Altun and Department of Family and Community Services

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 1013

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1999/1856

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      BEKIR ALTUN
  Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr R P Handley, Senior Member

Date17 November 2000
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

..............................................
[Sgd]:R P HANDLEY
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – motor vehicle accident – compensation settlement – physical impairment – whether impairment is of 20 per cent or more under impairment tables – whether continuing inability to work – pre April 1998 impairment tables – whether restricted range of movement in neck and back is demonstrable loss of function of cervical spine or thoraco-lumbar spine – level at which pain should be assessed
Social Security Act 1991, section 94 Schedule 1B

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr R P Handley, Senior Member

This is an application by Bekir Altun for a review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") made on 26 October 1999 to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services ("the Department") and an authorised review officer to reject Mr Altun's claim for a disability support pension ("DSP").
At the hearing, Mr Altun represented himself and the Department was represented by Susan Mantaring of Centrelink. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the T Documents") together with evidence tendered by the parties. Mr Altun gave oral evidence at the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Mr Altun, who was born on 23 November 1943 and is aged 56, migrated to Australia from Turkey in February 1970. He was in unskilled employment until being injured in a motor vehicle accident on 13 February 1979. He received a compensation settlement of $40,000 on 2 August 1989 and was granted a DSP from December 1992.
Mr Altun's medical condition was reviewed by a Health Services Australia ("HSA") doctor on 23 March 1998, following which the Department decided to cancel payment of DSP. Mr Altun sought a review of this decision. At a hearing on 19 November 1998, the SSAT remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration in accordance with directions that Centrelink arrange for Mr Altun to be examined by an Orthopaedic Surgeon and that, following that examination, his entitlement to DSP be further reviewed.
Centrelink arranged for Mr Altun to be examined by Dr Thomas Silva, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr Silva reported on 8 March 1999 that Mr Altun had degenerative changes in his neck and back consistent with his age, and said Mr Altun was probably fit for light work for 30 hours a week. On 1 April 1999, the Department advised Mr Altun of a decision to cancel payment of DSP from 15 April 1999.
Mr Altun sought a further review. An authorised review officer affirmed the decision on 14 July 1999 and the SSAT affirmed the decision on 26 October 1999. On 10 December 1999, Mr Altun lodged an application for a review by the Tribunal.
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION:
The qualifications for DSP are set out in section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act"). Section 94(1) provides in part:
"94(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
…"

The term "continuing inability to work" is explained in section 94(2):
"94(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 within the next 2 years; and
(b)either:
(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training during the next 2 years; or
(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training – such training is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work within the next 2 years."

The term "work" is defined in section 94(5):
"…
work means work:
(a)that is for at least 30 hours per week at award wages or above; and
(b)that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market."

MR ALTUN'S CASE:

