessment. Only one rating may be assigned from this table regardless of
whether one or both eyes suffer loss of visual acuity.
(Note: Although the table’s instructions includes the visual acuity criteria for permanent blindness, it
should be noted that applicants for disability support pension on the basis of permanent blindness
(Blind Pension) are not assessed by the use of this table.)
This table’s formatting is somewhat confusing and requires some clarification. The first column refers
to the levels of best corrected visual acuity in the better eye. The following four columns refer to the
corresponding impairment ratings depending on a history of cataract operations. If there is no history
of cataract surgery, the second column is used to assign a rating depending on the best level of
vision.
However, if the person has undergone such a procedure, the impairment rating is then assigned from
one of the three columns on the right depending on how their vision has been corrected: whether
with lens implants, with contact lenses or with glasses. As the rating depends on the best corrected
vision in the better eye, it should not differ regardless of whether one of both eyes have undergone
such an operation. The following may help clarify the table’s application.

IMPAIRMENT RATING
BEST
CORRECTED
VISUAL ACUITY
IN BETTER EYE

NO CATARACT
OPERATION

CATARACT OPERATION CORRECTED WITH:
IMPLANT

CONTACT
LENSES

GLASSES

6/6

0

0

0

10

6/9

0

0

10

20

6/12

5

10

20

40

6/18

10

20

40

40

6/24 or worse

20

40

40

40

61

TABLE 13.

VISUAL ACUITY IN THE BETTER EYE
Work-related impairment in relation to a loss of visual acuity is assessed by measuring visual
acuity. This refers to best corrected vision in the better eye with spectacles or contact lenses
(if applicable). Referral to an optometrist or ophthalmologist may be required if there is
doubt as to whether best corrected vision has been achieved or with the accuracy of the
Snellen's Chart assessment. A person meets the criteria for permanent blindness under
section 95 of the Social Security Act if the corrected visual acuity is less than 6/60 on the
Snellen Scale in both eyes or there is a combination of visual defects resulting in the same
degree of permanent visual loss.

Visual Acuity

6/6
6/9
6/12
6/18
6/24 or worse

Rating

0
0
5
10
20

Cataract operation
(unilateral and bilateral aphakia not to receive a different rating)
Implant
Contact lenses
Glasses
0
0
10
0
10
20
10
20
40
20
40
40
40
40
40

62

CHAPTER 16:
GUIDE TO TABLE 14. – MISCELLANEOUS EYE CONDITIONS
Table 14 is used to assess impairment resulting from miscellaneous eye conditions. Specialist
ophthalmological advice may be beneficial to evaluate the nature of heterotropia (squint) with
diplopia (double vision).
A person who is permanently blind in one eye may be assigned a rating of five points from this table
for the loss of stereoscopic (binocular) vision. However, if there is also a loss of visual acuity or loss
of visual fields in the remaining sighted eye, then additional ratings may also be assigned under
Tables 13 and 15 respectively. This is not double counting as these are separate types of functional
losses. (Refer also to Section (G) – Chapter 1.)

TABLE 14.

MISCELLANEOUS EYE CONDITIONS

Visual Disturbance

Rating

Squint (Heterophoria): Latent
Squint (Heterotropia): Without diplopia
Acquired Heterotropia (squint) with diplopia:
one quadrant of upward gaze
all directions of upward gaze
one quadrant of downward gaze
one direction of sideways gaze
both directions of sideways gaze
all directions of gaze
all directions of downward gaze
all range of near vision

0
0
5
10
10
10
10
20
20
20

Constant irritation of eyes, photophobia, epiphora, ectropion or
entropion
Gaze defects (vertical and/or horizontal)

0
10

Glaucoma without visual loss

0

Longstanding Blepharospasm

10

Loss of stereoscopic vision in absence of squint
Permanent (eg. blind in one eye)
Intermittent (eg. ptosis or tarsorrhaphy)

5
10

Nystagmus without diplopia

Rate as for visual acuity

Retinal Dystrophy with night blindness

Rate as for visual acuity and
visual fields

63

CHAPTER 17:
GUIDE TO TABLE 15. – VISUAL FIELDS
Table 15 is used to assess impairment resulting from the loss of visual fields. This may occur
commonly from strokes (cerebrovascular accidents) and it is usually necessary to seek
ophthalmological advice to determine an accurate assessment of the extent of visual field loss. Once
the type/extent of the visual field defect has been established, it is relatively straightforward to assign
an appropriate impairment rating from this table. Only one rating should be assigned from this table.
(Note: Although the table’s instructions includes the loss of visual fields criteria for permanent
blindness, it should be noted that applicants for disability support pension on the basis of permanent
blindness are not assessed by the use of this table.)

TABLE 15.

VISUAL FIELDS
It is usually necessary to seek ophthalmological advice for an accurate assessment under this
Table. A person meets the criteria for permanent blindness under section 95 of the Social
Security Act if their field of vision is constricted to ten degrees or less of arc from central
fixation in the better eye irrespective of corrected visual acuity or there is a combination of
visual defects resulting in the same degree of visual impairment.

Type of Defect
Only one eye affected

Rating
Both eyes affected (or
there is only one eye
and it is affected)

Temporal Hemianopia

10

20

Nasal Hemianopia

10

20

Upper half loss

10

20

Lower half loss

20

20

Upper quadrant loss

0

20

Lower quadrant loss

0

20

Constriction outside
30 degrees of fixation

0

0

Constriction to within
30 degrees of fixation

10

10

Constriction to within
20 degrees of fixation

20

20

Constriction to within
10 degrees of fixation

20

permanent blindness (see
above)

64

CHAPTER 18:
GUIDE TO TABLE 16. – LOWER URINARY TRACT
Table 16 is used to assess impairment resulting from conditions affecting the lower urinary tract. This
includes problems relating to urinary incontinence and other urethral and bladder outlet disorders.
Specialist advice has indicated that the impact of urinary tract impairments on work ability has been
greatly reduced over the years. Many previously disabling conditions are now better managed to the
extent that the person can now self-administer the necessary treatment. Before an impairment rating
is assigned from this table, it must be considered that the condition has been optimally managed and
that significant functional improvement is not expected to occur within the next two years. Only one
rating should be assigned from this table. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)

TABLE 16.

LOWER URINARY TRACT
This Table is to be used for incontinence and other urethral and bladder outlet disorders.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Minor stress incontinence. Bladder outlet or urethral obstruction with mild symptoms.

TEN

Loss of voluntary control of bladder, but satisfactory emptying achieved by triggering of
reflex activity, suprapubic pressure or Valsalva manoeuvre. No incontinence aid needed
or
Ileal or Sigmoid conduit
or
Chronic Urinary Obstruction needing regular catheterisation.

TWENTY

Loss of voluntary control of bladder with dribbling incontinence needing frequent change of
incontinence pads, or a collection device, eg, urodome catheter
or
Ureterosigmoidostomy.

65

CHAPTER 19:
GUIDE TO TABLE 17. – RENAL FUNCTION
Table 17 is used to assess the impairment relating to a person’s level of functioning on dialysis for
chronic renal disease. Additional work-related impairment from the systemic effects of renal disease
however, is assessed depending on the nature of the resulting symptoms and loss of function. For
example, persistent generalised symptoms of fatigue are assessed under Table 20 whilst persistent
gastrointestinal symptoms (eg vomiting) despite optimal treatment are assessed using Table 11.1.
Renal transplants are also assessed using Table 20. (Refer also to Sections (G), (I) – Chapter 1,
CHAPTER 12 – Table 11.1, CHAPTER 22 – Table 20.)
Nephrologist’s advice has indicated that a person on dialysis treatment is not necessarily precluded
from working. This is based on improvements in self-management through the availability of home
dialysis and improvements in medical therapy to better control the side-effects of dialysis treatment.
Each person must be assessed on an individual basis and an appropriate rating assigned from this
table to reflect their level of functioning. Only one rating for dialysis should be assigned from this
table.

