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

[2020] AATA 4606

Boccaccio and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 4606 (13 November 2020)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL              
  No: 2019/0502
GENERAL DIVISION

Re: Luke Boccaccio
Applicant

And: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Respondent

DIRECTION

TRIBUNAL:  Senior Member B J Illingworth

DATE OF CORRIGENDUM:            17 November 2020

PLACE:           Adelaide

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application as follows:

1. delete the final three sentences of paragraph 12, which read as follows: “The Tribunal must consider the Applicant’s entitlement to DSP at the time of the application. That includes the requirement to consider whether an Applicant has completed a program of support or been granted an exemption from doing so. Such exemption must be in place before filing the application for DSP.”; and
2. in substitution, insert the following two sentences into paragraph 12: ”The Tribunal must, based upon the evidence before it, consider the Applicant’s entitlement to DSP at the time of the application. That includes the requirement to consider whether an Applicant has completed a program of support or, was participating in

a program of support, and was prevented in doing so, solely because of his impairment as provided in s 5(5) of the Determination.”

........................[sgnd]..............................
  B J ILLINGWORTH
  (Senior Member)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/0502

Re:Luke Boccaccio

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member B J Illingworth

Date:13 November 2020

Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.

.............................[sgnd]...........................................

Senior Member B J Illingworth

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – pensions, benefits and allowances – claim for disability support pension rejected – whether Applicant’s conditions were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the qualification period – whether Applicant’s conditions attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991, s 94.

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014.

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension 2011) Determination 2011.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member B J Illingworth

13 November 2020

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) (“AAT1”) dated 18 January 2019 that affirmed a decision of an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) of the Department of Human Services (“Centrelink”) dated 11 September 2018 to reject the Applicant’s claim for disability support pension (“DSP”) lodged on 24 January 2018.

2. The Applicant was represented by Mr B Saunders who was a friend and his landlord. The Applicant gave evidence by telephone from Queensland. The Respondent was represented by Ms J Edwards, counsel for Services Australia who also appeared by telephone.

   BACKGROUND

3. The Applicant’s claim for DSP lodged on 24 January 2018 listed the following medical conditions[1]:

   (a)lumbar thoracic and cervical spondylosis;

   (b)hand arm vibration syndrome;

   (c)depression with anxiety; and

   (d)iron deficiency – undergoing replacement.

   [1] T10, pages 103 – 130 at [127].

4. A Disability Support Pension Medical Assessment (“DMA”) dated 11 February 2018 recommended a Job Capacity Assessment (“JCA”) be undertaken to assess the Applicant’s eligibility for DSP[2]. That JCA was undertaken by a registered Occupational Therapist and, in the report dated 5 June 2018[3], the author opined that the only condition that was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised (“FDTS”) was the hand-arm vibration syndrome (“HAVS”) which was of minimal impact and for which 0 points should be awarded under Table 2 of the Impairment Tables referred to in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension 2011) Determination 2011 (“the Determination”).

   [2] T12, pages 154 – 155.

   [3] T11, pages 142 – 103 at [147].

5. On 5 June 2018, the Applicant’s claim for DSP was rejected[4]. Following the Applicant’s application to review the decision, the ARO found that none of the Applicant’s conditions were FDTS. Upon application to review the ARO decision, the AAT1 affirmed the decision under review. The AAT 1 decided that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to enable any decision to be made with respect to the Applicant’s conditions.

   [4] T16, pages 254 – 256.

   ISSUES

   6.For the Applicant to qualify for the DSP he must satisfy the provisions of s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”), namely that;

   (e)he has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment(s) for the purposes of subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act; and

   (f)that his impairment(s) attracts a rating of 20 impairment points according to the Impairment Tables referred to in the Determination; and

   (g)that he has a continuing inability to work; and

   (h)that if he does not have a severe impairment which is defined as a score of 20 points under a single Table, the Applicant must have actively participated in a program of support as contained in the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014.

6. Impairment ratings are to be assessed having regard to the Impairment Tables which are found in the Determination. Those Tables contain instructions for assessing impairments with respect to nominated conditions. The condition must be ‘permanent’, which means that the relevant condition must be FDTS[5] as at the date of the claim or up to 13 weeks thereafter (“the Qualification Period”).[6] The Qualification Period in this matter is 24 January 2018 to 25 April 2018.

   [5]  Clause 6(4) of the Determination. 

   [6] Schedule 2, Clause 4(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

7. In assessing whether a condition is fully diagnosed and fully treated, clause 6(5) of the Determination provides that the following must be considered:

   (a)Whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition;

   (b)What treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition;

   (c)Whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years.

