Barry Thornley and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 392
[2014] AATA 392
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2013/6127
Re
Barry Thornley
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Regina Perton, Presiding Member
Lynne Coulson-Barr, MemberDate 14 March 2014 Date of written reasons 20 June 2014 Place Melbourne For the reasons given orally at the hearing, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
[sgd]........................................................................
Regina Perton, Presiding Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – whether accepted medical conditions attract 20 points within 13 weeks of the claim – whether program of support requirements met – decision affirmed
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 section 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 section 4 of Schedule 2
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Social Security (Requirements and Guidelines – Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION
Regina Perton, Presiding Member
Lynne Coulson-Barr, Member20 June 2014
The Tribunal provided oral reasons for its decision at a hearing of this application on 14 March 2014. Barry Thornley, the applicant subsequently requested written reasons for the decision.
Mr Thornley is a 55 year-old man who suffers from a number of medical conditions. Mr Thornley lodged the claim for disability support pension (DSP), which is the subject of this review, on 21 January 2013. Several medical reports accompanied the claim. On 14 February 2013 a Centrelink officer rejected Mr Thornley’s claim (the original decision). Centrelink administers DSP for the respondent.
Mr Thornley sought a review of the original decision by a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) and provided additional medical evidence. On 27 September 2013 the ARO affirmed the original decision.
Mr Thornley lodged an application for review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). On 15 November 2013 the SSAT affirmed the ARO's decision to refuse DSP on the basis that Mr Thornley’s impairments did not rate 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination) by 21 January 2013 or within 13 weeks of that date, that is, 22 April 2013 (the relevant period).
On 28 November 2013 Mr Thornley lodged an application for review by this Tribunal.
Mr Thornley and Ms A Bramley, who is the acting on behalf of the respondent, appeared by telephone at the hearing.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr Thornley satisfied the requirements for DSP during the relevant period.
QUALIFICATION FOR DSP DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD
Were Mr Thornley’s medical conditions permanent and therefore attract an impairment rating of at least 20 points?
Section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) sets out the criteria for a person to qualify for DSP.
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;
…
…
The Impairment Tables relevantly states that:
…
Applying the Tables
(2)The Tables may only be applied to a person’s impairment after the person’s medical history, in relation to the condition causing the impairment, has been considered.
…
Impairment ratings
(3)An impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if:
(a)the person’s condition causing that impairment is permanent; and
Note: For permanent see subsection 6(4).
(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.
…
Permanency of conditions
(4)For the purposes of paragraph 6(3)(a) a condition is permanent if:
(a)the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and
(b)the condition has been fully treated; and
Note: For fully diagnosed and fully treated see subsection 6(5).
(c)the condition has been fully stabilised; and
Note: For fully stabilised see subsection 6(6).
(d)the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[Emphasis in original]
…
When deciding whether a person qualifies for DSP, the decision-maker also needs to take into account the provisions of section 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act). Section 4(1) allows a person who does not qualify for DSP at the date of his/her application, to do so within 13 weeks of that date.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Thornley suffered from a number of medical conditions during the relevant period and continues to do so. The Tribunal must decide whether Mr Thornley’s medical conditions attract a sufficient impairment rating, subject to satisfying the requirements under sections 3 and 4 of the Determination, which require the medical conditions to be fully investigated, treated and stabilised to be considered permanent.
Mr Thornley’s doctors, including several specialists, presented comprehensive reports detailing his medical conditions in relation to his application for DSP and for a claim he had made following a workplace injury. His medical conditions included depression/anxiety, chronic back pain, bilateral wrist pain, sleep apnoea and shoulder pain.
Following the lodgement of the DSP claim, a Job Capacity Assessor (JCA) undertook a review on 30 January 2013. Her assessment was that Mr Thornley’s depression was permanent and had been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised as was his spinal disorder. Based on the evidence before her, she determined that Mr Thornley’s left shoulder bursitis was permanent but that he had not engaged in all available treatments. The JCA awarded 10 points for the spinal disorder but no points for the other conditions. On 14 February 2013 Centrelink rejected Mr Thornley’s claim for DSP.
