Bnauman and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2016] AATA 570
•3 August 2016
Bnauman and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 570 (3 August 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)
2015/6419; 2015/6446
Re
Hulea Bnauman
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member W G Stefaniak AM RFD
Date 3 August 2016 Place Sydney The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division on 16 November 2015 to reject the applicant’s claim for carer payment. The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division on 16 November 2015 to reject the applicant’s claim for carer allowance and in substitution decides that the applicant qualified for carer allowance on 17 February 2015.
.............................[sgd]...........................................
Senior Member W G Stefaniak AM RFD
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – carer payment – carer allowance – whether applicant provided constant care – whether applicant provided care for at least 20 hours per week – assistance with bodily functions – assistance with care to sustain life – decision to reject carer payment affirmed – decision to reject carer allowance set aside and substituted
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 198, 954A
CASES
Milne and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 689
Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Harvey [2009] AATA 835
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member W G Stefaniak AM RFD
3 August 2016
BACKGROUND
The applicant came to Australia with her mother and siblings as a refugee from Iraq via Syria in 2009. The applicant, the applicant’s mother and her siblings live in various parts of Sydney and during this time the applicant has taken care of her mother to varying degrees, helped initially by a sister and in more recent times by her husband.
The applicant is 26 years old, married and has a 5 year old son and an 18 month old daughter. She lives with her husband and children in a neighbouring street to her mother and the journey between the two houses is approximately 2 to 3 minutes by car.
The applicant's husband received a carer payment from August 2013 until it was cancelled in May 2014 and carer allowance from August 2013 until it was cancelled in January 2015.
It would seem from the evidence given before this Tribunal that the cancellation of the husband’s carer allowance coincided with the husband obtaining work as a foreman in charge of a number of carpenters in around that time (January 2015).
On 3 February 2015 the applicant lodged claims for a carer allowance and carer payment for the care of her mother Amyra. This appears to have coincided with the cancellation of her husband's carer payment and return to work. Her claims were rejected on 17 February 2015 by Centrelink on the basis that the care the applicant provided her mother did not meet the threshold level of care required for each payment.
On 7 August 2015 an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed these decisions and on the same date the applicant applied for review by the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) of this Tribunal. On 4 November 2015 the SSCSD affirmed the decisions under review. The applicant now seeks review of this decision.
On 16 February 2016 the Respondent provided additional information including a new medical report dated 19 February 2016 from Dr Shamil Setrak, and 2 medical reports by Dr Mahmoud Abu-Arab clinical psychologist dated 3 February 2014 and 12 February 2015.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) is the legislation governing these claims
Carer Payment
Section 198 of the Act outlines the criteria for qualification to receive carer payment, including the need to provide “constant care” to a disabled adult. It was not disputed that the applicant met all the requirements of s 198 apart from the question of constant care.
In relation to constant care, s 198 provides:
(2) The person must personally provide constant care for:
(a) either:
(i) if the person is the only person providing the constant care—a disabled adult (the care receiver) who has been assessed and rated under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool and given a score under that assessment tool of at least 25, being a score calculated on the basis of a total professional questionnaire score of at least 10; or
(ii) if not—a disabled adult (the care receiver) who has been assessed and rated under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool and given a score under that assessment tool of at least 80, being a score calculated on the basis of a total professional questionnaire score of at least 32 …
Although the concept of constant care is not statutorily defined, it has been said to:
(a)require more than the ordinary activities involved in parental care and household management;
(b)involve the provision of that care on a more or less full-time basis in the sense of devoting a substantial part of each day to looking after the person; and
(c)possibly be satisfied by the requirement for constant supervision having regard to the inclusive definition of care in s 197(1) of the Act: see Re Milne and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 689.
