Al-Najjar and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2020] AATA 2628
•29 July 2020
Al-Najjar and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 2628 (29 July 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2019/8218
Re:Rayan Al-Najjar
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Member D K Grigg
Date:29 July 2020
Place:Brisbane
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.............................[SGD].................................
Member D K Grigg
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – DSP – whether medical conditions permanent – whether 20 points or more under the impairment tables during the relevant period – whether continuing inability to work – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)Cases
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123
Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404
Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Harris [2007] FCAFC 130; (2007) 97 ALD 534
De Vries v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2014] FCA 368REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D K Grigg
29 July 2020
BACKGROUND AND CLAIM HISTORY
On 3 December 2018 Mr Al-Najjar (the Applicant) lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (‘DSP’), describing his medical conditions as follows:[1]
(a)Diabetes mellitus
(b)Hypercholesterolaemia
(c)Left Tibial Fracture
(d)Ankle Oa (Traumatic)
(e)Sleep Apnoea
[1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 31, pages 94 – 127, Mr Al-Najjar’s Claim for DSP received 3 December 2018.
Mr Al-Najjar informed Centrelink that he was awaiting orthopaedic review in relation to his ankle condition.
On 13 December 2018 an Occupational Therapist from the Assessment Services Division of the Department of Human Services (‘Centrelink’) assessed Mr Al-Najjar’s medical records and provided Centrelink with a recommendation regarding whether Mr Al-Najjar was medically eligible for DSP. According to the assessor Mr Al-Najjar’s conditions were not fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 32, pages 128 – 130, Assessment Services Recommendation for DSP medical
eligibility dated 13 December 2018.
As a result of the Assessment Services recommendation, Centrelink determined on
16 December 2018 to reject Mr Al-Najjar’s claim for DSP.[3][3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 33, pages 131 – 132, Rejection of DSP claim dated 16 December 2018.
Mr Al-Najjar then provided Centrelink with the following additional medical reports:
(a)an MRI report of his left wrist dated 18 December 2018 which concluded that there was ‘high-grade chondral loss with degenerative changes at the distal radial articular surface, was remodelling of the distal radius suggesting an old fracture’;[4]
[4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 34, page 133, MRI Report dated 18 December 2018.
(b)a report of Christopher Burton, Advanced Physiotherapist at the Advanced Practised Hand Clinic dated 22 January 2019 which provided that:[5]
[5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 35, pages 134 – 135, Report of Mr Burton dated 22 January 2019.
(i)Mr Al-Najjar attended for assessment on 18 September 2018;
(ii)Mr Al-Najjar was escalated to an Orthopaedic Consultant;
(iii)following the MRI report Dr Zafar, Orthopaedic Consultant, discussed fusion procedures which Mr Al-Najjar does not currently wish to pursue;
(iv)treatment would consist of analgesia, splinting, strengthening and limiting repetitive forceful use of the wrist; and
(v)Mr Al-Najjar was to be reviewed again in four weeks’ time.
(c)a report of Dr Laith Abu el-kishik, General Practitioner, dated 24 January 2019, which provided that:[6]
[6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 36, page 136, Report of Dr Abu el-kishik dated 24 January 2019.
(i)Mr Al-Najjar has had persistent pain in his left ankle and left wrist for many years caused by an old injury that was not treated;
(ii)Mr Al-Najjar has been to an orthopaedic surgeon and his option for treatment are to have fusion operations of both joints which would lead to an inability to move the joints;
(iii)Mr Al-Najjar’s was undertaking conservative management aiming to delay the need for the surgical procedure;
(iv)Mr Al-Najjar’s was undertaking physiotherapy; and
(v)Mr Al-Najjar was to avoid lifting heavy objects more than 5 kg and to avoid work that involves stairs and ladders and to avoid standing for a long time or repetitive movements in his hands;
(d)an ultrasound and x-ray report of Mr Al-Najjar’s left leg dated 30 January 2019 which indicated that:[7]
[7] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 37, page 137, X-ray and ultrasound report dated 30 January 2019.
(i)Mr Al-Najjar’s underlying fracture has united;
(e)a report of Dr Abu el-Kishik dated 13 March 2019, which provided that:[8]
[8] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 38, page 138, Report of Dr Abu el-kishik dated 13 March 2019.