On 15 March 2013 Mr Thornley’s general practitioner, Dr Michael Carroll provided a report on his patient’s psychological condition. Dr Carroll stated that Mr Thornley had been diagnosed with depression in 2006. He also suffered from anxiety and has had panic attacks. He has attended a psychologist and used medication. Dr Carroll believed that Mr Thornley’s overall functional impact was moderately limited due to his depression/anxiety.
On 29 April 2013 another JCA assessed Mr Thornley’s medical conditions. She awarded five impairment points for depression and 10 impairment points for spinal disorder. On 27 September 2013 the ARO also allocated 15 impairment points, affirming the original decision to refuse the claim for DSP.
The SSAT awarded Mr Thornley 10 points in relation to lower back pain under Table 4 – Spinal Function of the Determination. Five points were awarded under Table 5 – Mental Health Function of the Determination for his mental health issues.
Mr Thornley provided further medical documents to this Tribunal. In a letter dated 16 January 2014, Dr Carroll provided further information about Mr Thornley’s shoulder problem:
…
This man has asked me to provide a report on his medical condition. He consults me as his General Practitioner and his most recent appointment with me was on 13/1/2014.
Mr Thornley suffers from 4 main impairments which include –
- Osteoarthritis of lumbar spine
- Depression/Anxiety
- Left shoulder bursitis with arthritis
- Bilateral wrist pain.
I have previously forwarded a report re this man’s disabilities dated 11/11/2014 [sic] which should be considered along with this present report.
As previously indicated Mr Thornley has suffered from left shoulder pain intermittently over the last 8 years. The diagnosis is “Left Subacromial Bursitis with osteoarthritic change of the left acromioclavicular joint and glenohumeral joint”. I have included these results.
Mr Thornley has had a steroid injection on one occasion 3/5/2011 but his left shoulder condition is continuing.
Mr Thornley has been referred to a physiotherapist and has had several treatments to his left shoulder condition. His left shoulder condition has improved with physiotherapy management. Physiotherapy treatment has consisted of massage, heat/ice, posture correction and exercise strengthening program.
The physiotherapy treatment has improved his left shoulder function and symptoms somewhat but Mr Thornley still has ongoing disability involving manual handling with his left upper limb.
Mr Thornley has continued performing the left shoulder stabilising exercises but Mr Thornley has difficulties with activities such as abduction, reaching, high and repetitive left shoulder use etc. Specific activities such as hanging out the washing are significantly limited.
It appears his left upper limb condition will continue and it causes him a moderate level of disability on an ongoing basis.
I understand he has previously been assessed as having impairment to a total of 15 points on the impairment tables due with respect to his back condition and Depression/Anxiety.
I am indicating that his impairment specifically relating to his left shoulder would result in a rating of 5 points as per the impairment table.
…
Attached to Dr Carroll’s letter were reports of ultrasounds and x-rays taken in 2005 and 2011 in which Mr Thornley’s shoulder problems were confirmed. Dr Carroll’s letter dated 11 November 2013 was also attached indicating a diagnosis of the shoulder condition some eight years earlier.
In the respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 7 March 2014, the respondent maintained that Mr Thornley should only be awarded 15 impairment points. However at the hearing, Ms Bramley conceded that the shoulder may warrant 5 impairment points in light of the additional evidence (extract from transcript below):
…
MS BRAMLEY: Ms Perton, before we go any further.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes.
MS BRAMLEY: Can I just – Mr Thornley rang me on – when he received the statement of facts and contentions and drew my attention back to a letter he provided from Dr Carrol [sic] on 17 January 2014. Dr Carrol [sic] provided an assessment regarding his – Mr Thornley’s shoulder and Dr Carrol indicated that from the tables he thought that the appropriate impairment rating for Mr Thornley’s shoulder condition would be five points, and I think on the basis of Dr Carrol’s [sic] letter, the Secretary would accept that.