Paragraph 1.1.C.310 of the Guide to Social Security Law (“The Guide”) also provides:
A carer is said to provide constant care if they personally provide care on a daily basis for a 'significant period' during each day. The care may be active, supervisory or monitoring. To provide care on a daily basis for a significant period, a carer should reasonably be expected to provide at least the equivalent of a normal working day in personal care, as the policy intent of providing CP is to recognise that the carer is not able to undertake substantial employment because of their caring responsibilities. This includes circumstances where the carer or care receiver are absent from the care situation for part of the day, but the intensity of the care required and provided during the remainder of any 24 hour period is such that it roughly equates to a normal working day …
Carer Allowance
For carer allowance s 954A of the Act relevantly provides:
(1) A person is qualified for carer allowance for a disabled adult (the care receiver) if:
(a) the care receiver is an Australian resident; and
(b) the care receiver is a family member of the person or is a person approved in writing by the Secretary for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(c) the care receiver has been assessed and rated under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool and given a score under that assessment tool of at least 30, being a score calculated on the basis of a professional questionnaire score of at least 12; and
(d) the care receiver receives care and attention that meet the requirements in subsection (2); and
(e) the person is an Australian resident; and
(f) the person’s work in providing the care and attention is not on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and
(g) neither the person nor anyone else is qualified for carer allowance for the care receiver under section 954.
Note 1: For Australian resident see section 7. For family member see subsection 23(1).
Note 2: For qualification for carer allowance in circumstances of hospitalisation, see section 955.
Note 3: For the effect of temporary cessation of care and attention on carer allowance, see section 957.
Note 4: For the effect of 2 people being qualified for carer allowance, see sections 964 and 965.
(2) The care and attention:
(a) must address special care needs:
(i) that the care receiver is assessed under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool as having; and
(ii) that relate to the care receiver’s bodily functions or to sustaining the care receiver’s life; and
(b) must be received by the care receiver on a daily basis, for a total of at least 20 hours a week; and
(c) must:
(i) be received by the care receiver from the person alone; or
(ii) be received by the care receiver from the person together with another person whose work in providing the care and attention is not on wages that are at or above the wages mentioned in paragraph (1)(f), whether or not both persons are present every day when the care receiver receives the care and attention; and
(d) must be received in a private home that is the residence of the care receiver, the person or the other person (if any), but not the residence of both the care receiver and the person; and
(e) must not be care and attention of a kind (if any) specified, by legislative instrument, by the Secretary for the purposes of this paragraph.
Paragraph 3.6.7.45 of The Guide provides for what constitutes care for the purpose of a carer allowance:
Care & attention must address special care needs
To be eligible under the new rules, carers who do not live with the person being cared for will need to provide care and attention that address special care needs that the care receiver is assessed under the ADAT as having (i.e. assistance with bodily functions and/or to sustain life).
Special care needs include assistance with bodily functions and care to sustain life. Assistance with BODILY FUNCTIONS includes:
• MOBILITY, which may include assisting the person to transfer in and out of bed, moving around the home, negotiating stairs and positioning in their chair or bed,
• PERSONAL HYGIENE, including help with dressing and undressing, bathing and showering, grooming, and assistance with using the toilet,
• EATING AND DRINKING (hydration and nourishment), which may include cutting, mashing or juicing food so the person can eat it, feeding the person food and drinks and supervising the person to ensure that their food or drink is consumed,
• COMMUNICATION, this may include signing or interpreting for the person and assisting the person to use communication equipment, and
• TREATMENT which may include helping the person take medication, changing dressings, applying bandages and operating and monitoring medical equipment.
The Guide goes on to state that “care to sustain life” includes supervision to prevent wandering, removing the person from dangerous situations and preventing the person from damaging property or injuring themselves or others.
The Guide also provides examples and it further states that activities that do not address the care receiver’s special care needs and which do not relate to the care receiver's bodily functions, or to sustaining their life, are not considered to be care and attention e.g. shopping, house work and travel time.
The Guide stipulates the care and attention must be received by the care receiver on a daily basis, for a total of at least 20 hours per week.
In applying the law to the applicant’s situation the following needs to be said.
In evidence given before the Tribunal it became clear that this case was somewhat different from others similar types of cases because the Adult Disability Assessment Tool (“the ADAT”) in relation to Dr Setrak’s questionnaire used by the respondent in considering the applicant’s claim was lost by the Department.
The respondent however conceded that for the purposes of this case, the criteria were satisfied as a result of what the applicant had filled in and what Dr Setrak had concluded on her behalf.
The Centrelink Medical Report of Dr Setrak, dated 19 February 2016, where he performed a number adult disability assessments with the applicant’s mother, indicated a score of 30.5. The respondent conceded that that score was definitely well over the margin required.
