Bailey and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

Bailey and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 653 (31 March 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/4498
Re:Jamie Bailey
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Lee Benjamin
Date:31 March 2023
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated on 22 June 2021. The Tribunal substitutes a decision that Ms Jamie Bailey met the section 94 eligibility requirements in the Social Security Act 1991 and was qualified for Disability Support Pension at the date of her claim on 17 February 2021.
.......................[SGD].................................................
Member Lee Benjamin
CATCHWORDS
Disability Support Pension – Social Security Act – section 94 – chronic pain condition; decision under review set aside and substituted.
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Lee Benjamin
31 March 2023
WHAT IS THIS DECISION ABOUT?

Ms Jamie Bailey applied for a disability support pension (DSP) on 17 February 2021. Services Australia (Agency) rejected her claim. The Agency Authorised Review Officer (ARO) and the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) both reviewed and rejected her DSP claim. This was on the basis that Ms Bailey did not meet the DSP qualification criteria during the qualification period.[1] Ms Bailey now seeks a further review of her eligibility for DSP.[2]
[1] The qualification period is the DSP claim date (17 February 2021), or within 13 weeks thereafter (i.e., 17 February 2021 to 19 May 2021) (the Qualification Period).
[2] Under section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Act).
WHAT QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED?
Ms Bailey and the Secretary, Department of Social Services (Secretary) agree that Ms Bailey has physical impairments.[3] Ms Bailey claims to have a temporomandibular joint dysfunction condition (TMJ condition) and a chronic pain condition (chronic pain condition).[4]
[3] Subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act is satisfied. There is no dispute between the parties about this.
[4] Ms Bailey’s DSP claim is based on the TMJ condition and the chronic pain condition as well as depression and anxiety (mental health condition). Separately, it appears as if the Respondent has accepted, for the purpose of this review application, that Ms Bailey has also claimed a migraine condition, even though such claim does not appear to have been particularised in the 17 February 2021 claim (migraine condition). Ms Bailey did not propound the mental health condition or the migraine condition at the hearing.
The first question for me is whether one or both of Ms Bailey’s conditions is permanent (i.e., fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and likely to persist for more than two years).[5]
[5] Subsections 6(3) and 6(6) of the rules for applying the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (the Impairment Tables Determination) (Rules).
If the answer to the first question is yes, the second question is whether one or both of Ms Bailey’s conditions attracts an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the DSP Impairment Tables.[6]
[6] The first and second questions go to subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act.
If the answer to the second question is yes, the third question is whether Ms Bailey has a continuing inability to work.[7]
[7] The third question goes to subsection 94(1)(c) of the Act.
If the answer to all three questions was yes during the Qualification Period, Ms Bailey will be entitled to DSP.[8] If the answer to any question is no, Ms Bailey’s application will fail.
[8] The qualification criteria set out in subsection 94(1) of the Act are conjunctive, and each element must be satisfied for a person to be qualified for DSP.
WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS?
I find, based on the evidence, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable law, that:
·Ms Bailey’s TMJ condition was not fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised;
·Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised;
·Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition attracts an impairment rating of 20 points under the DSP Impairment Tables; and
·Ms Bailey has a continuing inability to work.
Accordingly, I find that Ms Bailey met the DSP qualification criteria as at the date of her application for the same (17 February 2021).
WHY ARE THEY THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS?
At this point, I should say that I found Ms Bailey to be a credible and compelling witness.
Temporomandibular joint dysfunction
On 19 March 2019, Ms Bailey underwent a procedure to remove four wisdom teeth at the Macleay Island Dental Clinic.[9]
[9] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [65]; Exhibit T1, p 53.
Ms Bailey says that she has been suffering with the TMJ condition since the wisdom teeth extraction.[10] She contends that her TMJ condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stablished.[11] The Secretary contends that an initial medical opinion suggested that Ms Bailey had a TMJ condition however, a subsequent specialist opinion has excluded this diagnosis. The Secretary accordingly contends that this condition is not fully diagnosed.[12]
[10] Transcript, p 11, lines 17-20.