TABLE 17.

RENAL FUNCTION
As renal disease has systemic effects, assessment of renal impairment as it impacts on work
capacity is based upon the loss of function resulting from these systemic effects. For
example, for persistent generalised symptoms such as fatigue use Table 20, refractory
anaemia is assessed using Table 20, persistent gastrointestinal symptoms (eg. vomiting)
despite optimal treatment are assessed using Table 11 and persistent Central Nervous System
symptoms using Table 8. Renal transplants are assessed using Table 20.
Dialysis is rated as follows:

FIFTEEN

All types of dialysis (except outpatient haemodialysis) which are functioning well. Some
decreased ability to carry out everyday activities but independence is retained.

TWENTY

Outpatient haemodialysis and all types of dialysis which are functioning poorly. More
severe symptoms with a decreased ability to carry out many everyday activities. Most daily
activities can be completed with some difficulty. Symptoms may prevent or lead to
avoidance of some daily tasks and simple tasks will usually aggravate symptoms of fatigue.

THIRTY

End stage renal disease with very severe symptoms which lead to substantial difficulties with
most daily tasks.

FORTY

End stage renal disease leading to major restrictions in many everyday activities. Capacity
for self-care is restricted leading to dependence on others.

66

CHAPTER 20:
GUIDE TO TABLE 18. – SKIN DISORDERS
Table 18 is used to assess impairment resulting from skin disorders. In determining the degree of
impairment, the prime consideration relates to the level of functional loss which impacts on the
ability to perform normal daily activities. However, where there is extensive cosmetic or cutaneous
involvement, this should also be considered. Before an impairment rating is assigned from this table,
it must be considered that the condition has been optimally managed and that significant functional
improvement is not expected to occur within the next two years. Only one rating should be assigned
from this table. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)

TABLE 18.

SKIN DISORDERS
In the evaluation of work-related impairment resulting from a skin disorder, the actual
functional loss is the prime consideration. However, where there is extensive cosmetic or
cutaneous involvement, this should also be considered.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Signs and symptoms of skin disorder present and with treatment there is NO limitation in the
performance of normal daily activities.

TEN

Signs and symptoms of skin disorder present despite optimal treatment and results in some
interference with normal daily activities.

TWENTY

Signs and symptoms of skin disorder present despite optimal treatment and results in
significant interference with normal daily activities.

FORTY

Very severe symptoms requiring continuous treatment which may include periodic
confinement to home or hospital and needs considerable assistance with normal daily
activities.

67

CHAPTER 21:
GUIDE TO TABLE 19. – ENDOCRINE DISORDERS
Table 19 is used to assess impairment resulting from endocrine disorders depending on their level of
control and management. Endocrine disorders may cause multi-system effects with impairments
affecting various body systems (eg Diabetes Mellitus causing visual and lower limbs impairment).
These separate functional losses should be assessed under the relevant tables and the ratings
added to the rating from this table to provide an overall assessment. (Refer also to Sections (G), (L)
– Chapter 1 and Paragraph 7 of the “Introduction”.)
Before assigning an appropriate rating from this table, it must be considered that the endocrine
disorder has received optimal treatment and stabilisation for best control of the condition. It should be
noted that the diagnoses, Diabetes Mellitus and Addison’s Disease do not appear in the descriptor at
the ten points impairment level. This is not an oversight as specialist advice has indicated that
improvements in treatment mean that these conditions are mostly well controlled or otherwise belong
to a population where satisfactory control cannot be adequately achieved. Individuals whose level of
impairment falls in between these two levels should probably be considered to suffer from a
temporary impairment as it is likely that their condition will benefit from specialist management and
respond to more vigorous therapy. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)

TABLE 19.

ENDOCRINE DISORDERS
The effects of endocrine disorders eg. diabetes mellitus on other body systems eg. the
vascular and visual systems should be assessed from the appropriate tables and added
together with values from this table.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Thyroid disease, Acromegaly, Cushing's disease, Prolactinoma, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes
Insipidus, Parathyroid Disease, Paget's disease, Osteoporosis, Addison's Disease adequately
controlled with hormone replacement and/or surgery and/or radiotherapy and/or therapeutic
agents.

TEN

Thyroid disease, Acromegaly, Cushing's disease, Prolactinoma, Diabetes Insipidus,
Parathyroid Disease, Paget's disease or Osteoporosis which is incompletely controlled or
treated eg. symptomatic Paget's disease, osteoporosis or other bone disease with pain not
completely controlled by continuous therapy.

TWENTY

Diabetes mellitus or Addison's Disease not satisfactorily controlled despite vigorous therapy
as indicated by for example frequent hospital admissions, recurrent hypoglycaemic or
hypotensive episodes and/or progressive end organ damage.

68

CHAPTER 22:
GUIDE TO TABLE 20. – MISCELLANEOUS – MALIGNANCY,
HYPERTENSION, HIV INFECTION, MORBID OBESITY (ie BMI >40),
HEART / LIVER/ KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS, MISCELLANEOUS EAR /
NOSE / THROAT CONDITIONS & CHRONIC FATIGUE OR PAIN
Table 20 is used to assess impairments caused by miscellaneous conditions such as those
addressed below. In general, the system-specific tables associated with the underlying medical
conditions should be used to assess a person’s impairments. However, there are situations where
Table 20 may be considered more appropriate particularly when there are multiple or global effects of
more than one body system causing functional impairment. (Refer also to Sections (F), (G) – Chapter
1.)
When applying this table, care must be taken to avoid double counting of the same functional loss,
particularly if there is a choice of other tables that may be used to assign ratings or if there is overlap
in the symptoms caused by multiple conditions. In general, if more than one condition (eg those
causing chronic pain and/or fatigue) may be rated under this table, it would be practical to assign a
single rating reflecting the overall (highest) level of impairment. However, in some cases, it may be
appropriate to provide individual ratings for separate diagnoses if it is considered that the
impairments resulting from these conditions are discrete and separate, corresponding to the
descriptors in the table. (Refer also to Sections (H), (I), (J) – Chapter 1.)

Malignancy:
Assessment of malignant conditions under this table takes into account the functional effects of the
condition as well as the prognosis of the condition. It is recognised that individuals diagnosed with a
malignant condition may still retain a high level of functional ability. Before a rating can be assigned
from this table, the impairment resulting from the malignant condition must be considered permanent
and stabilised. This means that the prognosis and expected level of functional capacity over the next
two years can be reasonably predicted and often requires advice from the treating oncologist. (Refer
also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)
Hypertension:
Hypertension does not usually cause significant functional effects unless it has resulted in end organ
damage. Before a rating is assigned from this table, the condition must be considered optimally
treated and stabilised. In most cases where the impairment is considered permanent and the
condition has been difficult to control despite “intensive therapy”, it would be reasonable to expect
that the person has received specialist review and management. In general, hypertension should be
rated under this table and not under Table 1 unless it has resulted in heart failure causing restriction
of effort tolerance. (Refer also to CHAPTER 2 – Table 1.)
HIV Infection:
A rating is assigned for this condition based on the resulting functional effects and the prognosis.
Assessments should be individualised as both the degree of functional impairment and prognosis
may vary depending on the individual‘s circumstances. As with malignant conditions, advice from the
treating specialist may be required.
Morbid Obesity:
Morbid Obesity is defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 40. (BMI is calculated by the
2
formula: Weight (kg) / Height (metres) . A BMI > 40 is generally considered to be incompatible with
long term good health but does not necessarily correlate with significant functional impairment. This
table may be used to assign an overall rating reflecting the resulting functional effects but
assessments should be individualised as the functional impairment may vary from minimal to very
significant impairment. If long term morbid obesity has resulted in specific secondary effects (eg
osteoarthritis of the knee joints), these may be rated under the relevant system-specific tables (eg
Table 4) but care must be taken to avoid overassessing the same impairment.