Accordingly, as a result of the concession made by the respondent and the fact that the latest assessment tool seemed to indicate as of February 2016 that the applicant satisfied part of the criteria, attention then turned to looking at whether it could be said that the applicant had been providing constant care to her mother to qualify for carer payment and/or whether she satisfied the criteria needed to qualify for carer allowance; namely that she provided special care and assistance with bodily functions and care to sustain life and that she did so for at least 20 hours per week.
The respondent submitted that the assessment would have to be done by this Tribunal on the evidence before it.
Accordingly, I adduced evidence with the help of an interpreter about what the applicant did on a normal weekday as well as what she did on weekends and looked at any other relevant documented evidential material before me in an attempt to assess whether she qualified under the criteria of constant care for carer payment and/or whether she qualified for carer allowance at the time of the claim.
QUALIFICATION FOR CARER PAYMENT
I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant qualified for carer payment, as she did not provide constant care to her mother pursuant to s 198(2)(a) of the Act.
Her evidence can be summarised as follows.
The applicant would attend to her mother every morning at about 9:05am after dropping her son at school. She would make sure her mother took the right medication prior to breakfast if need be and then cook, prepare and serve breakfast while her mother sat at the table. She would then give her mother her medication which was to be taken on a full stomach. She would then wash up and would then assist her mother with showering.
Her mother had a permanent shoulder injury which meant that she could not raise her hands above her head. She was unable to wash her hair but she could wash the rest of her body below the shoulder. As she had fallen over in the shower once in Syria and once in Australia, and as she also had fallen over in the street, the applicant was concerned that she might do the same again and stayed with her to supervise her showering.
The applicant then dried her mother’s hair and assisted with dressing her. She would then take her mother to any appointments she had such as doctors’ appointments. Her mother, whilst still apparently holding an Iraqi driver's licence, had not driven since 2010.
The applicant said the morning routine would be altered if, for example the medical appointment was at 9:30am in which case she would not shower her mother until they got home from the appointment. The applicant indicated the normal process of sorting out her mothers’ pills, cooking and cleaning up after cooking usually took until about 10:30am and then the showering process and hair washing and drying and dressing process would usually take to around 12:00 noon
The applicant then indicated she would prepare and cook her mother lunch and again wash up. The applicant indicated that whilst her mother could do certain things in terms of preparing food, or at least some food, for herself, she was concerned that her mother might cause some damage to herself or her property by doing such things as not turning the stove off. This apparently had occurred before. She would chop up the food for her mother as her mother could not cut the tougher types of food, nor could she spread food such as butter.
The applicant also stated that she would take her mother shopping and for coffee if she was stressed and that she would take her to buy clothes so that she could assist in “outfitting” her mother.
She would leave her mother watching TV on occasions, specifically at around 3:30pm on weekdays when she would pick up her son from school. The applicant stated that sometimes her husband would pick up their son and also look after their daughter if he finished work at 3:15pm.
Most of the time the applicant would take her daughter with her to her mother's. She would take her daughter home if her husband was there. On occasions she would take her mother home with her as her mother would usually stay overnight with the applicant’s family on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On other occasions, she would often take her mother home for dinner with the family and then take her back to her own place at about 8:00pm to 8.30pm and make sure that she was put to bed and could watch TV or read. She would also give her medications. She would then leave her mother and go home. Her mother could walk around the house by herself.
On weekends the applicant would take her mother and her family to church and her mother would often stay at the applicant’s house on weekends. The applicant gave evidence that either her mother would go to her house or that she would go to her mother’s house on weekends.
The applicant further stated that her mother's bone density was getting worse, as was her mental condition.
Apart from the times the applicant's mother stayed with the applicant at her home she would stay in her own home every night.
The applicant had arranged for her mother's phone to be simplified to the extent that if her mother dialled “1”, that would immediately cause the phone in the applicant's house to ring and she could attend to her mother. She indicated that this had only occurred on one occasion since she had been caring for her mother.
Whilst the evidence might indicate that the applicant provided the required care for the mother to satisfy the 20 hours per week requirement for carer allowance, it is clear to me on the evidence provided by the applicant that she does not provide the constant care required to qualify for carer payment.
Whilst she is certainly with her mother for a significant period of every day, the care is spasmodic and is not of the intensity to satisfy the requirement of “constant care” to effectively equate to approximately a day's work.