8. A condition is ‘fully stabilised’ if:[7]

   (a)The person has undertaken reasonable treatment for that condition, and it is unlikely that further reasonable treatment will result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years; or

   (b)If the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition:

   (i)such treatment is not expected to result in a significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years; or

   (ii)there is a medical or other compelling reason not to undertake reasonable treatment.

   [7]  Clause 6(6) of the Determination.

9. In assessing the functional impact of permanent conditions under an Impairment Table, the diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, and there must be corroborating evidence of the person’s impairment. Self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient.

10. The Applicant had not completed a program of support nor did he satisfy any exemption from the obligation of completing the program as at the date of the filing of his application for DSP. Accordingly, to demonstrate a continuing inability to work the Applicant must demonstrate that he has a severe impairment in respect of any one condition. A severe impairment is an impairment that attracts 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table.

11. At the start of the hearing, the Applicant’s representative invited the Tribunal to retrospectively grant the Applicant exemption from completing the program of support given the nature and extent of his medical conditions. That invitation was refused. It is not for the Tribunal to retrospectively grant such exemption. The Tribunal must consider the Applicant’s entitlement to DSP at the time of the application. That includes the requirement to consider whether an Applicant has completed a program of support or been granted an exemption from doing so. Such exemption must be in place before filing the application for DSP.

12. The Respondent argued that the Applicant had not complied with s 94 (1) (b) of the Act during the Qualification Period, namely that the Applicant did not satisfy an impairment rating of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table.

    The Applicant’s Evidence

13. The Applicant is 32 years of age. He had recently moved to Queensland from South Australia because he could not function in the cold weather and he needed to move to a warmer climate. He said he moved about a year ago.

14. The Applicant provided a typed statement dated 19 June 2018[8] in which he detailed a range of medical complaints including many which were not referred to in his application for DSP. For example, he said:

    “Iv [sic] had a yellow funglish [sic] tongue for 2 years now and I believe i’m [sic] in a fatal condition, I’m pretty sure it’s the symptoms of the inside of my body, I think my liver is also suffering a lot, I don’t know how to explain this but when I tried to sleep I feel all my body parts and organs beat annoyingly making me chronically uncomfortable and it’s getting worser [sic] so I need to fix ASAP”.

    This, together with other complaints, were not corroborated by medical evidence. The evidence was directed to those conditions referred to in the application for DSP.

    Hand and Arm conditions

    [8] T14, pages 209 – 213.

15. In his statement the Applicant described his HAVS, a condition which he attributed to using a jackhammer and drill at work. He described his nerves as being sensitive.

16. In evidence, when asked by the Tribunal, he could not remember the nature of his condition at the time of the claim for DSP or during the Qualification Period. He relied on the statement as indicative of his condition at the relevant time. He described currently suffering a buzzing sensation from his “pinky finger to his shoulder”. He expressed discomfort with his elbow, and he cannot touch his arm. He had tingling sensation throughout both arms, the left arm being worse than the right.

17. He described the condition as making him feel stressed because it was always there. He now has difficulty pushing a shopping trolley or doing up shoelaces. He said his condition had worsened since 2018 and his whole body is now affected. He cannot tolerate the sensation of touching a towel.

18. The Applicant said that he had previously been under the care of his general practitioner Dr Mattner but had moved house approximately 13 times and also changed general practitioners. More recently, and prior to moving to Queensland, he had been under the care of general practitioner Dr Charlotte Jones.

    Dr Jamie Mattner – report dated 1 February 2018[9]

    [9] T14, page 206.

19. Dr Mattner said “A recent nerve conduction study was conducted on Mr Boccaccio and was a normal study. This is a common finding with HAVS and does not rule out this condition.”

    Dr Charlotte Jones – report dated 31 December 2019[10]

    [10] Exhibit E.

20. Dr Jones said that the Applicant had been a patient at her practice since 21 January 2019. He suffered from bilateral sciatica and a CT scan showed bilateral L4/L5 and L5/S1 foraminal narrowing. His functioning is limited by pain including walking limited to 200 metres, inability to kneel or squat, and pain getting into and out of his car. He is unable to carry objects over 5 kg.

21. He also had mental health difficulties with no formal diagnosis of learning disability but struggles with literacy and has difficulty with written communications. He experiences anxiety, low mood with anhedonia[11]. He has multiple somatic symptoms with overvalued ideas boarding on delusional. He has limited insight into his mental health.

    [11] Defined as a lack of interest in social contact and lack of pleasure in social settings.

22. The report does not refer to the Applicant’s hand and arm condition but encloses reports of Dr Catherine Cartwright, neurosurgeon and Dr Marcus Byrne, psychiatrist.