[11] Transcript, p 46, lines 44-47.
[12] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [64].
On 30 April 2019, Ms Bailey was referred by a general practitioner (GP), Dr Oksana Myroniuk to Ms Lynette Pickersgill (Physiotherapist) for management of jaw pain and restricted jaw movement arising after the dental procedure.[13]
[13] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [66]; Exhibit T1, p 54.
In a Medical Certificate dated 15 July 2019, Dr Dana Quah-Smith GP noted that Ms Bailey was diagnosed with TMJ.[14] Dr Smith noted that Ms Bailey had severe pain radiating to the neck, back, head and face which caused weakness in her upper limbs.
[14] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [67]; Exhibit T1, p 115.
On 2 August 2019, Ms Bailey was referred to North Coast Radiology for imaging due to Ms Bailey’s six months of full body pain with migraines.[15]
[15] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [68]; Exhibit T1, p 66.
In clinical treatment notes dated 5 November 2019, Dr Kevin Wang GP noted that Ms Bailey had been in extreme pain for four weeks prior to her wisdom teeth surgery and continued to remain in pain after the surgery. Ms Bailey reported that the dentist had referred her back to her GP for TMJ pain. The pain was recorded as being felt across the whole body and that Ms Bailey was taking codeine to treat the pain but that Ms Bailey subsequently ceased taking this medication. Ms Bailey also noted she was undergoing monthly facial massages for the pain. Ms Bailey reported she was no longer able to work due to the extreme level of pain.[16]
[16] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [69]; Exhibit T1, p 68.
In a letter dated 8 November 2019 Ms Yasmin Lang (Remedial Massage Therapist) confirmed that Ms Bailey had been receiving monthly massages since 4 June 2019 for treatment of chronic jaw pain.[17]
[17] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [70]; Exhibit T1, p 69.
On 14 January 2020, Dr Wang referred Ms Bailey to Ms Karen Bryant (Osteopath) for ongoing opinion and management.[18]
[18] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [71]; Exhibit T1, p 77.
In a report dated 12 February 2021, Ms Bethany Hudson (Psychologist) noted that Ms Bailey was referred to her care under a GP Mental Health Care Plan in August 2019 for treatment relating to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and a pain disorder due to TMJ following teeth extraction.[19]
[19] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [72]; Exhibit T1, p 80.
On 22 April 2021, Ms Bailey was referred by Dr Wang to Dr Koshy George (Neurologist) for opinion and management of Ms Bailey’s chronic TMJ pain and whether any injections might benefit Ms Bailey.[20]
[20] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [73]; Exhibit T1, p 96.
On 1 March 2021, Dr Wang wrote a letter in support of Ms Bailey’s DSP claim, noting that her TMJ condition (and chronic plain condition) was treated and stable and that, even with ongoing treatment, Ms Bailey was unlikely to re-enter the workforce:[21]
I am supporting [Ms Bailey’s] application for [DSP] claim as her treating doctor. I can confirm that she has [been] diagnosed with [TMJ and chronic plan…]. All her conditions are treated and stable, which has been persisting beyond two years…[22]
[21] Exhibit R1, p 9, para [74]; Exhibit T1, p 97.
[22] Exhibit R1, p 9-10, para [75]; Exhibit T1, p 97.
On 1 March 2021, Dr Wang referred Ms Bailey to Ms Petra Karni (physiotherapist). On 8 March 2021 Ms Karni wrote in support of Ms Bailey’s claim for DSP noting that she had treated Ms Bailey for TMJ. Ms Karni opined that it would be very difficult for Ms Bailey to re-enter the workforce.[23]
[23] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [75]; Exhibit T1, p 100.
On 12 October 2021, Ms Bryant wrote a letter in support of Ms Bailey’s DSP claim. Ms Bryant noted Ms Bailey’s engagement in osteopathy to treat her TMJ and that osteopathy gave Ms Bailey temporary relief from pain.[24]
[24] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [76]; Exhibit T2, p 5.