Some of the care given during the day is of a companion nature and the most obvious problem the applicant has satisfying the criteria for a carer payment is the fact that her mother is at home by herself between 8:00pm and 8:30pm most nights until 9:00am the next morning. The fact that the mother has only called her daughter on one occasion over the last year or so is indicative of the fact that on the evidence before me, it seems that she clearly doesn't satisfy the more stringent requirements for carer payment.
QUALFICIATION FOR CARER ALLOWANCE
The criteria for a carer allowance are somewhat less stringent than those required for a carer payment. One example given in The Guide for carer allowance is that a carer might visit the care receiver every weekday morning for an hour to help bathe and dress the care receiver before work and then spend 15 hours on the weekend providing care.
In looking at whether the applicant qualified for a carer allowance in February 2015, regard must be had to the criteria in relation to assistance with bodily functions and care to sustain life.
I am satisfied supervising the medication her mother takes before and after breakfast would fall within this category, and assisting with her showering to ensure she doesn't fall would also fall within this category.
It would appear on the evidence before me that the applicant's mother was reasonably mobile and could get in and out of bed herself and move around the house by herself. There was no evidence as to whether there were stairs in the house.
The evidence in relation to personal hygiene was that the applicant’s mother could perform the bodily functions by herself and that she could wash below the shoulders, but that she had problems washing and drying her hair and needed some help with dressing herself. I find the relevant part of the personal hygiene criteria as it applies to the carer's mother is the washing and drying of her hair. If a person cannot wash and dry their hair, specifically if they can’t wash it, this could lead to health complications.
I also note the ARO had no problem allowing 10.5 hours per week for personal hygiene and I think that this is not an unreasonable amount of time to allocate to that activity in the circumstances of this case.
I am also satisfied that in terms of eating and drinking the evidence shows that the applicant's mother does require assistance with cutting and spreading food and there is also evidence that she has left the stove on in the past when left to her own devices which could potentially cause significant life threatening problems.
Both the applicant and her mother need help communicating in English, however it would appear the applicant is able to manage her mother’s appointments. Without this assistance, her mother would have difficulty going to those appointments and finding out what medication she requires with respect to her conditions.
The evidence is clear that the mother cannot be relied upon to separate her pills so that she takes the pills she needs to take on an empty stomach before breakfast and then takes the pills she is meant to take on a full stomach after breakfast. Without the applicant’s assistance she could potentially be put in a very serious and potentially life threatening situation.
Under the “care to sustain life” criteria which include supervision to prevent wandering (not apparently relevant here), removing the person from dangerous situations and preventing the person damaging property or injuring themselves and others, there is evidence that, if left to her own devices, the applicant's mother has had some propensity to fall over due to her physical ailments. This could be alleviated by having a hand rail installed in her shower, but it also indicates that it is important for the applicant to take her mother to appointments as much as anything else to help prevent her from falling.
The representative for the respondent did not cross-examine the applicant on any of her evidence. . The representative indicated that she did not want to put anything to the applicant in relation to the evidence the applicant gave regarding the various tasks she performed to assist her mother despite my offer to her to do so.
Accordingly, I can thus be satisfied that the evidence the applicant has given me in relation to the care she provides her mother is uncontested and thus needs to be taken at face value in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The issue is whether the evidence as given by the applicant satisfies the required criteria for carer allowance.
I note the fact that the applicant’s husband was on carer allowance from August 2013 until January 2015. In January 2015 he gained full time employment. On 2 February 2015 the applicant applied for a carer’s payment and a carer allowance. Her claims were rejected on 17 February 2015.
The applicant gave evidence that her husband had indeed cared for her mother when he was not working and that she had looked after their young son and more recently their new baby daughter. I was not made aware of the circumstances in which the husband’s carer payment was cancelled in May 2014. Whilst the applicant’s husband did not give evidence, the fact that he was on carer allowance for a year and a half, finishing up in January 2015, may be of some relevance, at least to the timing of the applicants claim. The applicant gave evidence that she became the carer after her husband got work and thus put in her claims as a result of this change in the family circumstances.
The applicant's second cousin, Ms Benjamin, attended the hearing with the applicant and briefly gave evidence.