69

Heart / Liver / Kidney / Transplants:
It is generally more appropriate to rate the effects resulting from organ transplants under this table
rather than under the system-specific tables. For example, a person who has undergone a heart
transplant for severe ischaemic heart disease should not be rated under Table 1, as their effort
tolerance would no longer be restricted by symptoms of angina.
Miscellaneous Ear / Nose / Throat Conditions:
Conditions such as Meniere’s Disease, vertigo and tinnitus may have a rating assigned using this
table if they are causing chronic, continuous effects. However, Table 21 should be used instead if
they result in intermittent, discrete episodes. A rating should only be assigned in the presence of a
fully diagnosed condition causing such symptoms. (Refer also to CHAPTER 23 – Table 21.)
Chronic Fatigue or Pain:
This table may be used to assign an alternative rating in situations where it is considered that
assessment under relevant system-specific tables underestimates the level of impairment due to the
effects of chronic entrenched pain or fatigue. This is explained in much greater detail in Section (I) of
Chapter 1 relating to Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction”. (Refer also to Sections (H), (I), (J) – Chapter
1, Paragraph 8 of the “Introduction” and CHAPTER 6 – Table 5.)

TABLE 20.
MISCELLANEOUS - MALIGNANCY, HYPERTENSION, HIV INFECTION, MORBID
OBESITY (ie BMI >40), HEART/LIVER/KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS, MISCELLANEOUS
EAR/NOSE/THROAT CONDITIONS & CHRONIC FATIGUE OR PAIN.
Table 20 can be used for miscellaneous conditions, for example, malignancy, HIV infection,
morbid obesity, transplants, miscellaneous ear/nose/throat conditions, disorders with chronic
fatigue (including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) or pain and hypertension. Where there is a
separate loss of function, in addition to the loss which can be rated using the system-specific
Tables, Table 20 can be used. Double-counting of a particular loss of function, by the use of
more than one Table, must be avoided.
Rating
NIL

Criteria
Controlled hypertension
Malignancy in remission with a good to fair prognosis
Minor symptoms which are easily tolerated and have no appreciable effect on ability to
work.

TEN

Mild to moderate symptoms which are irritating or unpleasant but which rarely prevent
completion of any activity. Symptoms may cause loss of efficiency in daily activities but
minimal interference performing or persisting with work-related tasks. There is minimal
effect/impact on work attendance.
Hypertension that is difficult to control despite intensive therapy but without end-organ
damage
Potentially life-threatening condition which is currently not interfering with daily activities
eg. malignancy in remission with a poor prognosis
Heart/Liver/Kidney transplants - well controlled (well functioning) with only mild systemic
symptoms.

70

FIFTEEN

Moderate to severe symptoms which are more distressing but prevent few everyday
activities. Self-care is unaffected and independence is retained. Symptoms may have mild to
moderate impact on ability to perform or persist with work-related tasks and/or attend work.
Full-time work would still be possible.
Potentially life-threatening condition which is currently interfering with daily activities but
self-care is unaffected.

TWENTY

More severe symptoms with a decreased ability/efficiency to carry out many everyday
activities. Most daily activities can be completed with some difficulty. Symptoms may
prevent or lead to avoidance of some daily tasks and simple tasks will usually aggravate
symptoms of fatigue. Symptoms cause significant interference with ability to perform or
persist with work-related tasks. Symptoms may cause prolonged absences from work.

THIRTY

Very severe symptoms which lead to substantial difficulty with most daily tasks. Assistance
with elements of self-care may be required. Symptoms cause severe interference with ability
to work or attend work (ie. minimal residual work capacity).
Heart/Liver/Kidney transplants - poorly controlled (poorly functioning) with fairly severe
symptoms which lead to substantial difficulty with most daily tasks
Malignant hypertension - severe, uncontrolled
Inoperable, symptomatic and life-threatening aneurysm or malignancy. Very poor prognosis
with only a very limited lifespan.

FORTY

Major restrictions in many everyday activities. Capacity for self-care is restricted, leading to
dependence on others. No residual work capacity.

71

CHAPTER 23:
GUIDE TO TABLE 21. – INTERMITTENT CONDITIONS
Table 21 is used to assess conditions that result in intermittent impairment. These are conditions that
usually cause minimal or no impairment in between discrete, recurrent episodes of impairment. Such
intermittent impairments are assessed by reference to the severity, duration and frequency of the
episodic attacks:
Severity – How severe the symptoms and resulting effects are during an episode is defined with
reference to Table 21.1
Duration – How long the episodes last for is defined with reference to Table 21.2
Frequency – How often the episodes occur is defined according to the number of days affected
per year as indicated in Table 21.4
A rating is determined from these three factors by first assigning a level of severity (0 to 6) and
duration (transient/short/medium/prolonged) for the episodes using Tables 21.1 and 21.2
respectively. The results are then used to determine an intermittent grading code (A to J) using Table
21.3. This grading code is then correlated with the estimated frequency (affected days/year) of
episodes to obtain the corresponding final impairment rating using Table 21.4.

Determining a reliable level of intermittent impairment:
Before a rating is assigned from this table, it must be considered that the condition causing the
intermittent impairment has been adequately diagnosed and optimally treated and stabilised. For
example, impairment caused by longstanding epilepsy may still be viewed as temporary and hence
not rated if it is determined that further medical management would significantly improve its control
within the next two years (eg by improving treatment compliance, adjusting dosage or type of anticonvulsant medication to reduce side-effects or improve therapeutic effect). (Refer also to Section
(K) – Chapter 1.)
As episodes may vary in severity, duration and frequency, the general approach is to determine an
average estimate for each factor. However, some intermittent conditions may have distinct and
separate phases or components within each episode or alternatively may have distinct types of
episodes that differ in severity, duration and/or frequency. In these cases, separate ratings may be
assigned for each phase or type of episode and the ratings are then added together to provide an
overall intermittent impairment rating. (Refer also to Section (H)_Hlk498259708 – Chapter 1.)
For example, for grand mal (generalised tonic-clonic) epilepsy, one rating may be provided taking
into account the severity, duration and frequency of the ictal phase of a seizure and an additional
rating can also be assigned based on the different level of severity and duration for the post-ictal
phase. The frequency would usually remain the same for both phases of the same episode.
The effects of chronic disorders are usually rated under the system-specific tables relating to the
underlying medical conditions. It is indicated that if a system-specific table is applicable for an
intermittent disorder, then it is used in preference to this table. It is expected that this would generally
result in a higher impairment rating (eg severe asthma resulting in persistent airways limitation can
attract a higher rating using either Table 1 or Table 2 rather than Table 21.) (Refer also to Section (J)
– Chapter 1.)
However, where the conditions also cause acute exacerbations that are considered significantly
frequent and severe, an additional rating may also be provided from Table 21 for the impairment
caused by these intermittent exacerbations. For example, Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease with
frequent episodic attacks of severe Acute Bronchitis may be rated under Table 21 for the intermittent
effects as well as under either Table 1 or Table 2 for the effects of chronic airways limitation. (Refer
also to Sections (F), (G) – Chapter 1, CHAPTER 2 – Table 1, CHAPTER 3 – Table 2.)
In assessing the level of severity (Table 21.1), clinical judgement is required to determine a reliable
level that is consistent with the person’s known pathology. Consideration of an appropriate level
should not be based on what activities the person does not do but rather on what they are unable to

72

do due to the symptoms experienced during an episode. Capacity for self-care should be carefully
assessed in this regard. Episodes of some intermittent conditions may be of sufficient severity to
necessitate hospital admission (levels 5 and 6) but it is expected that at such levels of severity, the
person would be incapable of self-care. It should be noted that hospital admission for surgery is not
to be used as a basis for ratings from this table.
When assessing the duration of an episode (Table 21.2), attacks which last more than a day should
be rated as “prolonged”. In this case, the frequency of the episodes will be more than the number of
episodes occurring in a year as it reflects the number of affected days per year.