    Dr Catherine Cartwright – report dated 17 January 2019[12]

    [12] T17, pages 257 – 258.

23. Dr Cartwright said:

    “This is to notify that [the Applicant] is currently under my care for investigation of severe spinal pain and upper and lower limb radicular symptoms.

    His imaging confirms a significant L5 pars defect that is not only causing spinal instability but also nerve root impingement. This currently limits his standing to less than five minutes at a time and I have advised against heavy lifting or bended lifting.

    Further complicating his symptom is his left arm radicular symptoms that may have a cervical or peripheral nerve cause…

    … until this has been adequately investigated and managed he is not currently fit to engage in work activities… I would anticipate that this would take a minimum of 12 – 18 months of adequate resolution/full extent of improvement.

24. In the JCA report dated 5 June 2018, the author said the Applicant reported experiencing intermittent tingling and alternate sensation along the ulnar nerve in both upper limbs but predominantly his left. He had difficulty with manual labour and repetitive hand activities but could still tie shoelaces, do up buttons, write, and carry lighter objects and look after himself.

    Spine condition

25. The Applicant in his statement made general complaint about his spinal condition. He had tried to jog but this caused increased stiffness in his hips and legs. He has difficulty walking and will spend a lot of the day lying on his back on a hard surface. He reports repeated cracking in his spine and neck.

26. Again, in evidence the Applicant could not further assist the Tribunal with respect to his condition at the time of the filing of the application for DSP or the Qualification Period. He said in 2018 his condition was bad but is now worse.

27. The Applicant summarised his condition as causing pain everywhere. His cervical spine was inflamed. He is in pain from head to toe. He has pain to his sides below the waist and towards his back, which is worse on the left than the right. He had difficulty washing clothes and bending was difficult. He could touch his knees with difficulty but not his toes. He could not move his body to the left or right smoothly due to the pain. He said his only position of comfort was when he would lay down on the hard floor. He has ceased driving and sold his car approximately two years ago because of discomfort when driving. In Queensland he had a car for about eight months. In that period, he moved four times. He again sold the car because it was too painful to drive. His evidence was confused about when he last had a car in South Australia. It ranged from just before moving to Queensland, at the beginning of 2018, and then 2 ½ years ago. He was confused but did his best to answer the questions.

28. The Applicant said when sitting down his neck was his biggest problem. If he raised his hands above his head, it hurt. He had cramps in his calves and reported eye sensitivity due to sunlight glare.

29. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about his referral to a pain clinic. He said he went to a pain clinic at Flinders Medical Centre. He was referred there by Dr Mattner. He went there at the start of 2019. He also took a new prescription drug Duluxotine for about six days. He said he suffered increased heart rate and felt like he was having a heart attack. He could not remember if he had undertaken any other treatment or done anything else in relation to his condition and “needed to think about it”.

30. The Tribunal received a report from Dr Jones and Partners dated 12 July 2013[13] and a CT scan report dated 29 November 2017[14] which confirms the Applicant had a developing cervical thoracic and lumbar spine condition. Additional reports from Dr Jones and Dr Cartwright, to which I have referred, also confirmed the Applicant’s spinal condition.

    [13] T14, page 164.

    [14] T14, 207 – 208.

31. The JCA dated 5 June 2018 detailed at length the treatment undertaken by the Applicant with respect to this condition. The author noted that Dr Mattner on 18 January 2018, immediately prior to the application for DSP, “noted pain medication and ‘medic trial’ physical therapy” with prescribed medication which had not yet commenced until the Applicant had completed a natural body detox. He was seeing a chiropractor. Further, psychiatrist Dr Clark in his report dated 22 November 2017[15] also suggested referral to a pain specialist previously recommended by psychiatrist Dr Tingay, but this referral had not occurred. Dr Clark also noted that the Applicant had not tried the pain control medications nor attended a specialist such as orthopaedic, neurologist or pain specialist. The JCA author reported although fully diagnosed, the Applicant’s condition had not been fully treated and stabilised. He had limited treatment, was yet to commence medication, and failed to engage in recommended treatment, including specialist intervention with the potential for improvement of symptoms and function.

    [15] T1, 197 – 200.

32. The Tribunal received a report from psychiatrist Dr Helen Tingay dated 13 May 2016[16] to general practitioner Dr Tee. In referencing his spinal condition, Dr Tingay recommended referral to a pain specialist.

    [16] T14, pages 176 – 179.