She stated she usually visited the applicant's mother on Mondays through to Thursdays with her 3 school aged children ( who liked the applicants mother ) between the hours of 4:00pm and 6:00 to 6:30pm. She noticed that the applicant did everything for her mother – washing clothes, cooking, washing the dishes, going to the shops with her mother and buying food and clothing for her. She stated the applicant would wash the bed sheets, clean the house and effectively do all the work around the house. To this extent she corroborated that part of the applicant’s evidence.
The ARO reviewed the case on 7 August 2015 and ultimately affirmed the decision to reject both claims. She spoke with the applicant on that day and she was told that the applicant recommenced caring for her mother in January 2015 (which coincides with when the applicant’s husband went to work). The evidence given to the ARO by the applicant over the phone was similar it would appear to what was given at the hearing before this Tribunal, although it would seem in somewhat less detail.
The ARO indicated that the applicant spent approximately 35 minutes assisting her mother in the shower and 30 to 40 minutes grooming and dressing her. She spent 15 to 20 minutes each day giving her mother medication and that sometimes she would give her mother assistance to sit up or get out of a chair especially in colder months.
The applicant told the ARO of her mother's hand problems and this was consistent with what she told the Tribunal when she advised that her mother was going to have an operation on her hands in July of this year. After listing what she gleaned from the applicant, the ARO in her reasons for decision stated she was not satisfied that the applicant provided personal care that equated to a least 20 hours per week. She said she was satisfied that the applicant provided 10.5 hours per week personal hygiene, one hour per week assisting the care receiver with treatment and that all other duties are of domestic nature and do not meet the definition of personal care.
I would agree with the ARO’s decision to allow 10.5 hours per week for personal hygiene (showering and dressing) having had the benefit of hearing further from the applicant and considering the documentary evidence before me. This would appear to be about the time taken over a seven-day week in relation to personal hygiene. I include in that any supervisory time to stop the applicant's mother falling because I note quite a few of the tasks undertaken can be done by the applicant herself. It equates to a total of one and a half hours per day.
I would further note that the one hour per week allocated by the ARO to assisting the care receiver with treatment, namely supervising her taking her pills, is reasonable as it would take about 10 minutes a day to do this task.
I would however add a further 2 hours a week to account for the time that the applicant spends taking her mother to medical and other essential appointments.
Due to her mother’s mobility issues, lack of language skills and the fact she no longer drives, the evidence, which is not contested, indicates that the applicant does need to take her mother to these appointments. The 2 hours allows for two appointments per week which seems consistent with the evidence given. I am mindful of the fact that because the applicant’s mother has fallen over in the street in the past, this supports the need for someone to go to medical appointments and other life-sustaining appointments with her.
I am not satisfied that the mother’s shopping needs, which involve the applicant accompanying her to buy clothes and have them fitted meets the criteria as these are not life-sustaining matters.
I note the ARO feels that all other duties are of a domestic nature. It does appear to me on the evidence that the mother is not capable of adequately feeding herself. If she cannot cut up her own food, cannot spread food with a knife, cannot wash up properly because of her hands and if she has trouble with cooking, especially if she leaves the stove on, it indicates to me that she needs assistance preparing meals, eating and cleaning up afterwards.
It may well be that after she has the operation on her hands she may be able to do a lot more to help herself with cooking, cutting and spreading food, providing of course the operation goes well.
In terms of ensuring adequate nourishment for her mother and ensuring adequate safety in terms of using the stove I would be prepared to allocate 1 hour and 30 minutes a day. That is, 30 min per meal for the applicant to ensure adequate hydration and nourishment. The Guide specifically states this may include cutting, mashing or juicing food so the person can eat it. The applicant in this matter gave evidence before this Tribunal that she would cut up her mother's food and that evidence seems to have been given in much more detail than was apparent from the conversation she had with the ARO back in August 2015.
In my allocation of 30 min per meal I have included such things as any washing-up tasks the mother can't do, the cutting up of food, the spreading of food and turning off implements such as the stove. It is clear to me from the evidence that preparing, eating and cleaning up afterwards for each of what appears to be at least two main meals a day and one other meal would certainly amount to at least an hour and a half per day total time.
As the assistance given has to be at either the applicant’s home or the care receiver’s home but not both, and taking into account the time the applicant’s mother spends at the applicant’s home, I would deduct 2 hours per week to reflect this. The vast majority of care however takes place at the applicant’s mother’s home.