(i)Mr Al-Najjar has intermittent pain related to long hours of standing and lifting;
(ii)Mr Al-Najjar is advised not to work in a job that involves long hours standing, lifting or involves any pushing or pulling;
(iii)there is nothing much that can be done for Mr Al-Najjar’s left ankle;
(iv)Mr Al-Najjar was offered surgical invention of his left wrist but this would lead to complete immobilisation of the wrist in order to prevent pain;
(f)a medical certificate of Dr Abu el-kishik dated 14 March 2019 which provided that:[9]
(i)Mr Al-Najjar’s left wrist and left ankle injuries are permanent and likely to persist for more than two years;
(ii)Mr Al-Najjar was offered surgery to improve the pain but it would not improve the swelling of his left ankle and in relation to his wrist would lead to the complete immobilisation of the left wrist.
[9] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 39, page 139, Medical certificate dated 14 March 2019.
A registered nurse from Assessment Services conducted a face-to-face review of Mr Al-Najjar on 1 April 2019. The nurse reported that:
(a)Mr Al-Najjar’s wrist condition was permanent;
(b)Mr Al-Najjar’s left ankle condition was considered permanent; and
(c)there was limited medical information regarding Mr Al-Najjar’s diabetes, sleep apnoea, aortic sclerosis and hypercholesterolaemia.[10]
[10] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 41, pages 143 – 149, Assessment services recommendation for DSP medical eligibility
dated 2 April 2019.
Centrelink referred the decision to reject Mr Al-Najjar’s claim for DSP to an Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’) for review.
The review by the ARO was unsuccessful on the grounds that Mr Al-Najjar’s impairments were not fully treated and not fully stabilised.[11]
[11] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 42, pages 150 – 155, ARO Decision and notes dated 26 June 2019.
Mr Al-Najjar then lodged an application for review with the Social Services and Child Support Division (‘SSCSD’).[12] The SSCSD rejected Mr Al-Najjar’s claim and affirmed the ARO’s decision on 12 November 2019.[13]
[12] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 43, pages 156 – 157, Request for a statement dated 2 August 2019.
[13] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 6-11, SSCSD’s Decision and Reasons for Decision dated 12 November 2019.
Mr Al-Najjar has sought a review of the SSCSD’s decision by this Tribunal.[14]
[14] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1- 5, Application for Review of Decision dated 5 December 2019.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The legislation relevant to this matter is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the ‘Act’).
Section 94(1) of the Act relevantly prescribes that to qualify for DSP, the following requirements must be met (‘Section 94 Requirements’):-
(a)Mr Al-Najjar must have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment.
(b)Mr Al-Najjar’s impairments must be of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables contained within the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (‘Determination’).[15]
(c)Mr Al-Najjar must have a continuing inability to work.
[my emphasis]
[15] A legislative instrument made under the Act: see s 26(1).
The date for determining whether Mr Al-Najjar meets the Section 94 Requirements is the date of the claim (in this instance as at 3 December 2018), unless Mr Al-Najjar becomes qualified within 13 weeks of lodging the claim, in which case his start day is the day he becomes qualified.[16] Therefore, in order to qualify for DSP, Mr Al-Najjar must have met the Section 94 Requirements between 3 December 2018 and 4 March 2019 (‘Qualification Period’).
[16] See ss 41 and 42 and clauses 3 and 4(1), Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Social Security (Administration)
Act 1999 (Cth).
It is important to keep in mind that medical evidence concerning the functional impact of Mr Al-Najjar’s impairments after the Qualification Period cannot be considered unless it ‘casts light on’ the functional impact of the impairments in the Qualification Period.[17]
DID MR AL-NAJJAR HAVE A PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL OR PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT DURING THE QUALIFICATION PERIOD: SECTION 94(1)(A)?
[17] See Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 at [1,]
and on appeal, Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Harris [2007] FCAFC 130; (2007) 97 ALD 534; Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123.
What is an Impairment?
The Determination defines ‘Impairment’ to mean ‘a loss of functional capacity affecting a person’s ability to work that results from the person’s condition’ and ‘condition’ as ‘a medical condition’.[18]
Mr Al-Najjar’s Medical Conditions
[18] Determination, s 3.