Mr Altun said neck and back pain is his worst problem, but when he walks and exercises in the park, his right leg hurts and, if he carries things, his right arm hurts. Mr Altun said the only medication he now takes is Panadol – two tablets every two or three hours, or between six and eight tablets a day. The pain is the same on most days. He used to take Naprosyn and has tried other medications but they all produce an allergic reaction which makes him scratch his legs and groin until he bleeds. He has had this problem with allergic reactions to other medications for about a year and has discussed it with his family doctor, Dr Borton.
Mr Altun said that at night he is terribly in pain with his neck and back. The pain wakes him during the night. He gets up and has a cup of coffee. Then, when the pain eases, he lies down again. He is awake for up to three hours a night. He goes to bed at about 10.30–11.00pm and gets up at about 6.30– 7.00am. He uses a hard bed because it supports him. He cannot sleep on a soft bed.
In the morning, when Mr Altun gets up, he sits and has coffee, and then does some bending and twisting exercises. He walks 500m to the Turkish bread shop to buy bread, rests and then walks home again. He usually walks to the park, about 700m, where he does more bending and twisting exercises. Mr Altun said he can walk about one kilometre.
After his walk to the park, Mr Altun said he showers and drives to the Turkish coffee shop. He has a yarn or two with his friends. He sits in the shop for about an hour, walks a bit and sits for another half an hour or so. While at the shop, he also reads the Turkish newspapers. He returns home at about 3.00pm. Mr Altun said he can drive for about 20 minutes. Then his back and neck hurt and he needs to rest for an hour at least. It is three and a half kilometres from his home to the coffee shop.
Mr Altun said he has three children, only one of whom, his youngest daughter, still lives at home with him and his wife. His son, who is a bus driver, visits them after work and massages Mr Altun's neck and back. Mr Altun finds massage helps. His wife also massages his back when he lies flat, and his feet if he gets cramps.
At home, Mr Altun said his wife does most things, as is expected in their culture. She cooks, washes the dishes, cleans, does the laundry etc. Mr Altun sits, watches television and reads the Turkish newspapers. He cannot read English and his understanding of English is very limited; when watching television, he mostly watches the pictures. He takes his wife shopping in the car. She carries the shopping to and from the car. Mr Altun said he cannot lift more than five kilograms. A shopping trip with his wife usually takes 30-45 minutes.
Mr Altun said he is independent in self-care. He generally sits while he is dressing. When he puts his socks on, this causes cramps in his right leg like when he walks for more than about 20 minutes.
Mr Altun said he last worked as a cleaner for Comet at Alexandria, six hours a day, five days a week. He did this job for about six months until 22 August 1991 when he was dismissed because he could not do the job. He could not mop nor lift bags because of his back pain. And his neck pain prevented him leaning forwards. It was shortly after this that Mr Altun applied for a DSP. Mr Altun said his condition is now worse than in 1991: he can only sit for about 20 minutes after which he has to stand up. He said he attempted to work a couple of hours a day after losing the cleaning job but he has not looked for work since 1996 because of his neck and back pain.
Mr Altun said he has not consulted Dr Guirgis since 1992. He only sees his family doctor, Dr Borton. He cannot afford to obtain a lot of doctors' reports to support his case because of the cost. He lives in a Housing Commission unit. He said that when he went to Macquarie Street to see one of the Department's doctors (identified as Dr Silva), the doctor did not want the interpreter to be present. The doctor said the patient's English was good enough and the interpreter was excluded from the examination. By contrast, Mr Altun said Dr Gliksman examined him well in the presence of an interpreter, and did not push him hard in the course of the examination as had the Macquarie Street doctor. Mr Altun confirmed that he has only seen Dr Durmish once for the purpose of a report being prepared, and Dr Durmish was not treating him.
Mr Altun said he is not claiming to be crippled. He can do certain things. So, for example, he can manage the steps up to his first floor unit but, because of pain, there are many things he cannot do.
THE DEPARTMENT'S CASE:
Ms Mantaring, for the Department, submitted that the SSAT decision was correct and that Mr Altun's impairments did not attract a rating of 20 per cent under the Impairment Tables in Schedule 1B of the Act. Ms Mantaring noted that the SSAT had mistakenly assessed Mr Altun's impairments under "new" Impairment Tables which took effect on 1 April 1998. In Mr Altun's case, the assessment was made following the medical examination by the HSA doctor on 23 March 1998, using the "old" 1993 edition of the Impairment Tables which should therefore be used in this matter.