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Migraines and other types of severe headaches that have been fully diagnosed and optimally treated
and stabilised. Epilepsy and transient ischaemic attacks that have been optimally controlled.
Symptomatic cardiac arrhythmias and asthma that are intermittent in nature. Episodes of tinnitus or
vertigo that are intermittent and not continuous. Gout and other arthropathies that cause recurrent
and discrete episodes of symptoms despite optimal treatment.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Tinnitus or vertigo that is continuous rather than intermittent should be rated under Table 20. Asthma
that is exercise induced should be rated under Table 1 and if it has resulted in severe chronic
airways limitation, it may be rated under Table 1 or Table 2. Angina from coronary artery disease or
ischaemic heart disease should be rated under Table 1. Gastrointestinal symptoms from conditions
such as reflux oesophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, irritable bowel syndrome or inflammatory bowel
disease should be rated under Table 11.1 or Table 11.2. Episodes of pain from endometriosis or
other gynaecological conditions should be rated under Table 22. Spinal conditions should generally
be rated under Table 5.1/5.2 or Table 20. (Refer also to CHAPTER 2 – Table 1, CHAPTER 3 – Table
2, CHAPTER 6 – Table 5, CHAPTER 22 Table 20, CHAPTER 24 – Table 22.)
Example of Intermittent Impairment Assessment using Table 21:
A 38 year-old woman suffers from recurrent headaches which have been fully investigated and
following neurologist review of her medical management, her condition is considered to have been
optimally treated and stabilised. She continues to suffer headaches on a monthly basis. When they
occur, she has difficulties concentrating whilst performing household chores and often finds it
necessary to take prescribed analgesic medication and lie down during the episode. She lives alone
and is able to cope during these episodes without having to call on a relative or friend for assistance
with self-care. She reports that on average, her headaches can last up to three or four hours.
Using Table 21.1, the severity of her headaches is estimated at level 3. Using Table 21.2, the
duration of her headaches is estimated as medium. Using Table 21.3, an intermittent grading code of
D is obtained by correlating the duration and severity level. Using Table 21.4, this code D is
correlated with the estimated frequency of 10+ days affected a year to provide a rating of nil. The
impairment from her condition of intermittent headaches is therefore assessed at nil impairment
points.

TABLE 21.

INTERMITTENT CONDITIONS

Intermittent but continuing disorders that remain asymptomatic between discrete episodes of impairment eg.
gout, epilepsy, Meniere's Disease, vertigo & tinnitus (only to be scored in the presence of a diagnosed
condition causing these symptoms but if the symptoms are continuous Table 20 should be used) are rated by
reference to severity, duration and frequency of attacks:
severity during an attack is defined in the descriptions below;
duration is defined in the descriptions below;
frequency is determined by the number of affected days in a year.

73

A rating using the above three factors is made by first coding severity and duration into an intermittent grading.
The code is then combined with frequency, using Table 21.4, to give the rating.
Some intermittent disorders may be rated using system-specific tables. The system-specific table is then used
in preference eg. severe asthma where there is persistent airway limitation.
When episodes vary in severity, duration or frequency, an average for each factor should be estimated. More
than one rating may be given for the same disorder. Thus for grand mal epilepsy one rating is given for the
ictal phase and a second rating for the post-ictal stage. The two are then added together.
For acute exacerbations of chronic disorders, where the acute relapses are frequent and severe, the Intermittent
Tables can be used in addition to the primary score derived for the underlying medical condition eg. frequent
attacks of acute bronchitis can be scored using Table 21 in addition to Table 1 or 2 for Chronic Airways
Limitation and the scores added together.
TABLE 21.1

Intermittent attack - severity

Level

Criteria

NIL

Minor symptoms which are easily tolerated.

ONE

Mild to moderate symptoms which are irritating or unpleasant but which rarely prevent
completion of any activity. Symptoms may cause loss of efficiency in some activities.

TWO

More severe symptoms which are distressing, but prevent few everyday activities. Loss of
efficiency is discernible elsewhere. Self-care is unaffected and independence is retained.

THREE

Loss of efficiency is discernible in many everyday activities. Some elements of self-care are
restricted but in most respects, independence is retained. Bed-rest is often necessary during
an attack.

FOUR

Major restrictions in many everyday activities.
restricted, leading to partial dependence on others.

FIVE

Most everyday activities are prevented. Dependent on others for many kinds of self-care.
Able to be maintained at home only with considerable difficulty, or hospital admission is
required.

SIX

Total incapacity. Unconscious or delirious. Self-care is impossible.

TABLE 21.2

Intermittent attack - duration

Description

Capacity for self-care is increasingly

Duration

Transient

Lasting up to and including five minutes.

Short

Lasting more than five minutes but less than 30 minutes.

Medium

Lasting from 30 minutes to four hours.

Prolonged

Lasting more than four hours.

74

TABLE 21.3

Severity - grading code

Description

Transient
Short
Medium
Prolonged

Severity Level
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A
A
A
A

A
A
B
C

A
C
C
D

B
C
D
F

C
D
E
G

C
E
H
I

F
H
I
J

A rating is obtained using Table 21.3 and Table 21.4:
determine the intermittent grading code appropriate to the estimated severity and duration from Table
21.3; and
make the rating appropriate to the intermittent grading code and frequency from Table 21.4.
TABLE 21.4

Assignment of a rating

Frequency (Affected days/year)
2+

5+

Intermittent
Grading code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

10+

20+

40+

100+

Rating

5

5
10

75

5
5
5
10
20

5
5
5
10
10
30
40

5
10
10
10
20
30
40
40

5
10
20
30
30
30
40
40
40

CHAPTER 24:
GUIDE TO TABLE 22. – GYNAECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Table 22 is used to assess impairment resulting from gynaecological conditions. An impairment
rating should only be assigned for significant conditions that have been properly diagnosed and are
affecting normal daily functioning despite optimal treatment. The impairment must also be considered
likely to continue for the foreseeable future (ie at least the next two years). Only one rating overall
should be assigned from this table. (Refer also to Section (K) – Chapter 1.)

Some conditions commonly assessed using this table:
Pelvic inflammatory disease, endometriosis.
Conditions that should not be assessed using this table:
Malignancies such as cervical or uterine cancer should be assessed under Table 20. Mastectomy
that has an associated loss of upper limb function would be rated under Table 3. Severe post-natal
depression that is expected to persist for the next two years may be rated under Table 6. Pregnancy
is a physiological state and not a pathological condition and should not be rated as an impairment
particularly as it is a temporary condition. For males, genital disorders should be assessed under
Table 16 or Table 17. (Refer also to CHAPTER 22– Table 20.)
TABLE 22.

GYNAECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Gynaecological conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis should be
assessed using Table 22. The Medical Officer should only use this Table for significant
diagnosed conditions affecting normal daily functioning and which are likely to continue for
the foreseeable future. Malignancy should be scored using Table 20. Disability due to
mastectomy should only be scored where there is an associated loss of upper limb function
and Table 3 should then be used. Post-natal depression may be scored using Table 6 if
considered to be adversely affecting function for the next two years.
For males, disorders of the genital system should be assessed under Tables 16 or 17.