As 1 hour and 30 minutes per day equates to 10.5 hours per week, on my calculations this means a total of approximately 24 hours per week is spent by the applicant looking after her mother, less 2 hours for care given at her own home, making a net total of 22 hours of care given, in the applicant’s mother’s home, to satisfy assistance with bodily functions and care to sustain life.
I should further note that the evidence given by the applicant before the SSCSD was summarised by that Tribunal on the basis that the mother was capable of doing a number of tasks and that she overly relies on the applicant because she lacks confidence at times or is generally weak. The applicant admitted that her mother could prepare a simple meal, clean her small home, could walk with care, did not need assistance at night and that the applicant’s assistance with showering, toileting and meal preparation was limited. On the basis of that evidence the Tribunal found that the care received by the applicant’s mother did not exceed more than 20 hours per week at the time of the claim.
The applicant gave quite detailed evidence about her daily routine and if there were any inconsistencies between the evidence she gave at the present hearing and the evidence that she gave to the SSCSD, I would have assumed that the representative for the respondent, who is an experienced practitioner held in high regard by the Tribunal, would have quite properly put any inconsistencies in evidence given earlier to her.
Despite asking the representative for the respondent if she wished to question the applicant, and I repeated this offer on at least one other occasion, she declined to do so and when I asked if that meant that she accepted what the applicant had said and I could draw the relevant inferences, the representative agreed.
Accordingly I assessed the matter on the evidence before me and from what I could glean was relevant from previous statements the applicant had made. Where there is any inconsistency apparent or otherwise in the evidence, I accept the uncontested evidence given by the applicant on oath before me.
It is on this basis that I have calculated that the applicant, albeit by a narrow margin, qualifies for a carer allowance.
The public purse is limited and the legislature has for a number of years now tightened provisions for persons seeking to receive social security payments of any kind. The rules are necessarily strict to ensure that only people who are really deserving get the assistance that they need.
Nevertheless, in circumstances where the payment of any benefit under the Act is ambiguous, regard should be had for the words of Dr Campbell in Re Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Harvey [2009] AATA 835 at [35]:
Further, even if I were to perceive that there were some ambiguities in the instructions nominated, I am mindful that the Act is beneficial legislation designed to assist the needy and the disadvantaged. I am reminded of what Isaacs J stated in Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) [1913] HCA 60; (1913) 17 CLR 370 at 384:
... [T]his is a remedial Act, and therefore, if any ambiguity existed, like all such Acts should be construed beneficially ... This means, of course, not that the true signification of the provision should be strained or exceeded, but that it should be construed so as to give the fullest relief which the fair meaning of its language will allow ...
This statement was commented favourably on by Senior Member Taylor in the decision of Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Smith [2016] AATA 10.
Having regard to the above decisions, the sworn oral evidence given before me which was uncontested and the documentary evidence before me, I am satisfied that as of 17 February 2015 the applicant, whilst not qualifying for carer payment, qualified for carer allowance.
Further as a result of the most recent doctor’s report and the fact that the scores are well and truly above what is required, in conjunction with the evidence given, I am also comfortably satisfied that the situation today is no different from what it was in February 2015.
However, I do note that applicant’s mother is due to have an operation on her hands in July. I note that this might make it easier for her mother to do such tasks as preparing food and washing-up and if that is so the provisions in relation to eating and drinking, tasks that are now done by the applicant, may be something that the mother could do herself after the operation. If that were so, then clearly, unless there were other factors relevant at the time, the applicant may not satisfy the requirements for a carers allowance in future.
In the circumstances I feel it prudent in this case to recommend to the respondent that the applicant and the applicant’s mother’s circumstances be reviewed in the next 12 to 18 months, specifically to see what the situation is after the operation on the applicant’s mother’s hands.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal affirms the decision of the SSCSD made on 16 November 2015 to reject the applicant’s claim for carer payment. The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the SSCSD made on 16 November 2015 to reject the applicant’s claim for carer allowance and in substitution decides that the applicant qualified for carer allowance as at 17 February 2015.
I certify that the preceding 84 (eighty -four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of W Stefaniak ADF AM, Senior Member ...............................[sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated 3 August 2016
Date(s) of hearing 3 May 2016 Applicant In person Solicitors for the Respondent Department of Human Services
0
4
0