Batson and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2004] AATA 1285

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1285

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/178

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ROBERT BATSON

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr EK Christie, Member

Date3 December 2004

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.  This means Mr Batson’s application for review is unsuccessful.

....................[Sgd].......................

EK Christie
  Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – benefits and entitlements – disability support pension – upper limb function – gastrointestinal – chronic pain – impairment rating – continuing inability to work.

Social Security Act 1991 s 94

Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1988) 15 ALD 671
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Australian Tea Tree Oil Research Institute v Industry Research and Development Board (2002) 124 FCR 316;  (2002) 70 ALD 1
Comptroller-General of Customs v Akai Pty Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 511
Jebb v Repatriation Commission (1988) 80 ALR 329

REASONS FOR DECISION

3 December 2004   Dr EK Christie, Member     

1.      This is an application by Robert Batson to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT”) made on 3 February 2004 that Mr Batson was not entitled to disability support pension (“DSP”).

2.      In reaching this decision the SSAT concluded that Mr Batson had an impairment rating of 10 points under the Impairment Tables [Table 3: Upper Limb Function; and Table 11.1 Gastrointestinal (Hepatitis C)].  As this rating was below the 20 points required to qualify for DSP, Mr Batson was not entitled to DSP.  Given the finding, the SSAT did not consider whether Mr Batson had a continuing ability to work.

3.      At the hearing Mr Batson represented himself.  The respondent was represented by Mr S Letch, a Departmental Advocate.

4. At the hearing, the Tribunal had in evidence before it documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the “T” documents) (Exhibit 1) and the various documents lodged by the parties.

Issues before the Tribunal

5.The issues for the Tribunal to decide were:

A.whether Mr Batson has at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables; and if so

B.whether Mr Batson has a continuing inability to work.

Facts

6.Mr Batson lodged a claim for DSP on 10 October 2003.

7.On the basis of the evidence before it, the SSAT made the following findings:

A.Mr Batson claimed disability support pension on 10 October 2003;

B.Mr Batson sustained a laceration to the flexor carpi radialis tendon in his left forearm with resultant loss of strength and pain causing moderate interference with manual handling.

C.Mr Batson has been diagnosed with hepatitis C with minor symptoms with no functional limitations (T2, Folio 7).

8.      In its discussion of the evidence, the SSAT concluded that Mr Batson presented as an honest and credible witness who was straightforward in giving his evidence and in responding to questions from the Tribunal.

Examination of the Evidence

§  Evidence of Robert…