Rating

Criteria

NIL

Minor symptoms which are easily tolerated. Minimal effect on daily functioning or work
capacity.

TEN

Moderate and frequent symptoms present despite treatment due to a condition which has
been properly diagnosed. Some decreased ability to carry out every day activities but
independence is retained.

TWENTY

Moderate to severe symptoms frequently present despite optimal treatment due to a condition
which has been properly diagnosed. Decreased ability to carry out everyday activities,
requiring assistance with elements of self-care.

THIRTY

More severe symptoms frequently present despite optimal treatment due to a condition which
has been properly diagnosed. This results in substantial difficulties with most daily tasks.

FORTY

Severe symptoms frequently present despite optimal treatment due to a condition which has
been properly diagnosed and needs considerable assistance with many daily activities.

76

INDEX TO THE GUIDE
A
Abdominal pain................................................................................................................................. 49, 50, 51, 52
Abstract thinking – capacity for.......................................................................................................................... 43
Acquired brain injury (ABI) ............................................................................................................. 38, 42, 43, 46
Acromegaly......................................................................................................................................................... 68
Adaptive behaviour ............................................................................................................................................. 47
Adjustment disorder...................................................................................................................................... 37, 38
Age – adjustments for ..................................................................................................................................... 7, 17
Aids – use of ........................................................................................7, 30, 32, 33, 43, 44, 45, 53, 54, 61, 62, 65
Alcohol dependence................................................................................................................................ 40, 41, 42
Amputation ............................................................................................................................................. 17, 30, 33
Anaemia – refractory .......................................................................................................................................... 66
Anal disorder/disease .......................................................................................................................................... 51
Anal fissures ....................................................................................................................................................... 51
Analgesic medication.................................................................................................................................... 40, 73
Anatomical loss....................................................................................................................................... 17, 31, 33
Aneurysm............................................................................................................................................................ 71
Angina..........................................................................................................................................20, 21, 22, 70, 73
Angina – exercise induced .................................................................................................................................. 21
Ankylosis ...................................................................................................................................................... 35, 36
Anti-convulsant medication .......................................................................................................................... 15, 72
Anti-inflammatory medication............................................................................................................................ 17
Anti-social behaviour.......................................................................................................................................... 38
Anxiety.......................................................................................................................................................... 10, 38
Aphakia............................................................................................................................................................... 62
Aphasia ............................................................................................................................................... 9, 19, 42, 44
Arrhythmias ............................................................................................................................................ 21, 22, 73
Arthritis................................................................................................................................................... 21, 31, 33
Arthropathies ...................................................................................................................................................... 73
Ascites................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Asthma .............................................................................................................................21, 22, 25, 26, 72, 73, 74
Asthma – exercise induced ............................................................................................................... 21, 22, 26, 73
Ataxia.................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) ......................................................................... 38, 42, 46
Audiometric testing............................................................................................................................................. 53
Audiometric testing – air conduction .................................................................................................................. 53
B
Back pain ...............................................................................................................................10, 11, 12, 32, 34, 36
Balance – lower limbs................................................................................................................................... 32, 33
Bed-rest............................................................................................................................................................... 74
Behavioural problems ......................................................................................................38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47
Biliary tract disease............................................................................................................................................. 49
Binocular/stereoscopic vision ............................................................................................................................. 63
Bipolar disorder ...................................................................................................................................... 15, 37, 38
Birth trauma ........................................................................................................................................................ 46
Bladder outlet obstruction................................................................................................................................... 65
Bleeding – complication of peptic ulcer ............................................................................................................. 50
Bleeding disorders .............................................................................................................................................. 50
Blepharospasm.................................................................................................................................................... 63
Blind pension – qualification for............................................................................................................. 61, 62, 64
Blindness – definition of permanent ....................................................................................................... 61, 62, 64
Blindness – night................................................................................................................................................. 63
Blindness – unilateral.......................................................................................................................................... 63
Blood transfusions .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Body Mass Index (BMI) ............................................................................................................................... 69, 70
Bowel disorder/disease ..................................................................................................................... 38, 51, 52, 73

77

Bronchitis – acute ......................................................................................................................................... 72, 74
Bronchodilatation.......................................................................................................................................... 25, 27
C
Calluses............................................................................................................................................................... 30
Cancer ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Cancer – cervical................................................................................................................................................. 76
Cancer – uterine .................................................................................................................................................. 76
Cardiac failure............................................................................................................................................... 21, 69
Cardiac/heart disease ...........................................................................................10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 69, 70, 73
Cardiomyopathy.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Cardiorespiratory impairment/disorder........................................................................................10, 16, 20, 21, 22
Cardiovascular impairment/disorder..............................................................10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 69, 70, 73
Carpal tunnel syndrome/disorders ...................................................................................................................... 31
Cataract surgery ............................................................................................................................................ 61, 62
Catheterisation – urinary..................................................................................................................................... 65
Central Nervous System symptoms .................................................................................................................... 66
Cerebral cortex................................................................................................................................................ 9, 19
Cerebrovascular accident (CVA)/Stroke..................................................................................9, 19, 31, 33, 42, 64
Cervical cancer ................................................................................................................................................... 76
Cervical spine/neck........................................................................................................................... 12, 30, 34, 35
Chemotherapy..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Chromosomal abnormalities ............................................................................................................................... 46
Chronic airflow limitation (CAL)/Chronic obstructive airways disease (COAD) .....21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 72, 73, 74
Chronic fatigue ......................................................................................................................11, 12, 14, 19, 69, 70
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)........................................................................................................... 12, 14, 70
Chronic pain.....................................................................................................................10, 11, 12, 19, 34, 69, 70
Chronic Pain Disorder/Chronic Pain Syndrome ........................................................................................... 11, 34
Cirrhosis.............................................................................................................................................................. 40
Claudication ............................................................................................................................................ 10, 32, 33
Climbing ....................................................................................................................................................... 32, 33
Cochlear implant............................................................................................................................................. 7, 53
Cognitive impairment/disorder ......................................................9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 64
Colostomy..................................................................................................................................................... 51, 52
Combined functional loss.......................................................................................................................... 9, 10, 19
Communication devices................................................................................................................................ 44, 45
Communication impairment/disorder ............................................................7, 8, 9, 11, 19, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 53
Compelling reasons against treatment .......................................................................................................... 15, 18
Compensation – through aids/assistance..............................................7, 30, 32, 33, 43, 44, 45, 53, 54, 61, 62, 65
Compliance with treatment ..........................................................................................................15, 37, 38, 40, 72
Comprehension ....................................................................................................................................... 19, 42, 43
Concentration ability........................................................................................................................................... 43
Condition vs Impairment .................................................................................................................................... 16
Confusion.....................................................................................................................................11, 13, 16, 19, 43
Constipation ........................................................................................................................................................ 51
Contact lenses ............................................................................................................................................... 61, 62
Continuing inability to work ................................................................................................................................. 7
Coordination – lower limbs........................................................................................................................... 32, 33
Coordination – upper limbs........................................................................................................................... 30, 31
Coronary artery disease................................................................................................................20, 21, 22, 70, 73
Cosmetic involvement ........................................................................................................................................ 67
Counselling ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Crutches .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
Cutaneous involvement....................................................................................................................................... 67
Cytomegalovirus infection (CMV) ..................................................................................................................... 46
D
Daily activities ...................................................................................23, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 76
Deafness.............................................................................................................................................. 7, 44, 45, 53
Decibels (dB) ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