MEMBER PERTON: Okay.
MS BRAMLEY: So, in essence, Mr Thornley has an impairment rating of at least 20 points.
MEMBER PERTON: Okay.
MS BRAMLEY: So it sort of narrows the issue to the continuing inability to work, which is then divided into those two separate issues of the program of support and the 15 hours of work.
The Tribunal is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the shoulder condition had been diagnosed, fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period and that five impairment points should be awarded under Table 2 – Upper Limb Function of the Determination. The Tribunal also concurs with the SSAT’s and the respondent’s assessment of a total of 15 impairment points for the back condition and the depression. The Tribunal finds that Mr Thornley attained a score of at least 20 points for his disabilities under the Determination. He therefore meets the requirements under sections 94(1)(a) and 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Did Mr Thornley have a continuing inability to work?
The Tribunal must also consider whether Mr Thornley has a continuing inability to work under section 94(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provisions are set out in sections 94(2) to (5) of the Act:
(2) A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(aa)in a case where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection (3B)—the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C); and
(a)in all cases—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)in all cases—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.
(3)In deciding whether or not a person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment, the Secretary is not to have regard to:
(a) the availability to the person of a training activity; or
(b) the availability to the person of work in the person’s locally accessible labour market.
(3A) …
Severe impairment
(3B)A person’s impairment is a severe impairment if the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which 20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table.
…
Active participation in a program of support
(3C)A person has actively participated in a program of support if the person has satisfied the requirements specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.
…
Doing work independently of a program of support
(4)A person is treated as doing work independently of a program of support if the Secretary is satisfied that to do the work the person:
(a)is unlikely to need a program of support; or
(b)is likely to need a program of support provided occasionally; or
(c)is likely to need a program of support that is not ongoing.
Other definitions
(5)In this section:
program of support means a program that:
(a)is designed to assist persons to prepare for, find or maintain work; and
(b)either:
(i) is funded (wholly or partly) by the Commonwealth; or
(ii) is of a type that the Secretary considers is similar to a program that is designed to assist persons to prepare for, find or maintain work and that is funded (wholly or partly) by the Commonwealth.
training activity means one or more of the following activities, whether or not the activity is designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments:
(a)education;
(b)pre‑vocational training;
(c)vocational training;
(d)vocational rehabilitation;
(e)work‑related training (including on‑the‑job training).
work means work:
(a)that is for at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and
(b) that exists in Australia, even if not within the person’s locally accessible labour market.
[Emphasis in original]
…
In addition to sections from the Act cited above, section 2(3C) of the Act stipulates the need to concurrently consider a Determination made by the Minister entitled Social Security (Requirements and Guidelines – Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the POS Determination). Section 5 of the POS Determination states that the person must have participated in a Government funded program for at least 18 months in the 36 months prior to the lodgement of the claim to meet the legislative requirements.
Mr Thornley had participated in a program of support before the lodgement of the DSP claim. However, it did not total 18 months in the three years preceding the DSP application on 21 January 2013. The transcript details the discussion that took place about the program of support:
…
MS BRAMLEY: The program of support is a requirement, as Ms Perton has pointed out. There’s a number of criteria, one is that the program is undertaken for 18 months in the three year period immediately prior to claim. The second would be if the program was less than 18 months but it had been completed. A further requirement is whether the program was terminated on the basis that Mr Thornley was prevented from improving his capacity to find, gain or remain in employment solely on the basis of his impairment. And the last one is that on the relevant date, which is date of his claim, he was undertaking the program and was unable to improve his capacity to find, gain or remain in employment solely as a result of his impairment.
…
MS BRAMLEY: And there’s a number of – the determination outlines a number of activities that are accepted as forming the program of support and they include job search and rehabilitation and vocational training and return to work programs and a few others. Mr Thornley has provided evidence of what looks like a return to work program that was undertaken back in early 2010 through, or as result of, a WorkCover claim, I think?