Ms Mantaring noted that Mr Altun had said in evidence that he can undertake his own self-care, he can walk, drive, go shopping with his wife and meet with his friends. The medication he is taking is Panadol, a maximum of eight tablets per day. The fact that he is only taking Panadol suggests that Mr Altun's pain is not of an intense nature; otherwise, he would be using stronger medication. Mr Altun's family doctor was fully aware of Mr Altun's medication and his allergic reaction to other medications.
Ms Mantaring said the Department recognised the problem arising from the alleged exclusion by Dr Silva of Mr Altun's interpreter. However, the Department arranged for Mr Altun to be examined by an Occupational Physician, Dr Gliksman. The Department relied on the reports of Dr Gliksman, Dr Keen and Dr Brown that Mr Altun's symptoms are not supported by radiological evidence. Ms Mantaring said the reports of the Department's doctors indicated that Mr Altun presented differently on formal examination from how he had acted informally, and that he exaggerated his symptoms on formal examination. Ms Mantaring said the Department contends that Mr Altun's symptoms are indicative of age-related degeneration which cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.
Ms Mantaring said that because Mr Altun's impairments do not attract a rating of 20 per cent, it is unnecessary to consider whether he satisfies the requirement that he have a continuing inability to work. However, if the Tribunal were to accept Dr Durmish's opinion as to the level of Mr Altun's impairment, then Ms Mantaring pointed out that Dr Durmish did not address the question of continuing inability to work. Ms Mantaring said there is no dispute that Mr Altun cannot undertake heavy work because of the restrictions imposed by his condition in terms of lifting and bending. However, there is no evidence that he would not be able to undertake light work.
Ms Mantaring submitted that Mr Altun's correct entitlement is newstart allowance. With this, he can access community support programs which assist in overcoming barriers to work. Ms Mantaring contended that Mr Altun could undertake light work of 30 hours per week at award wages.
Ms Mantaring concluded that Mr Altun does not satisfy section 94(2)(a) or (b) of the Act and, thereby, does not satisfy section 94(1)(c), the requirement that a person have a continuing inability to work. Thus, Mr Altun is not qualified for the DSP, and the SSAT decision was correct and should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS:
The Department does not dispute that Mr Altun suffers from a physical impairment (section 94(1)(a)). Thus, the first requirement for a person to be qualified for a DSP under section 94(1) of the Act is satisfied. The issues for the Tribunal, therefore, are, first, whether Mr Altun's impairment is of 20 per cent or more under the Impairment Tables in Schedule 1B of the Act and, if so, secondly, whether he has a continuing inability to work (section 94(1)(c)). The Tribunal accepts Ms Mantaring's submission that because the medical examination by the HSA doctor took place on 23 March 1998, the "old" Impairment Tables should be applied. These Tables assess work related impairment as a percentage rather than in terms of points which was a product of the "new" revised Impairment Tables that took effect on 1 April 1998.
The disagreement between the parties with regard to the assessment of Mr Altun's impairment relates to two matters: first, whether Mr Altun has a restricted range of movement in his neck and back which warrants an impairment rating under either Table 5.1 in respect of demonstrable loss of function of the cervical spine, or Table 5.2 in respect of demonstrable loss of function of the thoraco-lumbar spine; and, secondly, the level at which Mr Altun's pain should be assessed under Table 6.
The Tribunal has examined the medical reports. The medical reports in favour of Mr Altun's case, that his impairment should be assessed as 20 per cent or more under the Impairment Tables, are Dr I Borton, General Practitioner, Dr Medhat Guirgis, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, and Dr E K Durmush, Consultant Surgeon. Dr Guirgis was Mr Altun's treating specialist. Mr Altun said in evidence that he last saw Dr Guirgis in 1992, since when he has only consulted his family doctor, Dr Borton. However, Dr Guirgis states in his report dated 21 May 1998 (T26) that he examined Mr Altun on 18 May 1998, presumably for the purpose of preparing the report. Dr Durmush examined Mr Altun once, in March 2000 (no date is specified), for the purpose of preparing his report of 28 March 2000 (Exhibit A2).
In his Treating Doctor's Report dated 8 December 1997 (T20), undertaken for the review of Mr Altun's DSP, Dr Borton diagnosed two conditions:
(1) "Lumbar Disc pathology & Lumbar Spondylosis Sciatica" – date of onset 1970 – "Unable to lift heavy weights, stand for prolonged periods, bend down repeatedly";
(2) "Cervical Spondylosis & Cervical Disc Pathology" – date of onset 1979 – "Pains & restricted movements of neck. Pain radiating to arms."