78

Decision making ability ................................................................................................................................ 42, 43
Deconditioning.................................................................................................................................................... 20
Degenerative joint disease ...........................................................................................................10, 17, 31, 33, 69
Delusions ............................................................................................................................................................ 39
Dementia............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Demonstrable loss of function ...............................................................................................30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Depression ...................................................................................................................8, 10, 11, 14, 37, 38, 42, 76
Depression – post-natal....................................................................................................................................... 76
Depression – reactive .................................................................................................................................... 37, 38
Descriptors ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Dexterity – upper limbs ................................................................................................................................ 30, 31
Diabetes Insipidus............................................................................................................................................... 68
Diabetes Mellitus ................................................................................................................................ 9, 16, 18, 68
Diagnosed, treated and stabilised...........................................................................................13, 14, 18, 26, 37, 38
Diagnosis – establishing/confirming............................................................................................................. 14, 18
Diagnosis vs Function......................................................................................................................................... 17
Dialysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 66
Diarrhoea ...................................................................................................................................................... 51, 52
Diplopia .............................................................................................................................................................. 63
Disability Support Pension (DSP) – qualification for ..................................................................................... 7, 17
Disability vs Impairment....................................................................................................................................... 7
Dislocations .................................................................................................................................................. 31, 33
Diverticulosis ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Double counting.............................................................................9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 25, 34, 42, 44, 63, 69, 70
Down syndrome (Trisomy 21) ............................................................................................................................ 46
Driving .................................................................................................................................................... 20, 23, 36
Drug dependence .................................................................................................................................... 40, 41, 42
Dumping syndrome............................................................................................................................................. 49
Duodenal disease ................................................................................................................................................ 49
Dyslexia .................................................................................................................................................. 42, 44, 46
Dyspepsia...................................................................................................................................................... 38, 49
Dysphagia ........................................................................................................................................................... 50
Dysphasia.................................................................................................................................................. 9, 42, 44
Dyspnoea ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Dyspraxia ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
E
Ear/nose/throat conditions................................................................................................................................... 70
Eating disorders .................................................................................................................................................. 38
Ectropion............................................................................................................................................................. 63
Effort/exercise tolerance ........................................................ 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 69, 70
Encephalitis................................................................................................................................................... 42, 46
End organ damage....................................................................................................................9, 40, 41, 68, 69, 70
Endocrine disorders ................................................................................................................................ 16, 18, 68
Endometriosis ............................................................................................................................................... 73, 76
Entropion ............................................................................................................................................................ 63
Epigastric pain .................................................................................................................................................... 49
Epilepsy .......................................................................................................................................15, 42, 72, 73, 74
Epilepsy – generalised toni-clonic ...................................................................................................................... 72
Epilepsy – grand mal .................................................................................................................................... 72, 74
Epilepsy – ictal phase.................................................................................................................................... 72, 74
Epilepsy – post-ictal phase............................................................................................................................ 72, 74
Epiphora.............................................................................................................................................................. 63
Exacerbations................................................................................................................................................ 72, 74
Exercise ECG/Stress test............................................................................................................................... 21, 22
F
Faecal incontinence............................................................................................................................................. 52
Faecal soiling ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Fatigue ............................................................................. 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 38, 43, 49, 50, 66, 69, 70, 71

79

Fibromyalgia ................................................................................................................................................. 10, 12
Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1) ........................................................................................................ 25, 26, 27
Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) .................................................................................................................. 25, 26, 27
Fractures........................................................................................................................................................ 31, 33
Frequencies ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Frontal lobe syndrome ........................................................................................................................................ 38
Function vs Diagnosis......................................................................................................................................... 17
Functional impairment/loss..................................................................................................................... 17, 18, 19
G
Gait ......................................................................................................................................................... 32, 33, 34
Gastrointestinal impairment/disorder...................................................................11, 38, 40, 49, 50, 51, 52, 66, 73
Gastrostomy ........................................................................................................................................................ 50
Gaze defects ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
Gender – adjustments for ................................................................................................................................ 7, 17
Genital disorders – male ..................................................................................................................................... 76
Glasses ................................................................................................................................................................ 62
Glaucoma ............................................................................................................................................................ 63
Gout ........................................................................................................................................................ 31, 33, 73
Gynaecological impairment/disorder ............................................................................................................ 73, 76
H
Haemodialysis..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Haemorrhoids...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Hallucinations ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Hand function ............................................................................................................................................... 30, 31
Headaches ..................................................................................................................................................... 38, 73
Headaches – Migraines ....................................................................................................................................... 73
Hearing aid.............................................................................................................................................. 44, 53, 54
Hearing loss - sensorineural................................................................................................................................ 53
Hearing loss/impairment ............................................................................7, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
Hearing threshold levels ..................................................................................................53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
Heart failure .................................................................................................................................................. 21, 69
Heart transplants ........................................................................................................................................... 70, 71
Heart/cardiac disease ...........................................................................................10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 69, 70, 73
Hemianopia – nasal............................................................................................................................................. 64
Hemianopia – temporal....................................................................................................................................... 64
Hemiparesis .............................................................................................................................................. 9, 19, 31
Hemiplegia...................................................................................................................................................... 9, 31
Hepatic encephalopathy ...................................................................................................................................... 50
Hepatitis C .......................................................................................................................................................... 49
Hernia ........................................................................................................................................................... 51, 52
Hernias ................................................................................................................................................................ 51
Heroin ................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Heterophoria ....................................................................................................................................................... 63
Heterotropia ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
Hip – movement............................................................................................................................................ 35, 36
Hip – replacement ............................................................................................................................................... 16
HIV infection .......................................................................................................................................... 46, 69, 70
Hormone replacement – treatment ...................................................................................................................... 68
Hospital – waiting list ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Hospital admissions .....................................................................................................................16, 67, 68, 73, 74
Hypertension ................................................................................................................................21, 22, 69, 70, 71
Hypertension – malignant ................................................................................................................................... 71
Hypoglycaemic episodes..................................................................................................................................... 68
Hypotensive episodes.......................................................................................................................................... 68
Hypothyroidism .................................................................................................................................................. 14
I
Ileal conduit ........................................................................................................................................................ 65

80

Ileostomy ...................................................................................................................................................... 51, 52
Illiteracy .................................................................................................................................................. 42, 44, 46
Impairment ratings - scoring ............................................................................................................................... 19
Impairment ratings – scoring .............................................................................................................................. 12
Impairment ratings – scoring .............................................................................................................................. 19
Impairment ratings – scoring .............................................................................................................................. 19
Impairment Tables – appropriate selection ....................................................................................... 16, 17, 18, 19
Impairment Tables – purpose and design............................................................................................................ 17
Impairment vs Condition .................................................................................................................................... 16
Impairment vs Disability....................................................................................................................................... 7
Incontinence – faecal .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Incontinence – stress ........................................................................................................................................... 65
Incontinence – urinary ........................................................................................................................................ 65
Independent living – capacity for.....................................................................................43, 46, 47, 66, 71, 74, 76
Inflammatory bowel disease ......................................................................................................................... 51, 73
Innumeracy ............................................................................................................................................. 42, 44, 46
Insight – impairment of..........................................................................................................15, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43
Intellectual disability/impairment/disorder ................................................................................... 8, 14, 18, 46, 47
Intelligence Quotient (IQ)............................................................................................................................. 46, 47
Intermittent impairment/disorders......................................................15, 21, 22, 26, 31, 33, 63, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75
Investigations – establishing nature and severity 11, 14, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 37, 38, 42, 46, 47, 49, 53,
61, 62, 63, 64
Irritable bowel disorder/syndrome .......................................................................................................... 38, 51, 73
Ischaemic heart disease................................................................................................................20, 21, 22, 70, 73
J
Jejunostomy ........................................................................................................................................................ 52
Joint replacement .......................................................................................................................................... 16, 17
Judgement – impairment of............................................................8, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 34, 37, 39, 40, 43, 49, 72
K
Kidney transplants .................................................................................................................................. 66, 70, 71
Knee .................................................................................................................................................. 10, 17, 33, 69
Kneeling........................................................................................................................................................ 32, 33
L
Language competency .................................................................................................................... 7, 8, 44, 45, 53
Learning ability............................................................................................................................................. 42, 43
Lens implants ...................................................................................................................................................... 62
Lethargy ........................................................................................................................................................ 11, 38
Ligamentous instability....................................................................................................................................... 10
Limb dominance (upper limbs)........................................................................................................................... 30
Liver biopsy ........................................................................................................................................................ 49
Liver disease ..........................................................................................................................11, 40, 49, 50, 69, 70
Liver function tests ............................................................................................................................................. 49
Liver transplants............................................................................................................................................ 70, 71
Lower limb impairment/disorder ...............................................7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 68
Lumbar spine/low back....................................................................................................10, 11, 12, 32, 34, 35, 36
M
Malignancy ..................................................................................................................................15, 69, 70, 71, 76
Malignant hypertension ...................................................................................................................................... 71
Manic depression .................................................................................................................................... 15, 37, 38
Manual handling ........................................................................................................................................... 30, 31
Mastectomy......................................................................................................................................................... 76
Medical Officer......................................................................................................................17, 18, 19, 22, 27, 76
Medication .....................................................................................................15, 17, 22, 25, 38, 40, 50, 51, 72, 73
Memory impairment ............................................................................................................................... 38, 42, 43
Meningitis ..................................................................................................................................................... 42, 46
Mental state examination .............................................................................................................................. 37, 38