…
MS BRAMLEY: And on the face of it, it certainly looks like that was a return to work program, although a graduated return to work program, although there’s no evidence that the program was tailored to Mr Thornley’s particular barriers to his employment. I note that on some of them it said that, you know, he was restricted in standing for a certain period but on the face of it though, those documents would suggest that for that period at least it’s likely that those activities would be regarded as satisfying the requirement for a program of support.
MEMBER PERTON: And, Mr Thornley, can you tell us a little bit about – I know you were injured and you were off work for a little while and then you went on light duties for a while?
MR THORNLEY: Yes, I went to light duties in the shed.
MEMBER PERTON: And when did you finish up working with the company?
MR THORNLEY: They let me go in January last year.
MEMBER PERTON: Okay.
MR THORNLEY: They said, “Well, we’ve tried everything, there’s nothing else we can do for you.”
MEMBER PERTON: Yes. And then you started off with MatchWorks in January last year, is that right?
MR THORNLEY: Yes, I signed up for the – - –
MEMBER PERTON: Yes.
MR THORNLEY: what happened is, my boss has said, “Well due to the fact that there’s not much work at the moment,” blah, blah, blah, “we’ll ring you. do not ring us, do not come into the shed, otherwise, see you later.” So I started to look for other employment.
MS BRAMLEY: Sorry, can I just clarify that? So, your employment was terminated because of a lack of work?
MR THORNLEY: They told – what was said to me – he said “Because there’s not – it’s quiet at the moment and we’ve got trainees that we’ve got to train up, when we find a job that’s suitable for you, we will ring you. Do not ring us and do not come into the shed.” And I have not – not one bit of contact since.
MEMBER PERTON: Oh dear. And you worked for them for quite a while, didn’t you?
MR THORNLEY: Yes, so – - –
MEMBER PERTON: That’s very disappointing.
MR THORNLEY: Well, it is on my behalf too because, what happened, Dr Davies who I’ve been seeing all the time for my back mainly, he put, “Fit for normal duties but not a 100 per cent recovered, never will be,” and they just said, “Well, right, we’ll get rid of – get him out,” so they got rid of me. And then my lawyer told me to go back and see the doctor, and I’ve seen the doctor and he even backdated it properly.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes.
MR THORNLEY: Sugar-coat it to them. But they done nothing then I had to go through all of – - -
MEMBER PERTON: WorkCover.
MEMBER COULSON BARR: WorkCover.
MR THORNLEY: Work stuff again and then – yes.
MEMBER PERTON: And then going through all that legal stuff.
MR THORNLEY: Yes.
MEMBER PERTON: And then I think you got paid for a while, didn’t you, from – - -
MR THORNLEY: I got a lump sum.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes.
MR THORNLEY: Which went straight to Centrelink. They went, thank you very much and then here’s the rest of it.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes. Yes. So you didn’t end up clearing very much at all?
MR THORNLEY: No, by the time that I got the money and paid the bills and got some food and what-not.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes. And now you’re on Newstart?
MR THORNLEY: Yes, on Newstart, slash pension card.
…
MS BRAMLEY: That’s right. There’s no evidence from MatchWorks that Mr Thornley is unable to improve his capacity to find work.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes. What have you been doing at MatchWorks, Mr Thornley?
MR THORNLEY: They sent me to do a course to learn how to go into a – to find a – to go and talk to an employer, but, virtually what they were trying to do is tell you to say this, not tell them, like, if I go to employers, say well, normally when you go to an employer they ask you if you’d had – been any WorkCover, blah, blah, have you got any injuries and you got to fill out a form.
MEMBER PERTON: And you’ve got to tell the truth.