Dr Borton said Mr Altun was not fit for either full-time or part-time work.

In his report dated 21 May 1998 (T26), Dr Guirgis said Mr Altun's clinical picture remains:
"consistent with chronic mechanical derangement of the neck and back caused by discopathic and spondylotic changes in the spine with irritation of the right lumbo-sacral and right cervical nerve roots complicated by the onset of chronic spinal pain syndrome."

Dr Guirgis assessed Mr Altun's conditions as follows:

"·Cervical spine (Table 5.1) 5%. Loss of about one quarter of normal range of movement.
·Lumbar spine (Table 5.2) 20%. Loss of about one half of normal range of movement.
·Sciatic pain (Table 6) 10%. Sciatic pain daily – present most of the time during walking."

Dr Durmush, in his report dated 28 March 2000 (Exhibit A2), found, on examination:
"…
NECK: He had tenderness in the neck, especially in the lower portion without any torticollis or muscle spasm or deformity. The movements of the neck limited in all directions about 50 per cent. He also had pain in his right shoulder and arm with the movements of the shoulder limited, especially in abduction. There was slightly reduced power in the right arm compared to the left arm. There was no neurological deficit or circulatory problems.
LUMBAR SACRAL SPINE: He had a straight spine but there was quite a bit of tenderness in the lower back. The paravertebral muscles were slightly atrophic. The movements of the lumbar sacral spine were limited in all directions about 75 per cent.
Straight leg raising was limited up 40 degrees on the right. He didn't have any neurological deficit in both legs. There was reduced power in the right leg compared to the left.
…"
Dr Durmush assessed Mr Altun's conditions as follows:
"According to Table 5.1, he has an impairment rating of 10 per cent for his neck problem.
According to Table 5.2, he has an impairment rating of 25 per cent for his lower back problem.
According to Table 6, because of the pain spreading to his right leg, he has an impairment rating of 10 per cent. Overall, his disabilities would appear to be 45 per cent, therefore he should be a suitable candidate for disability support pension."

Dr Durmush said:

"Mr Altun's symptoms are such that he would be unfit for any work or active duty in the general work force in the next two years and beyond."

Ms Mantaring said the Department relied on the reports of Dr H Brown, HSA Medical Adviser, dated 23 March 1998 (T22), Dr M Gliksman, Occupational Physician, dated 27 June 2000 (Exhibit R5), and Dr D Keen, HSA Senior Medical Adviser, dated 22 May 2000 (Exhibit R3). Ms Mantaring recognised that the report of Dr Thomas Silva, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 8 March 1999 (T35), might be tainted by Mr Altun's allegation that Dr Silva had excluded Mr Altun's interpreter from the examination.
Dr Brown made the following assessments in his report of 23 March 1998 (T22):
(1) "Low back pain/neck pain/shoulder pain. Minor restriction of movement. Pain which responds to analgesics. 5% Table 6;
(2) Pain in right leg. Present some of the time when walking. 5% Table 6."

Dr Brown said Mr Altun :

"…
is currently fit for light employment where he can change position as required and avoid any bending or lifting. His lack of work skills, poor English and time out of the workforce will make it difficult to find a job."

Dr Gliksman, in his report dated 27 June 2000 (Exhibit R5), observed Mr Altun both before and after the formal examination and noted a near normal range of movement. By contrast, on formal examination Mr Altun displayed a "grossly limited" range of movement:
"…
It was noted that while speaking to the interpreter, Mr Altun demonstrated apparently unrestricted, full range, repetitive right cervical rotation. When removing his coat and shirt prior to examination, a full range of cervical flexion and bilateral shoulder abduction, was observed. All these movements were accomplished without the audible or visible expression of pain.
Mr Altun was also noted to seat himself and rise from a seated position without apparent difficulty. He was able to remove his shoes and socks prior to today's examination without apparent difficulty, demonstrating a 90 degree flexion equivalent of the lumbosacral spine, while doing so.
…
At the conclusion of today's examination, Mr Altun was noted to raise himself from a lying to a seated position on the examination couch in a rapid manner, demonstrating a 90 degree flexion equivalent of the lumbosacral spine, while under load. This movement was not accompanied by the audible or visible expression of pain.
…"