81

Methadone program ............................................................................................................................................ 40
METs – definition ................................................................................................................................... 20, 22, 23
METs – restrictive/symptomatic level .............................................................................................. 20, 21, 22, 23
Migraines ............................................................................................................................................................ 73
Minimum qualifying threshold for DSP ......................................................................................6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17
Mobility – individual spinal segments .......................................................................................................... 35, 36
Mobility – lower limbs.................................................................................................................................. 32, 33
Mobility – spinal ............................................................................................................................... 12, 34, 35, 36
Mobility – upper limbs.................................................................................................................................. 30, 31
Mood disorders ................................................................................................................................................... 42
Morbid obesity........................................................................................................................................ 20, 69, 70
Morbid obesity – definition................................................................................................................................. 69
Motivation........................................................................................................................................... 8, 15, 38, 43
MRI scans ............................................................................................................................................... 11, 30, 32
Muscle wasting ....................................................................................................................................... 11, 30, 32
Musculoskeletal ...........................................................................................................................20, 21, 31, 33, 35
N
Nausea........................................................................................................................................................... 49, 50
Neck pain ................................................................................................................................................ 12, 34, 35
Neurological impairment/disorder .................................................9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 64
Neurologist review.................................................................................................................................. 43, 45, 73
Neuropsychologist review................................................................................................................. 42, 43, 44, 45
Neurosurgical review .............................................................................................................................. 11, 30, 32
Night blindness ................................................................................................................................................... 63
Nomograms....................................................................................................................................... 25, 27, 28, 29
Non-medical factors contributing to work-related impairment..................................................................... 5, 7, 8
Non-verbal language ..................................................................................................................................... 44, 45
Nystagmus .......................................................................................................................................................... 63
O
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) ............................................................................................................. 10
Oesophageal disease ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Oesophagitis.................................................................................................................................................. 49, 73
Oncologist........................................................................................................................................................... 69
Open/unsupported employment .................................................................................................................. 6, 7, 45
Ophthalmologist................................................................................................................................ 61, 62, 63, 64
Optimal treatment ...................................... 8, 14, 15, 17, 22, 33, 37, 40, 49, 51, 52, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76
Optometrist ................................................................................................................................................... 61, 62
Organ transplants .............................................................................................................................. 66, 69, 70, 71
Orthopaedic............................................................................................................................................. 11, 16, 35
Osteoarthritis................................................................................................................................10, 17, 31, 33, 69
Osteoporosis........................................................................................................................................................ 68
Outlet obstruction – complication of peptic ulcer ............................................................................................... 50
P
Pain .................................. 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49, 50, 51, 52, 68, 69, 70, 73
Palliative care...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Pancreatic disease ......................................................................................................................................... 51, 52
Paralysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Paraplegia.................................................................................................................................................. 7, 32, 33
Parathyroid disease ............................................................................................................................................. 68
Paresis ................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Pelvic inflammatory disease ............................................................................................................................... 76
Peptic ulcer ............................................................................................................................................. 49, 50, 73
Percentage loss of binaural hearing............................................................................53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
Perceptual problems............................................................................................................................................ 43
Peripheral neuropathy ................................................................................................................................... 33, 40
Peripheral vascular disease ..........................................................................................................10, 21, 22, 32, 33
Permanent impairment – definition............................................................................................................... 13, 18

82

Permanent vs Temporary impairment..................................................................................................... 13, 17, 18
Personality disorders........................................................................................................................................... 38
Personality traits.................................................................................................................................................. 38
Photophobia ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
Physiological measurements ......................................................................................................................... 25, 26
Physiotherapy................................................................................................................................................ 14, 17
Pleural plaques .................................................................................................................................................... 21
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) ............................................................................................................. 10
Post-natal depression .......................................................................................................................................... 76
Posture – spinal ................................................................................................................................................... 34
Pregnancy............................................................................................................................................................ 76
Prematurity.......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Prescription drugs ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Problem solving ability ................................................................................................................................. 42, 43
Prognosis................................................................................................................................14, 15, 37, 69, 70, 71
Prognosis – for a permanent rating ............................................................................................................... 15, 16
Prolactinoma ....................................................................................................................................................... 68
Psychiatric impairment/disorder ........................................ 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 51, 76
Psychiatrist review .............................................................................................................................................. 38
Psychogenic symptoms ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Psychologist review ...................................................................................................................................... 46, 47
Psychometric testing ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Psychotic illness................................................................................................................................ 15, 37, 38, 39
Ptosis................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Q
Quad stick ........................................................................................................................................................... 33
R
Radiotherapy....................................................................................................................................................... 68
Range of movements – lower limb joints ........................................................................................................... 32
Range of movements – spinal ........................................................................................................... 12, 34, 35, 36
Range of movements – upper limb joints ........................................................................................................... 30
Reading ............................................................................................................................................. 42, 44, 45, 46
Reasonable treatment .............................................................................................................13, 14, 15, 18, 37, 40
Reasonable treatment – definition of ............................................................................................................ 14, 18
Rectal disease...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Referred pain........................................................................................................................................... 10, 34, 36
Reflexes .................................................................................................................................................. 11, 30, 32
Reflexes – lower limbs........................................................................................................................................ 32
Reflexes – upper limbs........................................................................................................................................ 30
Reflux oesophagitis............................................................................................................................................. 49
Refractory anaemia ............................................................................................................................................. 66
Rehabilitation...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Remission............................................................................................................................................................ 70
Renal disease – end stage.................................................................................................................................... 66
Renal disease – systemic effects ......................................................................................................................... 66
Renal impairment/disorder...................................................................................................................... 18, 49, 66
Renal transplants..................................................................................................................................... 66, 70, 71
Respiratory function test/Spirometry ...........................................................................................21, 22, 25, 26, 27
Respiratory impairment/disorder .......................................................10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 72, 73, 74
Restrictive lung disorders........................................................................................................................ 21, 25, 27
Restrictive METs level/Symptomatic activity level.......................................................................... 20, 21, 22, 23
Retinal Dystrophy ............................................................................................................................................... 63
Rheumatological disorders.................................................................................................................................. 11
Rotator cuff lesions/disorders ............................................................................................................................. 31
Rubella ................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Running............................................................................................................................................................... 24