MR THORNLEY: And I’ve tried to tell them I got to tell the truth. And they’re saying, “Well, you got to twist it the other way around so you get the job”. And I said, “Well, the trouble is, it’s a double edged sword because if I do that, that means that I’m falsifying documents which can relate to me going to court and ending up in jail for false accusations, saying that, you know, I haven’t got nothing wrong with me which I have.”
…
MEMBER PERTON: …. Yes, so I think our big issue really for you, Mr Thornley, and looking at the documents and I guess to cut to the – cut straight through to what the issue is. The issue is that at the moment it appears to me, unless there’s some magical facts that we can come out with, is that where you’ve missed out is on the program of support, not having done the 18 months in the three years before January 2013. And one of the problems is that we can’t just ignore that part of the law that the parliament brought in, so at the moment it’s not looking great in terms of that. Do you want to say anything, Ms Coulson Barr?
MEMBER COULSON BARR: No, was there any other programs that you’ve been involved with that perhaps aren’t in the papers, Mr Thornley?
MR THORNLEY: Well, there’s the – first up in 2012 I had WorkCover and I went to (indistinct) and you’ve got all those documents. And that went for support for about eight, nine months or so. And then – and so I went back to work and all that sort of stuff. Of course, the back went again in 2012. Went in for the pension then, and got the phone call saying, “Yeah, you should get – should try for the pension,” and then in the next breath were saying, “Well, I don’t think you can get the – you know, shouldn’t go for the pension”. And then they were trying to confuse me. And they ended up saying, “Well, no, we’re not going to do it” and then that was it.
MEMBER PERTON: Mr Thornley, have you put in another application since then for disability support pension?
MR THORNLEY: I put one in 2012.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, that was earlier, yes. Because, now that you’ve got the 20 points, the only issue that there’s going to be – we’re stuck in a time warp, you know, like, only in that period last year between January and April, but you’ve been involved with MatchWorks since then and you’ve been pretty conscientious about doing stuff with MatchWorks, haven’t you?..
MR THORNLEY: Well – - -
MEMBER PERTON: You turn up and do stuff they want you to do?
MR THORNLEY: Well, I’ve got to because they – what they do, they say, “Well, if you don’t do it I’m going to ring up and get your payments cancelled.” So what do you do?
MEMBER PERTON: Yes. Well, there’s not only that. For you now and, you know, it’s not looking great that we can do something for you in relation to the January last year’s application, but once you’ve got 18 months of the program of support plus some of the return to work stuff that you did with, you know, when you were applying, when you had your new injury, the aggravation, once that adds up to 18 months – - -
MR THORNLEY: Which is when though?
MEMBER PERTON: Well, that’s the other thing. Ms Bramley, have you – you haven’t done any sort of calculation roughly in your head? Or could you do one?
MS BRAMLEY: Well, Mr Thornley was initially registered with MatchWorks from the 12 January 2013. Now, because he had an exemption from 21 January to 21 March, that period does not count.
MEMBER PERTON: That’s the other thing, perhaps we could explore – - –
MR THORNLEY: But why does that happen because I was still going to MatchWorks, I’m still unemployed and because I was going for disability, they put that against me? I can’t understand it.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, I know where you’re coming from.
MS BRAMLEY: Mr Thornley, I can actually look up some other records and if you were actually attending appointments in that period we might be able to argue that even though you had an exemption from the activity test, you continued to undertake the program with MatchWorks.
MR THORNLEY: Yes.
MS BRAMLEY: So I can follow that up as – outside of this hearing – - –
MEMBER PERTON: That would be good.
MS BRAMLEY: – - – and write to you about that.
MEMBER PERTON: Because I think in the not too distant future, if you’ve still been going to MatchWorks, you might find that it won’t be very long before you can actually qualify for a disability supportive [sic] pension on a new application.
MR THORNLEY: Well I worked it out with all the different scenarios and stuff, it would be about June anyway.
MEMBER PERTON: Okay.
MR THORNLEY: Roughly.
MEMBER PERTON: I mean, it’s important that you keep doing the MatchWorks stuff.