Dr Gliksman gave the following opinion:
"…
3.It is my medical opinion, based on the history obtained, the reports of investigations included with the documentation and the results of today's clinical examination, that no pathophysiological condition exists capable of explaining the extent, duration and nature of Mr Altun's presenting symptomatology. Further, the investigations reveal (with the exception of the loss of disc height at C5/6), a better than expected level of degenerative change given Mr Altun's age. There is no evidence on the basis of investigation or clinical examination to support the diagnosis of a long-term consequence of any traumatic event occurring in the past.
In the cervical spine, there appears to be a mild to moderate level of degenerative change at C5/6, not resulting in any clinically demonstrable radiculopathy.
4.With reference to Table 5.1, it is my medical opinion that there is zero percent impairment rating. While there are x-ray changes related to C5/6, a normal or nearly normal range of movements was observed repeatedly. With reference to Table 5.2, it is my medical opinion that a zero percent impairment rating applies, as a normal or nearly normal range of movements were observed, repeatedly.
Awarding Mr Altun the maximum benefit of reasonable medical doubt, it is my medical opinion that he suffers from 5% pain at the cervical spine, due to degenerative change seen therein under the provisions of Table 6.
It is my medical opinion that no other form of impairment is present.
5.It is my medical opinion that the impairments referred to above are not of themselves sufficient to prevent Mr Altun performing any work for at least 30 hours per week at award wages in the next two years.
6.The combination of Mr Altun's age and the degenerative change seen in the cervical spine make it ill advised on a medical basis for him to perform any heavy manual work. Apart from heavy manual type labour or repetitive process work, Mr Altun is medically fit to work full hours at any type of occupation.
7.It is my medical opinion that Mr Altun's impairment of itself would not prevent him from undertaking educational or vocational training or on the job training during the next two years.
8.It is my medical opinion that the diagnosis given above would not adversely affect the outcome of training.
9.It is clear from today's examination that considerable functional overlay is present. This is not a medical condition."

Dr Keen's report dated 22 May 2000 (Exhibit R3) was based on a file review, including the report of Dr Silva (T35). Thus, in the Tribunal's view, Dr Keen's report may also be tainted to the extent of his reliance on Dr Silva's findings. Dr Keen refers to Dr Brown's report as:
"…
clearly documenting only minor restriction of movement ranges in both neck and back. There were no neurological signs. 2 months later in May 1998 a report by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Guirgis indicates loss of quarter cervical and loss of half lumbar movement ranges, as well as nerve root involvement. There is an absence of radiological evidence of nerve root pathology, and the marked deterioration in clinical findings in the absence of perhaps an aggravating injury is difficult to explain on medical grounds.
In March 1999 Mr Altun was examined by Dr Silva, who noted marked inconsistency between findings on formal examination, and those noted on informal observation. The implication is of accentuation of disability during formal examination. Finally, a report is provided by Dr Durmush in March 2000 recording loss of three quarters lumbar, and half cervical, movement ranges.
There is thus considerable discrepancy and variation in findings on examination over the last 2 years, despite Mr Altun's condition apparently remaining stable. Part of this may result from observer variation, but there also appears to be some degree of accentuation of disability with time and the appeal process. Of the examination findings, those of the initial examination would appear the most compelling, on the grounds that later assessments were complicated by the appeal process, and that normal movement range is a clear and unambiguous observation. It is also the more consistent finding with the mild, largely age-related, radiological findings.
Using the 1993 tables I would thus regard Mr Altun as rating an impairment of 0% under table 5.1 and 5.2, as having demonstrated near normal movement range. There is no radiological evidence of lumbar nerve root compression, but he does describe some referred symptoms and would rate 5% under table 6 for this. He has symptoms of spinal pain, relieved by analgesia (which he takes at night, and 1-2 during the day), and 5% under table 6 is also applicable for this.
Thus, in my opinion Mr Altun rates a combined impairment of 10% under the 1993 tables.
Regarding work capacity, Mr Altun has some age related degenerative changes, but no serious underlying spinal pathology that of itself prevents employment. His work limitations are those imposed by his symptoms. It is recorded he can stand about an hour at a time, sit for 30 to 40 minutes at a time, and walk about 30 minutes. He has discomfort on heavy lifting and repeated bending. He is this unsuited to heavy manual work, but should be capable on strictly medical grounds of sedentary or semi-sedentary tasks not requiring lifting over about 10kg, repeated bending, or prolonged unrelieved sitting or standing without the opportunity to alter posture periodically.
…"