On 20 January 2022, Dr George wrote to Dr Wang advising that he was discharging Ms Bailey from his care. Dr George noted that he had reviewed medical imaging which showed no evidence of a haemorrhage, bleed or clot. Dr George wrote that he had informed Ms Bailey that the symptoms of migraine can extend to forehead, temple, occipital, jaw, neck and shoulder pain.[25]
[25] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [77]; Exhibit T2, p 71.
On 17 November 2021, Dr Wang referred Ms Bailey to Dr Swapna Sebastian (Neurologist) for a second opinion on Ms Bailey’s TMJ and whether Ms Bailey would benefit from any injection.[26] On 27 April 2022, Ms Bailey visited the rooms of Dr Sebastian but a consultation did not proceed because Dr Sebastian advised that Ms Bailey’s TMJ pain was an issue unrelated to neurology.[27]
[26] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [78]; Exhibit T2, p 55.
[27] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [78]; Exhibit T2, p 86.
On 16 August 2022, Dr John Cosson (Maxillofacial Surgeon) reviewed Ms Bailey’s TMJ condition.[28] Dr Cosson noted that Ms Bailey’s imaging, symptoms and presentation precluded a condition involving the anatomy of the TMJ and opined that Ms Bailey was suffering from a neuromuscular condition of an unknown cause.[29] In summary, Dr Cosson’s report does not corroborate TMJ diagnosis, and specifically excludes such a diagnosis.
[28] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [79]; Exhibit T2, p 80-81.
[29] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [79]; Exhibit T2, p 81.
Ms Bailey disputes Dr Cosson’s views in relation to her TMJ condition:
MR HARVEY: What do you think when [Dr Cosson] says that you describing no problem with eating would preclude a condition involving the anatomy of the temporomandibular joint?
MS BAILEY: …he’s the only professional who could say that I had TMJ not say that. Everybody else that I’ve seen, including the physio and the osteopath, which I’ll refer to specific documents, they are all saying, yes, it’s TMJ. So he is the first maxilloxillary surgeon that I saw who said that, yes, I’m experiencing if you read the document that it feels like it’s yes, because it’s connected to the neck and the spine that it could be muscular as well. So he’s the only person that it’s yes, for me, he’s one person’s opinion who saw me once. My treatments, which was prior to the disability claim which was February 2019, for those two years leading up to that, every single professional that I was seeing on a regular basis was saying that I was being treated for TMJ and chronic pain.[30]
[30] Transcript, p 20, lines 46-46, p 21, lines 1-12.
In a circumstance where there are competing medical opinions, from GPs and a specialist doctor, more weight should, in my view, generally be placed on the specialist doctor’s opinion, absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. Here, Drs Quah-Smith and Wang GP have diagnosed Ms Bailey with the TMJ condition, whereas Dr Cosson has ruled out such condition. Ms Bailey contends that Dr Cosson was the only health professional to rule out TMJ condition, whereas several other doctors and allied health professionals hold the view that she has the TMJ condition. Dr Cosson appears to be the best qualified to make a diagnosis (or not, as the case may be). On balance, I do not see a compelling reason to depart from Dr Cosson’s opinion. I accept Dr Cosson’s views and find that Ms Bailey’s TMJ condition was not fully diagnosed because it is not corroborated for the purposes of the DSP regime[31] during the Qualification period.
[31] Subsection 6(5) of the Rules.
Chronic Pain Condition
Ms Bailey says that she has been suffering with from chronic pain condition since her wisdom teeth extraction.[32] She contends that her chronic pain condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stablished.[33] Ms Bailey says that her contentions are evidenced by Dr Wang’s letter of support dated 1 March 2021, which states that her chronic pain condition was treated and stable and that even with ongoing treatment Ms Bailey was unlikely to re-enter the workforce.[34] I note that Ms Bailey appears to be taking a medically proscribed drug to treat her chronic pain condition which, on her evidence, is somewhat effective.[35]
[32] Transcript, p 11, lines 17-20.