Left Ankle/Leg
On 18 October 2017 Dr John Rowe, Orthopaedic Registrar, reported that:[19]
(a)in the early 2000s Mr Al-Najjar had a motor vehicle accident in Iraq for which he was treated for a closed distal tibia and fibula fracture in a cast;
(b)Mr Al-Najjar’s leg was later treated by open reduction in bone grafting via a surgeon somewhere in the Middle East;
(c)Mr Al-Najjar’s main issue is ongoing swelling around his leg which causes some pain;
(d)Mr Al-Najjar’s distal tibial shaft fracture has united;
(e)there is no indication for surgical intervention at this time;
(f)Mr Al-Najjar was referred to an occupational therapist to get fitted for a new compression garment to help reduce the swelling; and
(g)there is no need for a further review.
[19] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T12, page 67, report of Dr Rowe dated 18 October 2017.
In November 2017 Mr Al-Najjar was reviewed by Dr Grant Manegon, Orthopaedic Registrar and Dr Catherine McDougall, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr Manegon reported that:[20]
(a)the treatment options for Mr Al-Najjar’s left ankle are surgical and nonsurgical. The nonsurgical options include continuing optimising his analgesia and anti-inflammatories and trying ankle foot orthosis and compression to manage the dependent oedema. The surgical management of this problem is ankle joint fusion. ‘Rayan is currently not keen on ankle joint fusion at this point in time. This is not an unreasonable option however given his diagnosis he may struggle with activities that require large amounts of standing or walking’; and
[my emphasis]
(b)as a result of his left ankle injury he is now suffering from post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis.
[20] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 17, pages 74 – 75, report of Dr Manor gone dated 4 December 2017.
In September 2018 Mr Al-Najjar was referred to the Orthotic Clinic at Logan hospital.[21] Mr Al-Najjar was also referred to the Princess Alexandra Hospital Orthotic Clinic on 5 October 2018. The Princess Alexandra Hospital Orthotic Clinic advised that it had triaged Mr Al-Najjar as a category two, which means that it was clinically recommended that his appointment take place within 90 days.[22]
[21] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-27, page 90, referral form dated 30 September 2018.
[22] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-28, page 91, letter from orthotics clinic dated 5 October 2018.
on 30 September 2019 Dr Abu el-kishik reported that:[23]
[23]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 46, page 168, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated 30 September 2019; T 47, pages 170 – 173, medical report – mobility allowance prepared by Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated 30 September 2019.
(a)Mr Al-Najjar has pain and swelling in the left ankle which gets worse with long standing and walking;
(b)‘no treatment will help’ but ‘orthotics might provide some relief’;
(c)Mr Al-Najjar is currently on a waiting list for orthotic treatment;
(d)Mr Al-Najjar has:
(i)moderate difficulty walking 400 meters;
(ii)moderate difficulty standing on public transport;
(iii)minor difficulty sitting in public transport;
(iv)minor difficulty crossing streets and negotiating curbs;
(v)no difficulty negotiating steps in and out of public transport; and
(vi)moderate difficulty negotiating a flight of steps.
Left Wrist
In July 2018 an X-ay and Ultrasound of Mr Al-Najjar’s left wrist found some irregularity probably due to his chronic injury.[24]
[24] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-23, page 82, ultrasound x-ray report dated 17 July 2018.
In August 2018 Mr Al-Najjar was referred to the Logan Hospital Hand Clinic. The hand clinic reported on 1 August 2018 that Mr Al-Najjar had been triaged as category three which means that it was clinically recommended that his appointment take place within 365 days.[25]
[25] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-25, page 88, letter from Logan Hospital dated 1 August 2018.
On 30 September 2019 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar has:[26]
(a)difficulty picking up heavier objects such as a 2-litre carton of liquid; and
(b)difficulty picking up a light but bulky object requiring the use of two hands together.
[26]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 46, page 168, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated 30 September 2019; see also, medical reports referred to in paragraphs [5]-[8] above.
Heart
In November 2017 Mr Al-Najjar had a myocardial performance stress test which indicated that there was no evidence of myocardial ischaemia.[27]
[27]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 14, pages 69 – 70, medical imaging report of Dr Joseph Lee, nuclear medicine physician dated 22 November 2017.
In April 2018 Dr Yong S Wee reported that Mr Al-Najjar had a family history of heart disease but as he had no active cardiology issues and he had discharged him from his clinic.[28]
[28] Exhibit 1, two documents, T-20, page 78, report of Dr Yee dated 6 April 2018.