Although, as stated, Dr Silva's report of 8 March 1999 (T35) may be tainted due to the absence of an interpreter while the examination was conducted and, therefore, little weight should be placed on it, nevertheless, Dr Silva's opinion should be stated:
"…
I think this man's C5/6 disc degeneration is age related and I do not think that he has any organic orthopaedic pathology over and above that requires any special treatment to his neck.
In his lumbar spine there were some degenerative changes in the facet joints compatible with his age but there was no disc protrusion or clinical evidence of lumbar radiculopathy.
His clinical presentation of stiffness is out of proportion to the image features in his neck and back…I think he is probably fit to work thirty hours a week at least with some restrictions on heavy lifting and frequent bending because of his facet joint osteoarthritis in his lumbar spine.
…"

The Tribunal notes Mr Altun's evidence that he is independent in self-care, he can walk up to 700m without resting, he can drive for about 20 minutes, he takes his wife shopping and meets with his friends. The Tribunal accepts Mr Altun's evidence that he suffers from neck and back pain but notes that the only medication he takes currently is Panadol. Mr Altun explained that he suffers an allergic reaction to other medications. The Tribunal does not accept that Mr Altun is subject to restrictions in range of movement found by Dr Durmish, nor Dr Guirgis' finding of a loss of "about one half of normal range of movement" of Mr Altun's lumbar spine. In the Tribunal's opinion, it is reasonable to rely on the evidence of Dr Brown and Dr Gliksman that Mr Altun has a normal or nearly normal range of movement. The Tribunal paid particular regard to Dr Gliksman's observations of Mr Altun before and after the formal examination which suggest Mr Altun is prone to exaggerating the restriction on the range of movement in his neck and back on formal examination. In the Tribunal's view, the restrictions demonstrated in formal examination are not in accord with Mr Altun's evidence as to the physical activity he can undertake in the course of the day. Under Table 5.1 (cervical spine) and Table 5.2 (thoraco-lumbar spine), a normal or nearly normal range of movement equates to a nil impairment rating.
Mr Altun's evidence was that neck and back pain is his most significant problem, and the Tribunal does not doubt that he suffers pain. The SSAT assessed Mr Altun's pain under Table 20 of the "new" Impairment Tables that took effect on 1 April 1998. The SSAT stated that Mr Altun's:
"… chronic entrenched pain warranted an impairment rating of 15 points under Table 20 on the basis that his symptoms were moderate to severe but not so severe as to warrant a 20 points rating under that Table.
…" (T2,p9)

Had the SSAT used the "old" Impairment Tables this would possibly be equivalent to a 10 per cent rating under Table 6 for "chronic pain in any joint or combination of joints".

The Tribunal notes that Dr Brown and Dr Keen assessed Mr Altun's impairment under Table 6 at 5 per cent in respect of "Sciatic pain … present some of the time when walking", in relation to his right leg, and 5 per cent in respect of "frequent pain in any joint, or combination of joints, which responds to medication" that he suffers.
Taking the slightly more generous view of the SSAT, Mr Altun might be assessed under Table 6 at 10 per cent in respect of chronic pain which, added to 5 per cent in respect of sciatic pain, gives a total of 15 per cent. Thus, in the Tribunal's view, the evidence does not support an impairment assessment of the 20 per cent or more under the Impairment Tables that is required to satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act. He is not, therefore, qualified for a DSP. It was unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider the third requirement for qualification for a DSP, that of continuing inability to work (section 94(1)(c)).
The SSAT decision under review must be affirmed.
I certify that the 43 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:
Mr R P Handley, Senior Member
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date/s of Hearing  20 October 2000
Date of Decision  17 November 2000
Representative for the Applicant     Applicant self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent          Ms S Mantaring of Centrelink

[2000] AATA 1013

17 November 2000

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Administrative Appeals

Social Security Act 1991

Disability Support Pension

Continuing Inability to Work

Impairment Assessment

Medical Evidence