[33] Transcript, p 46, lines 44-47.
[34] Exhibit T1, p 97.
[35] Transcript, p 13, lines 15-20.
The Secretary accepts that Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition is fully diagnosed but says that it was not fully treated or fully stabilised during the Qualification Period[36] because Ms Bailey has not completed a treatment regime, to address her migraine condition, with a pain clinic.[37]
[36] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [83].
[37] Exhibit R1, p 10, para [84].
The Secretary relies on a two Health Professional Advisory Unit (HPAU) reports prepared by Dr Nalayini Kanagaratnam of Services Australia on 24 January 2022 and 18 October 2022. These reports opine that Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition was not fully diagnosed in the Qualification Period in the context where Ms Bailey had a then undiagnosed migraine condition which was significantly affecting Ms Bailey’s chronic pain.[38]
[38] Exhibit R1, p 11, para [91]; Exhibit T2, p 67-68; Attachment A.
Dr Kanagaratnam also opined that Ms Bailey was not fully treated or stabilised in the Qualification Period in context where she had not completed a treatment plan with a chronic pain clinic, had not trialled appropriate medications which might alleviate her symptoms, and not had the benefit of input from a psychiatrist.[39] Dr Kanagaratnam also considered that further treatment would enable Ms Bailey to increase her work capacity to be above fifteen hours per week.[40]
[39] Exhibit R1, p 11, para [91]; Exhibit T2, p 67-68; Attachment A.
[40] Exhibit R1, p 11, para [91]; Exhibit T2, p 68; Attachment A.
In my view, several issues arise from the Secretary’s apparent reliance on the HPAU reports.
First, there is a clear inconsistency with, on the one hand, the Secretary saying they rely on the HPAU reports but, on the other hand, accepting the evidence of Dr Wang’s 31 May 2021 letter and Dr Scholz’s letter dated 7 September 2021 letter.[41] The HPAU reports state that Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition is not fully diagnosed. Drs Wang and Scholz say it is. The Secretary apparently prefers Drs Wang’s and Scholz’s evidence on the question of diagnosis but prefers the HPAU reports on the question of whether the condition is stabilised and treated. It is difficult to see how the Secretary can credibly rely on the HPAU reports when the Secretary also accepts that the answer to the first and most important question in the first report (i.e., whether a condition if fully diagnosed) is, in the Secretary’s submission, wrong.
[41] Exhibit R1, p 11, para [88].
Second, the HPAU reports note that Ms Bailey has not completed a treatment plan with a chronic pain clinic. However, Ms Bailey says that she was referred to, and attended, a pain clinic in Lismore and used their online resources as directed:
Ms Bailey: I’ve been dealing with Dr Tim Sholz and when I spoke to him, he said to me that the pain clinic was a service that I could use as I deemed fit, and because I live so far away from Lismore, and because I can’t drive because of my condition, I was encouraged to just do the online things.[42]
[42] Transcript, p 25, lines 7-10.
Third, the HPAU reports note that Ms Bailey had not trialled appropriate medications which might alleviate her symptoms. Ms Bailey told the Tribunal that a doctor, who was not her regular GP, proscribed a drug called, amitriptyline, however, she told the doctor that she has a contraindication to such medication, because she has a history of a suicide attempt and suicide ideation:
MS BAILEY: So I have had a bad experience in my teenage years and had made…a decision from a place of being in so much pain that I felt like…I was severely at risk of that risk factor… That if it says on the side effects that suicide is a potential risk, then I’m not going to do it if I already feel in a very vulnerable position[43]
…
MS BAILEY: I haven’t gone down the pharma road, which was that amitriptyline….[44]
[43] Transcript, p 11, lines 28-32.
[44] Transcript, p 12, lines 3-5.