MR THORNLEY: Yes. Well, I have to because – - –
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, well, that’s right.
MR THORNLEY: – - – if I don’t go – the first thing they say is, “Well if you don’t go, I’ll just ring them up and get your payments cut”.
…
So I think you should – and perhaps Ms Bramley can try and do a calculation roughly of when – if she agrees with you that it would be around about June, and then when you get to that 18 months, Mr Thornley, put in an application and then I don’t think you’ll find yourself going through the – any of the review parts of the system because I don’t think that, by the sound of it, you’re not going to go down in points. You know, your back is still bad, your still suffering from – - -
MR THORNLEY: It’s just all the same.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, you’re still suffering from various conditions.
MR THORNLEY: Yes.
MEMBER PERTON: And doing full-time work like you used to do is not something that appears likely that you’re going to be able to do, particularly based not just on, as I said, your doctor who has written some fantastically – can I say not many doctors write as much as stuff or care as much about their patients as your Dr Carrol [sic] does. He sounds terrific.
MR THORNLEY: He is.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, and you lucked out when you got him as a doctor and also when you got the psychologist, Jackie, helping you as well because she’s written some really – stuff that, you know really – - –
MR THORNLEY: Dr Carrol [sic] put me on to Jacqueline, so – - -
MEMBER COULSON BARR: Good.
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, that’s good. So, we’re going to have to say to you that we can’t get you up on the application that you did in January last year. Not because we don’t think that you’re crook but – - -
MR THORNLEY: Just at the moment I haven’t got the time.
MEMBER COULSON BARR: Yes, it’s just the time.
MEMBER PERTON: It’s the program of support. Now, the good thing is, with your – the stuff that’s come in, you know that came in later in the year from Dr Carrol [sic] and what Ms Bramley has said, that in her view it’s 20 points and I must say, that was our issue this morning. We thought, well, maybe you might make the 20 points. So it’s terrific that Ms Bramley has and the department have said, yes, we agree you get up to the 20 points. So it has been worthwhile going through this process just to get that acknowledgement that you’re up to 20 points.
…
MEMBER PERTON: But, you knew and we knew, I guess you were hoping that there was some way we could get you up on that 18 month program of support but we’ve looked at it and we just can’t.
MR THORNLEY: Yes.
MEMBER PERTON: You know, the facts are the facts are the, facts [sic] and we can’t change them. You’ve been honest and everything throughout this whole process, you’ve been unlucky in terms of your health. You’re trying to do something about it which is beaut too, so we’re going to have to say that we – the technical language is that we affirm the decision under review. And the reason we affirm the decision is we agree you get – you meet – you’ve got conditions. We agree that you’ve got 20 points, we don’t disagree that you deserve 20 points, but we just can’t get you over that big hurdle of the program of support.
MR THORNLEY: No, if you could find out exactly how many months – - -
MEMBER PERTON: Yes, approximately how many months. Ms Bramley, are you happy to follow that up?
MS BRAMLEY: Yes, yes, I am.
…
MR THORNLEY: Well, that’s why I rang the other day because when I got my paperwork, I said, I’ve only got 15 points, and I thought, well, they must have forgot about the five points my doctor gave me for the shoulder.
MS BRAMLEY: Mr Thornley, you were quite right and I was glad that you drew that to my attention.
…
MEMBER COULSON BARR: Yes, it looks like you’ve got a way forward now.
MEMBER PERTON: There is a light. You know how when you’re driving along somewhere and all of a sudden you can see the lights of the town but you’re not quite there, well, the lights of the town are there up ahead of you. Okay. So best of luck.
…
DECISION
For reasons given orally at the hearing, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 24 (twenty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Regina Perton, Presiding Member and Lynne Coulson-Barr, Member [sgd]........................................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 20 June 2014
Date of hearing 14 March 2014 Applicant By telephone Representative for the Respondent Ms A Bramley, Programme Litigation and Review Branch, Department of Human Services
0
0
0