On 2 December 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar was suffering from aortic sclerosis.[29]
[29] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 30, page 93, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated two December 2018.
Diabetes
On 3 May 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar suffered from diabetes.[30]
[30] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-21, page 79, reported Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated 3 May 2018.
On 2 December 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar was still suffering from diabetes.[31]
[31] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 30, page 93, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated two December 2018.
Hypercholesterolaemia
On 3 May 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar suffered from hypercholesterolaemia.[32]
[32] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-21, page 79, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated 3 May 2018.
On 5 November 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar was still suffering from hypercholesterolaemia.[33]
[33] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-29, page 92, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated five November 2018.
On 2 December 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar was still suffering from hypercholesterolaemia.[34]
[34] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 30, page 93, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated two December 2018.
Sleep Apnoea
On 23 July 2018 Mr Al-Najjar underwent a sleep study perspective sleep apnoea. Following the study, the Beenleigh Sleep Clinic concluded that Mr Al-Najjar had moderate obstructive sleep apnoea overall and recommended that an auto titrating positive airway pressure therapy (‘APAP’) and continuous positive airway pressure (‘CPAP’) treatment trial be conducted as well as further investigation and treatment of periodic limb movements of sleep (‘PLMs’)..[35]
[35] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T24, pages 83-87, report of the Beenleigh sleep clinic dated 23 July 2018.
In September 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik referred Mr Al-Najjar to the Sleep Disorder Centre at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. The Princess Alexandra Hospital advised that it needed more information in order to determine the urgency of Mr Al-Najjar’s appointment.[36]
[36] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T-26, page 89, letter from the sleep disorder Centre dated 4 September 2018.
On 2 December 2018 Dr Abu el-Kishik reported that Mr Al-Najjar was still suffering from sleep apnoea.[37]
[37] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 30, page 93, report of Dr Laith Abu el-Kishik dated two December 2018.
On 19 May 2020 the Sleep Disorder Centre at the Princess Alexandra Hospital reported that Mr Al-Najjar was to trial APAP therapy and that he was eligible for the provision of a CPAP. Mr Al-Najjar he was to be reviewed following the APAP trial.[38]
[38] Exhibit 3, report of sleep disorder Centre dated 19 May 2020.
Conclusion on Impairments
The Secretary accepts that Mr Al-Najjar had Impairments which satisfied section 94(1)(a) of the Act during the Qualification Period.[39]
[39] Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 7 May 2020, para 27.
Considering the above evidence, the Tribunal finds that during the Qualification Period Mr Al-Najjar suffered from a Left Ankle Impairment, Left Wrist Impairment and Sleep apnoea Impairment for the purposes of the Act and that the requirement in section 94(1)(a) of the Act has been met.
In relation to the diabetes, hypocholesterol and aortic sclerosis conditions, there was insufficient medical evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot determine whether the diabetes, hypocholesterol and aortic sclerosis conditions are fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised. The Tribunal has also not been provided with information regarding how the diabetes, hypocholesterol and aortic sclerosis conditions impacted on Mr Al-Najjar’s ability to function during the Qualification Period.
DO MR AL-NAJJAR’S IMPAIRMENTS ATTRACT AN IMPAIRMENT RATING OF 20 OR MORE POINTS: SECTION 94(1)(B)?
How are Impairment Ratings Assessed?
The Impairment Tables are used to assess whether a person satisfies the qualification requirement in paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.[40] They are function based[41] and designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairments (Impairment Rating) and not to assess conditions.[42]
[40]Department of Social Services, Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (F2011L02716, 6 December 2011) (‘Determination’) ss 4(2) and 5(2)(a).
[41] Determination, s 5(2)(b) and (c).
[42] Determination, s 5(2)(d).
An Impairment Rating can only be assigned to an impairment if:[43]
(a)the condition causing that impairment is ‘permanent’; and
(b)the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[43] Determination, see s 6(3).
The requirement that a condition must be ‘permanent’ is a requirement which applies as at the date the claim for a pension is lodged, or during the Qualification Period.[44]
[44] De Vries v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2014] FCA 368, at [12].
Mr Al-Najjar’s conditions can only be ‘permanent’ for the purposes of the Determination if the following conditions are satisfied:[45]
(a)the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner;
(b)the condition has been fully treated;
(c)the condition has been fully stabilised; and
(d)the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[45] Determination, see s 6(4).
In determining whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, and whether it has been fully treated,[46] the following is to be considered:[47]
(a)whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and
(b)what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and
(c)whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.
[46] For the purposes of ss 6(4)(a) and (b) of the Determination.
[47] Determination, see s 6(5).
A condition is fully stabilised[48] if:[49]
(a)either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or
(b)the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(i)significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment;[50] or
(ii)there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.
[48] For the purposes of ss 6(4)(c) and 11(4) of the Determination.
[49] Determination, see s 6(6).
[50] For reasonable treatment see s 6(7) of the Determination.
Once it has been established that the applicant for DSP has a permanent impairment, it then has to be determined whether the permanent impairments are likely to persist for at least 2 years. If the answer to that question is yes, an impairment rating using the Impairment Tables can be assigned.
Before applying the Impairment Tables the Tribunal must first consider Mr Al-Najjar’s medical history, in relation to the condition causing the Impairments.[51]
Left ankle impairment
[51] Determination, see s 6(2).
Is Mr Al-Najjar’s left ankle impairment permanent and likely to persist
The Secretary contends that Mr Al-Najjar’s left ankle impairment was not permanent because it was not fully treated and stabilised during the Qualification Period. The Secretary submits that Mr Al-Najjar could have had fusion surgery. The Tribunal does not consider that in this instance surgery was reasonable treatment and notes the comments made by Dr Manegon (see paragraph 17 above) that it was understandable and not unreasonable for Mr Al-Najjar to not wish to pursue that path.
However, one of the other treatment recommendations for treatment to assist with his pain and mobility was that Mr Al-Najjar be referred and obtain orthotic treatment. This treatment had not been provided during the Qualification Period and as a result the condition cannot be considered to be fully treated and stabilised. Therefore, no Impairment Rating can be assigned.
Left wrist impairment
Is Mr Al-Najjar’s left wrist impairment permanent and likely to persist
The Secretary contends that Mr Al-Najjar’s Left Wrist Impairment was not permanent because, although fully diagnosed, it was not fully treated and stabilised during the Qualification Period. The Secretary identified that Mr Al-Najjar had not had fusion surgery and that he was to be treated instead with analgesia, splinting and strengthening.
The Tribunal does not consider that in this instance surgery is necessarily reasonable treatment given that it would have resulted in a complete immobilisation of his wrist. However, conservative treatments were also advised.
There is no corroborating evidence that the conservative treatments had been completed by the end of the Qualification Period. The Advanced Physiotherapist at the Logan Hospital Hand Clinic reported during the Qualification Period that Mr Al-Najjar had only commenced conservative treatment in January 2019 and that he would need to be reviewed in four weeks. There is no indication of whether this occurred. Further, the physiotherapist recommended Dr el-Kishik discuss Mr Al-Najjar taking analgesia. It is not clear from the evidence available whether Mr Al-Najjar has been treated with analgesia.
As a result of the above the condition cannot be considered to be fully treated and stabilised. Therefore, no impairment rating can be assigned.
Sleep Apnoea impairment
Is Mr Al-Najjar’s Sleep Apnoea Impairment permanent and likely to persist
As at the Qualification Period Mr Al-Najjar had not yet been treated with an APAP or CPAP machine and was still undergoing reviews trials and investigations. As a result, this condition cannot be considered to be fully treated and stabilised and therefore no Impairment Rating can be assigned.
CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK
As Mr Al-Najjar’s had no permanent Impairments during the Qualification Period it is unnecessary for me to consider whether Mr Al-Najjar had a ‘continuing inability to work’ (as defined in section 94(2) of the Act for the purposes of section 94(1)(c) during the Qualification Period).
DECISION
Mr Al-Najjar’s claim fails because he did not qualify for DSP during the Qualification Period under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D K Grigg
...................................[SGD]..................................
Associate
Dated: 29 July 2020
Date(s) of hearing: 02 July 2020 Date final submissions received: 26 July 2020 Applicant: In person Solicitors for the Respondent: G Gehrke, Service Australia
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
0
4
0