The HPAU supplementary report comments that:
·Neither Dr George (Neurologist) nor Dr Myroniuk GP viewed it as unsafe to prescribe Ms Bailey amitriptyline;
·Precautions for amitriptyline in psychiatry relate to the risk of overdose with the drug, not an increase in suicidal ideation; and
·The recommended maximum dosage for treatment of depression with amitriptyline is 300mg daily whereas the maximum dosage for pain management and migraine prophylaxis is 150mg daily, while the dosage recommended by Dr George was 5mg daily to be tapered up to 15 mg.[45]
[45] Exhibit R1, p 8, para [60].
The Secretary contends that the amitriptyline dosage recommended by Dr George (Neurologist) can be considered reasonable treatment.[46] In response to the HPAU supplementary report and the Secretary’s submission, Ms Bailey was asked under cross-examination about pursuing a pharmacological solution to treat her conditions. Ms Bailey’s response was that she would not take drugs which have suicide ideation as a possible side-effect:
MR HARVEY: I was wondering if you could please explain when you say, or when these specialists say, that you prefer not to go down a pharmacological line, does that mean that you have a preference to avoid as much pharmacological use altogether, or is it specific to antidepressants?
MS BAILEY: I have a preference to not use anything that says a side effect could be suicide, which the drug that I was prescribed twice has. I, for the beginning of my journey, I would max out on painkillers. I was maxed out after the wisdom teeth. For nine months I was taking as much Panadol, ibuprofen, and codeine as I was allowed to for just to survive I was in so much pain. So no, the answer is no, I you know, would I prefer not to use I mean, that saved my you know, I feel like the drugs that I was using right after the surgery for as long as I needed them for were helpful. So I just won’t take anything that says suicide as a side effect, because of my prior experience.[47]
[46] Exhibit R1, p 8, para [61].
[47] Transcript, p 21, lines 35-47, p 22, lines 1-3.
I accept Ms Bailey’s evidence as to her past medical history in relation to suicide ideation. I note that Dr George’s medical opinion indicates, and the HPAU supplementary report by implication acknowledges, that amitriptyline carries a suicidal ideation risk. Taken together, on balance, I find that amitriptyline does not constitute reasonable medical treatment for Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition because it appears to carry an unacceptable risk to Ms Bailey.[48]
[48] Subsection 6(7) of Rules.

Even if amitriptyline is a reasonable treatment for Ms Bailey, I find, consistent with Ms Wang’s medical opinion, that Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition is fully treated and stabilised. On Dr Wang’s view, I find that significant functional improvement to a level enabling Ms Bailey to undertake work in the next two years is not expected to occur, even if Ms Bailey undertakes the reasonable treatment. In the alternative, on Ms Bailey’s evidence about her medical history, I find that there is a medical or other compelling reason for Ms Bailey not to undertake reasonable medical treatment in the form of amitriptyline.[49]
[49] Subsection 6(6) of the Rules.
I have already noted that Ms Bailey appears to be taking a medically proscribed drug to treat her chronic pain condition which, on her evidence, is somewhat effective.[50] The Secretary contends that such treatment is not best practice pharmacological treatment.[51] The Secretary is no doubt correct that the medically proscribed drug used by Ms Bailey is not best practice pharmacological treatment. However, it does not follow, as the Secretary contends, that Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition is not fully treated and fully stabilised.
[50] Transcript, p 13, lines 15-20.
[51] Transcript, p 48, lines 22-24.
Overall, I find, on the strength of the evidence, particularly the medical evidence from Dr Wang, that Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stablished during the Qualification Period. Accordingly, I find, that an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables can be assigned to Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition.
Dr Wang says that Ms Bailey’s condition attracts an “extreme” impairment rating.[52] On Dr Wang’s advice, Ms Bailey’s contented that:
MS BAILEY: That document has been signed by my GP - it’s a Centrelink document - and Dr Wang has ticket 30 points of impairment saying there’s an extreme functional impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina. They’re saying this person is completely unable to perform activities requiring physical exertion or stamin or experiencing symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue…when performing any activities requiring physical exertion or stamina. And due to these symptoms the person is unable to move around inside the home without assistance.[53]
[52] Exhibit T2, p 1-2.
[53] Transcript, p 41, lines 17-25.
The Secretary’s submits that Dr Wang’s “extreme” impairment rating opinion is wrong and maintains that no impairment rating can be assigned to Ms Bailey’s chronic pain condition:
MEMBER:…So…your submission is that the 30 point rating assigned by the GP is not right?
MR HARVEY: That’s correct…
…
MEMBER: …Where in Dr Kanagaratnam’s report is that addressed?
MR HARVEY: Sure, ST-15, at page 11 and 12.
MEMBER: …So…as a practical matter - there are two competing medical opinions as to the impairment rating for the condition... And you invite me to prefer Dr Kanagaratnam’s evidence over the GP’s evidence.
MR HARVEY: That’s correct.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR HARVEY: I’d just say that Dr Kanagaratnam’s – doesn’t give an impairment rating at all because in Dr Kanagaratnam’s opinion Ms Bailey’s not fully treated and stabilised.
MEMBER: Okay. So, in a sense then we don’t really have competing medical evidence in respect of the impairment rating because Dr Kanagaratnam’s report doesn’t go on to provide an alternative rating …because Dr Kanagaratnam [did not find the condition to be fully stabilised]?
MR HARVEY: That’s right.[54]
[54] Transcript, p 49, lines 5-38.
The Secretary cross-examined Ms Bailey extensively about the nature of her functional impacts.[55] To my mind, Ms Bailey’s evidence only partially supports Dr Wang’s opinion that she has an “extreme” functional impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina. While it is clear from this that Ms Bailey is completely unable to perform some activities requiring physical exertion or stamina, there are other activities that Ms Bailey indicated she can perform (e.g., walking from a carpark to the doctor’s office, with assistance).[56] In my view, the functional impact from the latter activities better fit the “severe” functional impact rating. If an impairment is considered as falling between two impairment ratings, the lower of the two ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied.[57] Accordingly, I find that Ms Bailey’s impairments attract 20 points (as “severe”) under the Impairment Tables.
[55] Transcript, p 32, lines 36-46; p 33, lines 1-47; p 34, lines 1-47; p 35, lines 1-47; p 36, lines 36-47; p 37, lines 1-39.
[56] Transcript, p 37, lines 12-16.
[57] Subsection 11(1) of the Rules.
Does Ms Bailey have a continuing inability to work?
Giving my finding that Ms Bailey’s impairment rating is “severe”, it follows that Ms Bailey was not required to have actively participated in a program of support.
I must consider Ms Bailey’s work or training capacity during the Qualification Period. The medical evidence from Dr Wang, which the Secretary acknowledges,[58] indicates that Ms Bailey had conditions which were treated and stable and that even with ongoing treatment she was unlikely to return the workforce.[59] Ms Bailey also referred me to the evidence of Dr Petra Karni, Dr Karen Bryant and Ms Bethany Hudson that she says supports her contention that she has a continuing inability to work.[60] Ms Bailey also relied on Ms Diana Rivers’ lay witness evidence[61] about the same, which was unchallenged by the Secretary.[62]
[58] Exhibit R1, p 16, para [122].
[59] Exhibit T2, p 97.
[60] Transcript, p 44, lines 10-18.
[61] Transcript, p 15, lines 34-47; p 16, lines 1-33.
[62] Transcript, p 17, lines 20-25.
On this evidence, I find that Ms Bailey has a continuing inability to work for the purpose of the DSP regime.[63]
[63] The subsection 94(1)(c) requirements of the Act are satisfied.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the AAT1 dated on 22 June 2021. The Tribunal substitutes a decision that Ms Bailey met the section 94 eligibility requirements in the Act and was qualified for DSP at the date of her claim on 17 February 2021.
I certify that the preceding 48 (forty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Lee Benjamin.
....................[SGD].............................
Associate
Dated: 31 March 2023
Date of Hearing:   6 February 2023
Applicant:   By telephone
Solicitors for the Respondent:           Mr Samuel Harvey (Services Australia)

[2023] AATA 653

31 March 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Appeal