83

S
Schizophrenia...................................................................................................................................................... 38
Sensation – lower limbs ................................................................................................................................ 32, 33
Sensation – upper limbs ................................................................................................................................ 30, 31
Sensorineural hearing loss .................................................................................................................................. 53
Sensory changes – anatomically appropriate .......................................................................................... 11, 30, 32
Side effects...................................................................................................................................14, 15, 18, 66, 72
Sigmoid conduit .................................................................................................................................................. 65
Sitting...........................................................................................................................................23, 32, 33, 34, 36
Skin impairment/disorder........................................................................................................................ 18, 22, 67
Social Security Act 1991 – Schedule 1B .............................................................................................................. 5
Social Security Act 1991 – section 94(1)(b) ......................................................................................................... 6
Social Security Act 1991 – section 94(5)........................................................................................................ 6, 17
Social Security Act 1991 – section 95 .......................................................................................................... 62, 64
Somatoform disorders......................................................................................................................................... 38
Specialist opinion/review 11, 14, 16, 21, 25, 26, 30, 32, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69,
73
Spectacles...................................................................................................................................................... 61, 62
Speech................................................................................................................................9, 11, 19, 39, 43, 44, 45
Speech pathologist review ............................................................................................................................ 44, 45
Spinal cord .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Spinal impairment/disorder......................................................................10, 11, 12, 19, 21, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
Spinal instability ................................................................................................................................................. 35
Spinal range of movements............................................................................................................... 12, 34, 35, 36
Spirometry/Respiratory function test ...........................................................................................21, 22, 25, 26, 27
Spondylolisthesis ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Squatting ....................................................................................................................................................... 32, 33
Squint .................................................................................................................................................................. 63
Stability – fully stabilised ............................................................................................................13, 14, 15, 16, 18
Stability – lower limbs .................................................................................................................................. 32, 33
Standing .......................................................................................................................................23, 32, 33, 34, 36
Steatorrhoea .................................................................................................................................................. 51, 52
Stereoscopic/binocular vision ............................................................................................................................. 63
Stomach disease .................................................................................................................................................. 49
Straight leg raising .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Strength – lower limbs .................................................................................................................................. 32, 33
Strength – upper limbs .................................................................................................................................. 30, 31
Stress................................................................................................................................................. 21, 38, 51, 65
Stress incontinence.............................................................................................................................................. 65
Stress test/Exercise ECG............................................................................................................................... 21, 22
Stroke/Cerebrovascular accident (CVA)..................................................................................9, 19, 31, 33, 42, 64
Substance dependence ............................................................................................................................ 40, 41, 42
Suicidal ideation.................................................................................................................................................. 38
Symptomatic activity level/Restrictive METs level.......................................................................... 20, 21, 22, 23
Systemic effects ............................................................................................................................................ 66, 70
T
Tarsorrhaphy....................................................................................................................................................... 63
Temporary vs Permanent impairment........................................................................................................... 17, 18
Terminal illness............................................................................................................................15, 69, 70, 71, 76
Thoraco-lumbar spine/back..................................................................................................................... 10, 12, 36
Thyroid disease ................................................................................................................................................... 68
Tinnitus ......................................................................................................................................................... 70, 73
Total hip replacement ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Total parenteral nutrition .................................................................................................................................... 50
Transfer ability.................................................................................................................................................... 33
Transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs)..................................................................................................................... 73
Transplants – heart........................................................................................................................................ 70, 71
Transplants – liver......................................................................................................................................... 70, 71

84

Transplants – renal/kidney ...................................................................................................................... 66, 70, 71
Treating doctor........................................................................................................................................ 21, 22, 38
Treatment – compliance...............................................................................................................15, 37, 38, 40, 72
Treatment – optimal ................................... 8, 14, 15, 17, 22, 33, 37, 40, 49, 51, 52, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76
Treatment – reasonable ..........................................................................................................13, 14, 15, 18, 37, 40
Two year prognosis........................................................................................................................... 14, 15, 16, 18
U
Ulcerative colitis ................................................................................................................................................. 51
Ulnar nerve palsies.............................................................................................................................................. 31
Unconscious........................................................................................................................................................ 74
Unstable joint ................................................................................................................................................ 35, 36
Unsupported/open employment .................................................................................................................. 6, 7, 45
Upper limb dominance........................................................................................................................................ 30
Upper limb impairment/disorder..............................................................................................9, 17, 19, 30, 31, 76
Ureterosigmoidostomy........................................................................................................................................ 65
Urethral obstruction ............................................................................................................................................ 65
Urinary incontinence........................................................................................................................................... 65
Urinary obstruction ............................................................................................................................................. 65
Urinary tract (lower) impairment/disorder.......................................................................................................... 65
Urodome catheter................................................................................................................................................ 65
Uterine cancer ..................................................................................................................................................... 76
V
Valsalva manoeuvre............................................................................................................................................ 65
Valvular (cardiac) lesions ................................................................................................................................... 21
Varicose veins......................................................................................................................................... 21, 22, 33
Vertigo .......................................................................................................................................................... 70, 73
Vision – best corrected.................................................................................................................................. 61, 62
Vision – stereoscopic/binocular .......................................................................................................................... 63
Visual acuity ................................................................................................................................18, 61, 62, 63, 64
Visual fields .............................................................................................................................................. 9, 63, 64
Visual impairment/disorder..........................................................................................9, 18, 31, 33, 61, 62, 63, 64
Vitalograph ................................................................................................................................................... 25, 27
Vocational programs ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Vomiting ................................................................................................................................................. 49, 50, 66
W
WAIS-R vs WAIS-III ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Walking......................................................................................................................10, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34
Walking distance........................................................................................................................................... 32, 33
Wasting – lower limbs ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Wasting – upper limbs ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Weight loss ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
Weight-bearing ............................................................................................................................................. 10, 34
Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (Revised WAIS-R) ................................................................................ 46, 47
Wheelchair .................................................................................................................................................... 32, 33
Whole person impairment vs Loss of functional capacity .................................................................................... 6
Work – attendance/absence............................................................................................................... 38, 41, 70, 71
Work – full-time ........................................................................................................................... 7, 20, 37, 38, 71
Work – legislative definition........................................................................................................................... 6, 17
Work-related impairment – contributing non-medical factors...................................................................... 5, 7, 8
Work-related impairment – definition ............................................................................................................ 6, 17
World Health Organisation ................................................................................................................................... 7
Writing .......................................................................................................................................................... 44, 45

85



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.4
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 85
XMP Toolkit                     : XMP toolkit 2.9.1-13, framework 1.6
About                           : d1ab579a-44fb-11df-0000-32e294bf0f43
Producer                        : GPL Ghostscript 8.63
Modify Date                     : 2010:04:08 09:49:57+10:00
Create Date                     : 2010:04:08 09:49:57+10:00
Creator Tool                    : \376\377\000P\000D\000F\000C\000r\000e\000a\000t\000o\000r\000 \000V\000e\000r\000s\000i\000o\000n\000 \0000\000.\0009\000.\0006
Document ID                     : d1ab579a-44fb-11df-0000-32e294bf0f43
Format                          : application/pdf
Title                           : \376\377\000G\000u\000i\000d\000e\000 \000t\000o\000 \000t\000h\000e\000 \000I\000m\000p\000a\000i\000r\000m\000e\000n\000t\000 \000T\000a\000b\000l\000e\000s\000.\000r\000t\000f
Creator                         : \376\377\000j\000a\000c\000k\000s\000u
Author                          : jacksu
Subject                         : 

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools