Allen and Secretary, Department of Families , Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2013] AATA 121
•8 March 2013
[2013] AATA 121
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2011/3073
Re
Trevor Allen
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member K Bean
Date 8 March 2013 Place Adelaide The decision under review is affirmed.
........................................................................
Senior Member K Bean
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY - Disability support pension - Qualification - Whether applicant's medical conditions are fully diagnosed, investigated, treated and stabilised - Whether rateable impairments attract a rating of at least 20 points - Applicant's rateable impairments do not attract 20 points - Decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991, s 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member K Bean
8 March 2013
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Mr Allen, suffers from a number of medical conditions, including gout, osteoarthritis and psoriasis, and has not worked for many years.
Having regard to the effect of his medical conditions on his ability to work, in April 2010 he made a claim for disability support pension (DSP), relying in part on his gout, osteoarthritis and psoriasis conditions. However his claim was rejected by Centrelink, both at first instance and on review, and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) also concluded that he was not eligible for DSP.
Accordingly, on 2 August 2011, Mr Allen applied for review by this Tribunal of the decision of the SSAT, giving rise to these proceedings.
LEGISLATION AND ISSUES
In broad terms the issue before me therefore is whether Mr Allen was qualified for DSP as at the date of his claim on 25 March 2010,[1] or within 13 weeks of that date[2].
[1] Mr Allen’s claim form was signed and submitted on 8 April 2010, however as he had made a telephone inquiry 14 days earlier, on 25 March 2010, his claim is taken to have been made on that date: Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 s 13, T10/80.
[2] Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, Schedule 2 at 4.
Qualification for DSP is governed by s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the SS Act), which at the relevant time provided in part as follows:
“94 Qualification for disability support pension
(1)A person is qualified for disability support pension if:
(a) the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b) the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(c) one of the following applies:
(i)the person has a continuing inability to work;
(ii)the Health Secretary has informed the Secretary that the person is participating in the supported wage system administered by the Health Department, stating the period for which the person is to participate in the system; and
(d) the person has turned 16; and
(e) the person either:
(i)is an Australian resident at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c); or
(ii)has 10 years qualifying Australian residence, or has a qualifying residence exemption for a disability support pension; or
(iii)is born outside Australia and, at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c) the person:
(A) is not an Australian resident; and
(B) is a dependent child of an Australian resident;
and the person becomes an Australian resident while a dependent child of an Australian resident; and
(f) the person is not qualified for disability support pension under section 94A.
Note 1: For Australian resident, qualifying Australian residence and qualifying residence exemption see section 7.
Note 2: For Impairment Tables see section 23(1) and Schedule 1B.
(2)A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a) the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and
(b) either:
(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years; or
(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity—such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years.
…”
The respondent does not dispute that Mr Allen suffers a number of impairments within the meaning of s 94(1)(a), or that he satisfies the requirements of s 94(1)(d), (e) and (f). However, the respondent contends that Mr Allen does not suffer from an impairment or impairments which attract a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables as required by s 94(1)(b). The respondent also contends that Mr Allen does not have a “continuing inability to work” within the meaning of s 94(1)(c), and does not otherwise satisfy that provision.
Therefore, the particular issues which arise for my consideration are:
(a)At the relevant time, did Mr Allen suffer from an impairment or impairments which attract a total rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(b)If so, did Mr Allen have a “continuing inability to work” within the meaning of s 94?
I propose to first address the question of whether Mr Allen suffered an impairment attracting 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables.
AT THE RELEVANT TIME, DID MR ALLEN HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT ATTRACTING 20 OR MORE POINTS UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES?
In his claim for DSP, Mr Allen stated that his current conditions included arthritis, gout, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), neck injuries, head injuries and asbestosis.[3]
[3] T8/63.
In the medical reports submitted in support of the claim, Mr Allen’s treating general practitioner, Dr Beckoff, indicated that the condition with most impact upon him was gout. The doctor also stated that he was suffering from osteoarthritis and psoriasis, although the doctor indicated that the impact of the psoriasis condition on Mr Allen’s ability to function was “minimal”.[4]
[4] T9/66-73.
Mr Allen has not put forward any medical evidence in support of his claim that he currently suffers from the effects of neck or head injuries, or that he has asbestosis, and the material before me in respect of his claimed condition of IBS is extremely limited. Further, whilst reference is made in the material to Mr Allen potentially suffering from alcohol dependence and/or anxiety, Mr Allen indicated in his evidence before me that he did not consider himself to be alcohol dependent and nor did he regard anxiety as being a significant problem for him currently.
However the medical evidence before me does establish that he suffers from osteoarthritis, gout and psoriasis. Accordingly it is those conditions which are most relevant for my purposes and the respondent does not dispute that Mr Allen suffers from those conditions, each of which constitutes an “impairment” within the meaning of the SS Act.
The next questions which arise therefore are whether any of these conditions can potentially attract an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables and, if so, what rating should be assigned for any rateable impairment.
I propose to first discuss Mr Allen’s psoriasis condition before then proceeding to discuss his osteoarthritis and gout conditions respectively. For completeness, I will also then deal with each of the other conditions referred to in the material before me.
Does Mr Allen’s psoriasis condition attract an impairment rating and, if so, what rating should be assigned?
Can an impairment rating be given?
The introduction to the Impairment Tables outlines the requirements that must be satisfied before an impairment rating can be assigned for a condition. These include:
(a)A condition must be a fully documented, diagnosed one which has been “investigated, treated and stabilised”;
(b)“The condition must be considered to be permanent”;
(c)“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”; and
(d)“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”.[5]
[5] The Impairment Tables at Schedule 1B of the Act, at [4] – [5]. These Impairment Tables were subsequently repealed and replaced with respect to claims made from 1 January 2012: Social Security and other Legislation Amendment Act 2011.
Accordingly, before considering what rating can be given for Mr Allen’s psoriasis, I must first consider whether the condition is capable of attracting an impairment rating having regard to the requirements set out in the Impairment Tables.
Relevantly to that question, in a report provided to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service dated 6 April 2010, a general practitioner consulted by Mr Allen, Dr Helen Doyle, stated in relation to his psoriasis condition:
“Psoriasis is a permanent condition, predominantly a skin disorder which may also have other manifestations such as arthropathy. It can have a significant effect on lifestyle.
Mr Allen states he was diagnosed with psoriasis in 1987 or 1988 following referral to a ‘skin specialist’. He does not recall the name of the specialist. He states that he has widespread skin involvement on his arms, legs and back but the most debilitating area is the area surrounding his anus, which combined with the effects of his IBS, causes significant pain. Mr Allen states that his psoriasis has a relapse and remitting pattern and the flare-ups cause significant distress and embarrassment.
Mr Allen has not sought formal treatment since diagnosis. He uses steroid cream as required for the skin rashes, as well as a range of complimentary treatments. It is possible that the psoriasis is sub-optimally managed. It is also possible that some of the joint pain he experiences is due to the psoriasis. As mentioned above, he has been referred to a Rheumatologist for further investigation.”[6]
[6] Exhibit 2, p 77.
Mr Allen was subsequently seen by Dr Awerbach, a Rheumatologist, who noted Mr Allen’s psoriasis but did not comment further on treatment of it. A Job Capacity Assessment Report of December 2010 also concluded, based on information provided by Mr Allen and Dr Beckoff, that this condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised.[7]
[7] T7/53.
In these circumstances, notwithstanding Dr Doyle’s comment that it was “possible” that the psoriasis was sub-optimally managed, the respondent conceded that the condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised as concluded by the Job Capacity Assessor and I consider that concession to have been correctly made on the basis of the material before me. Accordingly, I am satisfied that a rating can be assigned for Mr Allen’s psoriasis condition.
What impairment rating should be given for Mr Allen’s psoriasis condition?
The table which is appropriate for assessing the degree of impairment resulting from Mr Allen’s psoriasis condition is Table 18, which relevantly provides as follows:
“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
NILSigns and symptoms of skin disorder present and with treatment there is NO limitation in the performance of normal daily activities.
TENSigns and symptoms of skin disorder present despite optimal treatment and results in some interference with normal daily activities.
TWENTYSigns 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.”
A Job Capacity Assessor who assessed Mr Allen in September 2010 allocated 10 impairment points for this condition[8] and I note this rating was not disputed by the respondent at the hearing before me. Accordingly I am satisfied on the material before me that Mr Allen’s condition of psoriasis attracted a rating of 10 points during the relevant period.
[8] T6/45.
However as that rating is not sufficient by itself to meet the requirements for qualification for DSP, I will proceed to assess Mr Allen’s other relevant conditions, namely osteoarthritis and gout.
Does Mr Allen’s osteoarthritis condition attract an impairment rating and, if so, what rating should be assigned?
Can an impairment rating be given?
Of course the requirements I have described above in considering whether an impairment rating could be given for Mr Allen’s psoriasis condition are also applicable to determining whether a rating can be given for his osteoarthritis condition. Therefore before proceeding to allocate a rating, I must first consider whether the condition is fully documented, diagnosed, investigated, treated and stabilised and whether it is considered to be permanent.
In the medical report submitted in support of Mr Allen’s claim for DSP, Dr Beckoff stated that he had had osteoarthritis since 2000 and the condition had also been diagnosed in that year. He said that the condition particularly involved Mr Allen’s hands, which became stiff, painful and swollen. As for current treatment, he said current treatment included the medications Mobic and Panadeine Forte together with rest. He also said that it was intended that Mr Allen would see a specialist for this condition.[9]
[9] T9/69.
As referred to above, Mr Allen was subsequently seen by a specialist Rheumatologist, Dr Awerbuch, who has provided a report dated 10 June 2010.[10] In that report, Dr Awerbuch stated that he suspected Mr Allen had secondary osteoarthritis in his left ankle, together with very minimal limitation of movement in the left knee compared to the right which “may reflect early osteoarthritis”.[11] An x-ray report ordered by Dr Awerbuch indicated that Mr Allen may have early degenerative changes in his hands and wrists but otherwise showed no evidence of any obvious abnormality.[12]
[10] T11/82.
[11] T11/84.
[12] T13/87, T12/85.
In a report to Mr Allen’s general practitioner dated 29 July 2010, Dr Awerbuch accordingly commented that the x-rays of Mr Allen’s knees and ankles showed no abnormality and that “the x-rays of his hands and feet were for all intents and purposes normal”.[13] As Mr Allen had also reported suffering episodes of severe back pain, Dr Awerbuch commented:
“He showed me a plain x-ray of the lumbar spine taken in 2008 which showed only very minimal changes. I have therefore arranged for a radionuclide bone scan with SPECT to see if we can identify any metabolically active facet joints to account for his low back pain. He has an appointment for review in 3 months and will have a repeat serum urate prior to that visit.”[14]
[13] Exhibit 2, p 45.
[14] Exhibit 2, p 45.
In her report of 6 April 2010, Dr Doyle stated as follows in relation to Mr Allen’s arthritis condition:
“I was not able to explore this problem extensively due to time constraints mentioned earlier and had intended to follow it up in detail in the second appointment which Mr Allen later cancelled. However, from our brief discussion Mr Allen reported intermittent ankle pain from 1991. An X-ray in 2004 was normal. As noted earlier, this may have been gout but arthopathy can also be associated with psoriasis. This has not yet been investigated and Mr Allen has been referred to a Rheumatologist.”[15]
[15] Exhibit 2, p 78.
As to the management of Mr Allen’s medical conditions generally, Dr Doyle commented in her report:
“Mr Allen has a complex range of medical conditions which are all likely to last longer than two years. He had not sought regular medical advice for any of the conditions and as a result it is difficult to assess their current severity, either individually or in combination.
Notwithstanding the permanency of the conditions, given optimal management, none of the individual medical conditions should preclude Mr Allen from seeking work, with the note that he may have some restrictions in the event of acute episodes/flare-ups. Additionally, even with the combination of his medical conditions, with optimal management it should be possible for him to seek work, again subject to treatment of acute episodes. Depending on the severity of his symptoms, Mr Allen may not be able to sustain full-time work.
My impression is that his medical conditions are all currently being managed sub-optimally. A combination of factors may be contributing to this; Mr Allen appears to not to have engaged in ongoing medical treatment for his conditions, he has not always had a regular medical practitioner to provide ongoing treatment, and where he has had the opportunity to continue with a regular practitioner he had disengaged when he does not agree with the advice given.
Unfortunately I have not been able to complete the assessment as Mr Allen cancelled the second appointment in which I was to complete the history and perform a full examination. This is to some degree consistent with Mr Allen’s pattern of disengaging when he does not agree with the management. I am therefore not able to determine the number of hours per week that Mr Allen is fit to work, of specify a timeframe for his return to work.
…”[16]
[16] Exhibit 2, p 79-80.
A Job Capacity Assessment Report of 22 December 2010 addressing Mr Allen’s osteoarthritis condition summarised the history and current status of the condition as follows:
“Osteoarthritis (bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, lumbar spine): Mr. Allen reports of a number of MVA and incidents that have caused injuries to a number of areas including both shoulders and both wrists. He reports of investigations that have included x-ray to his lower back (2007) and x-ray to his hands and wrists (15/06/2010). Mr. Allen reports of treatment that has included physiotherapy on his right wrist (1992), analgesia (Panadiene Forte), anti-inflammatory medication (Nurofen), Bowen therapy for his back condition (2002). Current treatment is reported to consist of analgesia and anti-inflammatory medication as required. Mr. Allen reports of current symptoms that tend to fluctuate but include pain and discomfort in his wrists, hands, shoulders, knees and lumbar spine. He reports that he is able to rise in the morning, ‘on a good day’, and attend to all ADL including self care, getting his daughter ready and off to school and undertaking the household chores. Mr. Allen was unable to inform of how long he was able to sit for (was observed to sit for 50 minutes), can stand for 5-10 minutes, can walk for 10-15 minutes and can drive for 120 minutes. He reports of great difficulty with activities below waist height and that he avoids activities above shoulder height. This condition is verified by a TDR completed by Dr. Beckoff. X-ray reports completed by Dr. Krauel on hands and wrists suggests ‘early degenerative change’ and x-ray of both knees suggests that ‘there are no significant degenerative or erosive changes’ with x-ray of both ankles indicating that ‘there is soft tissue swelling over the lateral malleolus’ and that there is ‘no joint effusion on either side’. However additional information regarding this condition (Report Dr. Awerbuch, 10/06/2010, Report Dr. Beckoff, 17/11/2010) does not inform, in clear terms, what Mr. Allen’s ongoing disability may be regarding his osteoarthritis. Mr. Allen was encouraged to consult with his GP and look for clarification on this condition and for a firm diagnosis/prognosis and possible treatment options. He was also encouraged to fully engage in any additional investigations and treatments. A Functional Capacity Evaluation may be of benefit in establishing functional capacity.
This condition is therefore considered to be permanent but Not Fully Diagnosed Treated and Stabilised at this time.”[17]
[17] T7, p 52.
As to whether Mr Allen’s osteoarthritis condition could be regarded as fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised on the basis of this evidence, the respondent contended that this condition was not fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the relevant period. In support of that contention, the respondent pointed out that Mr Allen had first seen a specialist with regard to this condition, being Dr Awerbuch, on or about 10 June 2010. At that appointment, it appears Dr Awerbuch ordered a number of scans and tests and Mr Allen appears to have consulted Dr Awerbuch on a number of subsequent occasions. It is clear from Dr Awerbuch’s report of 29 July 2010 that investigations were ongoing with regard to Mr Allen’s back pain in particular.
Having regard to all of the evidence, I have concluded that, as at 25 March 2010 or within 13 weeks of that date, Mr Allen’s osteoarthritis condition was not fully investigated, treated or stabilised. In reaching that conclusion I have had particular regard to the contemporaneous report of Dr Doyle together with the fact that Mr Allen first consulted a specialist for this condition in June 2010 and his osteoarthritis and gout conditions were still being actively investigated by Dr Awerbuch as at 29 July 2010, being approximately 16 weeks after Mr Allen lodged his claim. As I am not satisfied that, during the relevant period, Mr Allen’s osteoarthritis condition had been fully investigated, treated and stabilised, I do not consider that any impairment rating can be given for this condition.
Does Mr Allen’s gout condition attract an impairment rating and, if so, what rating should be assigned?
Can an impairment rating be given?
On the evidence available to me, the position with regard to Mr Allen’s gout condition appears to be similar in some respects to the situation with regard to his osteoarthritis condition.
In her report of 6 April 2010, Dr Doyle stated with respect to this condition as follows:
“Mr Allen says he had been suffering from gout for 15-20 years but did not know what it was at first. It is possible that this was the cause of the painful feet he experienced in 1991, but this is not known for certain. He says he had some investigations in 2004 including an X-Ray of his feet which was normal. He says he has been prescribed colchicine and allopurinol, both appropriate for gout, but he finds these medication both upset his IBS. Consequently he does not take them, with the result that he has recurrent acute episodes.
Gout is potentially chronic illness with an intermittent pattern of acute symptoms. Acute episodes are extremely painful and can limit the patient’s activity significantly. However with optimal management these episodes should be able to be managed to allow productive employment.
Blood tests ordered at his presentation on 1 February suggest an acute episode of gout, and he has been referred to a Rheumatologist.”[18]
[18] Exhibit 2, p 78.
As with Mr Allen’s osteoarthritis condition, it is apparent that he had never consulted a specialist for his gout condition until he saw Dr Awerbuch in June 2010. In his report of 10 June 2010, Dr Awerbuch stated with respect to Mr Allen’s gout condition:
“Trevor’s history is suggestive of recurrent attacks of acute gout and I gather he has had high urate levels in the past.
…
I have arranged for a number of blood tests as well as for plain x-rays of the wrists, knees and ankles. … At this stage I have not made any alterations to his drug regimen but will wait until I review him with the results of his investigations.”[19]
[19] T11/83-84.
In his subsequent report of 29 July 2010, Dr Awerbuch reported that as mentioned above, Mr Allen’s x-rays were essentially normal. However Dr Awerbuch stated that his “serum urate is extremely high” and “it is not terribly surprising that he gets acute attacks of gout”.[20] Dr Awerbuch went on to make certain recommendations with regard to Mr Allen’s medication and mentioned that he had arranged for the bone scan of Mr Allen’s lumbar spine referred to above. A further appointment was made for review in 3 months time and Dr Awerbuch indicated that he would have Mr Allen undergo further blood tests prior to that visit.
[20] Exhibit 2, p 45.
It is therefore apparent that, as at the end of 13 weeks after Mr Allen lodged his claim, his gout condition remained under active investigation by his treating specialist, Dr Awerbuch.
In addition, Mr Allen acknowledged during the relevant period taking a medication known as “Colgout”[21] He said more recently he had begun to also take a medication known as “Progout”. The respondent tendered into evidence consumer medicine information documents relating to both Colgout and Progout.[22] The information relating to Colgout indicated that alcohol was one of the substances which may be affected by Colgout or may affect how well it works. The information relating to Colgout also indicated that a patient should check with their doctor or pharmacist before drinking alcohol while taking Colgout. With respect to Progout, the relevant information indicated that a patient should “avoid drinking alcohol while taking Progout”.
[21] T11/82.
[22] Exhibits 3 and 4.
Mr Allen acknowledged drinking some alcohol whilst taking Colgout and Progout, although he denied drinking “a number of glasses of port an afternoon/night” [23] as reported by a Job Capacity Assessor.
[23] T7/53.
The respondent also referred to a Job Capacity Assessment Report completed in November 2011 which recorded advice from Mr Allen’s then current general practitioner, Dr Sidik, that “reduction in alcohol consumption could have a positive impact on the condition with improvement likely to occur”. The Job Capacity Assessor also reported Dr Sidik stating that “Mr Allen should not be drinking alcohol on his medication and it would affect his gout”.[24]
[24] Exhibit 5.
Having regard to all of this evidence, I have concluded that I am not satisfied that as at 25 March 2010 or within 13 weeks of that date, Mr Allen’s gout condition was fully investigated, treated and stabilised. In reaching that conclusion I have had regard in particular to the fact that during that period, Mr Allen’s gout condition was still being actively investigated by Dr Awerbuch and a treatment regime appears to have been recommended by Dr Awerbuch only on 29 July 2010, approximately 16 weeks after Mr Allen lodged his claim. In my view, Mr Allen’s gout condition could not be said to have been fully investigated, treated and stabilised until the regime recommended by Dr Awerbuch had been followed by Mr Allen and his condition had been further assessed in light of that treatment.
I have also had regard to the fact that Mr Allen was consuming alcohol during the relevant period, notwithstanding that the evidence before me suggests his gout condition may improve if he refrains from alcohol, and the evidence also suggests that alcohol may adversely affect the operation of some of the medications he takes for his gout, most relevantly, Colgout, which he was taking during the relevant period. I should also indicate however that, even if Mr Allen had not been consuming alcohol during the relevant period, I would not have been satisfied that his condition was fully investigated, treated and stabilised during that period.
As I have concluded that Mr Allen’s gout condition was not fully investigated, treated and stabilised as at the date he lodged his claim or within 13 weeks of that date, it follows that no impairment points can be given for this condition.
Other conditions
As I have noted above, reference is also made in the documentation before me to the possibility that Mr Allen suffers from alcohol dependence and/or anxiety. However at the hearing before me, Mr Allen indicated he did not consider that he had a problem with alcohol and there is no medical evidence before me suggesting that a diagnosis of alcohol dependence is applicable. Similarly, whilst he acknowledged being anxious in the past, Mr Allen indicated in the course of his evidence that this was not causing him difficulty currently. Further whilst Dr Doyle referred to Mr Allen being anxious and this was also addressed in a Job Capacity Assessment Report of 17 November 2011 and in some of the medical certificates tendered into evidence, there is nothing before me to indicate that Mr Allen has undergone any investigation or treatment for this condition, or that any anxiety he does suffer is expected to be ongoing.
Accordingly, it is not established on the evidence before me that Mr Allen is currently suffering from anxiety or alcohol dependence. Further even if it had been established that he was suffering from one or both of those conditions, I would not have been satisfied on the evidence that either condition was permanent or that either condition had been fully diagnosed, investigated, treated and stabilised during the relevant period. It therefore follows that neither of these conditions can give rise to any impairment rating.
In her report of 6 April 2010, Dr Doyle also refers to Mr Allen suffering from IBS,[25] however she notes that, prior to mentioning it to her, he had never “sought formal medical opinion for this problem”. Accordingly, Dr Doyle stated “Mr Allen has not sought medical advice on managing his IBS, and my impression is that this condition is being managed sub-optimally”. As Dr Doyle’s opinion in this regard is consistent with the other evidence before me, it follows that I am also not satisfied that this condition has been fully diagnosed, investigated, treated and stabilised and I have therefore concluded that this condition also cannot give rise to any impairment rating.
[25] Exhibit 2, p78.
For completeness, as I have indicated above, Mr Allen has not put forward any medical evidence in support of the proposition that he suffers from the ongoing effects of head or neck injuries, or from asbestosis. Accordingly there is no basis in the material before me on which I could be satisfied that he suffers from any of those conditions, or that any of them gives rise to any relevant impairment.
CONCLUSION
I have indicated above that I am satisfied that Mr Allen currently suffers from the conditions of psoriasis, osteoarthritis and gout. However the only condition from which Mr Allen is suffering which I consider gave rise to an impairment under the Impairment Tables during the relevant period is his psoriasis condition. As I consider the applicable rating for that condition to be 10 points, it follows that I have concluded that Mr Allen did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments attracting a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables during the relevant period.
As I have concluded that Mr Allen did not have an impairment attracting 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables at the time he lodged his claim or within 13 weeks of that date, it follows that he did not satisfy s 94(1)(b) and therefore did not qualify for DSP during that period. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to proceed to consider whether, during that period, Mr Allen had a “continuing inability to work” within the meaning of s 94(1)(c).
As Mr Allen was not qualified for DSP at the time he lodged his claim or within 13 weeks of that date, I am obliged to affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of ........................[Sgd]................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 8 March 2013
Date of hearing 6 December 2012 Date final submissions received 17 December 2012 Applicant In person Advocate for the Respondent Mr C Visser Solicitors for the Respondent Centrelink Program Litigation and Review Branch
0
0
0