33. In cross examination the Applicant could not from memory remember what his condition was like at the time of the claim for DSP. He could only give very general evidence. He again repeated that he would lie on the floor a lot. He could not make the bed and would sometimes do the shopping but would get help from others on occasions. He could not remember if he was driving.

34. The Applicant could not remember what treatment he was receiving immediately prior to the claim for DSP but recalled attending a physiotherapist in 2017. He was referred by counsel to brief reports from massage therapists including Ms G Turelli in 2016 – 2017, who referred him to chiropractor Dr Tooth in 2017, but the Applicant did not sufficiently recall that treatment and it did not assist him in satisfactorily detailing his condition at the time of his claim for DSP.

35. The Applicant said that when he saw Dr Cartwright, that was the first time he saw a specialist with respect to his back and this was at or about the time when he was seeing Dr Jones whom he started consulting in January 2019. He acknowledged that this was after his claim for DSP and the Qualification Period. He said that having moved house so much, it made it difficult seeing doctors and maintaining continuity with his treating practitioners.

    Mental health condition

36. In his statement the Applicant reported his depression, loneliness, anger, frustration, gambling addiction, stress and crying at night with no one to hear to him. He said he was not suicidal but was considering ending his life as a logical answer to the problem because it was unbearable. In his evidence, the Applicant said every day was a struggle to get out of bed. Going to the doctors was difficult. He referred to the pain in his left shoulder blade, the right side of his neck and the left waist area towards his back.

37. The Applicant said he suffered from dyslexia and was addicted to online gambling, which the federal government banned two years ago. He occasionally goes to the RSL club where he last went three weeks ago.

38. However, in cross examination the Applicant could not remember what treatment he had for his gambling condition before his claim for DSP. He recalled receiving free counselling but could not remember when that was. He said they talked about how the Applicant felt when gambling; they talked about his mother; but he could provide no further details other than it was of no real assistance to him.

1. The Applicant was referred to the report of Dr Tingay dated 13 May 2016 to which I have referred. That report referred at length to his gambling, including the recent sale of his home to pay off his gambling debts. It was reported that the Applicant believed he had control of his gambling addiction, had successfully dealt with other addictions including alcohol, marijuana and ice, simply by taking control.

2. Dr Tingay said, “I could not exactly convince him that his financial decline, his occupational decline and his social decline are due to gambling. However, I believe that that is the major factor.[17]”

   [17] T14, page 177.

3. Dr Tingay also reported, “He said that he was “slightly paranoid” and he acknowledged vague auditory phenomena, which he could not clarify. He queried his hearing.[18]”

   [18] T14, page 178.

4. Dr Tingay reported a range of other medical complaints and under the heading ‘diagnostic thoughts’ she reported a significant gambling problem, that he had become increasingly socially anxious and he said he was depressed. Dr Tingay thought he was a little depressed at the time of the report. There were early symptoms suggestive of schizophrenic illness, but he did not fulfil the criteria at that time. He was blunted and appropriate. He had poor quality sleep, back injury, neck injury and other conditions. Dr Tingay reported that he lacked insight or control and was not a good candidate for psychotherapy but needed to gain control of his situation as quickly as possible. There was an impression that he was withdrawing psychologically, occasionally and interpersonally. The Applicant was recommended antidepressant medication but refused to take it. He was referred to a pain specialist and audiologist. Early indicators of the development of schizophrenia needed to be monitored.

5. The Applicant said he was referred to an audiologist at Flinders Medical Centre but could not remember when that consultation occurred or the outcome.

6. The Applicant was referred to the report of psychiatrist Dr Clark dated 22 November 2017[19]. The Applicant said that in 2016 he received money from the sale of his house. He was still gambling and by the time he saw Dr Clark he had nothing left.

   [19] T14, pages 197 – 200.

7. Dr Clark in his assessment said the Applicant did not suffer from schizophrenia. He had a depressive condition but was unable to formally diagnose anxiety disorder. He noted long-standing somatic complaint and wondered whether this may relate to problems of anxiety. He had a gambling disorder. Dr Clark recommended routine blood testing and medication directed to his chronic pain but otherwise deferred the pain management to Dr Mattner. He noted Dr Tingay’s early report and agreed with the referral for gambling counselling. He opined that the Applicant’s disability was more associated with physical health problems rather than mental health.

   Conclusion

8. The Applicant relied on his statement dated 19 June 2018 to detail his functional impairment in relation to the various conditions as at the date of the DSP claim. He could not articulate in oral evidence to any satisfactory degree the nature and extent of his functional impairment at the time of his application for DSP due to poor memory. His evidence did not assist the Tribunal in deciding whether, in relation to each functional impairment the subject of the application for DSP, such impairment was mild, moderate, severe or extreme and the appropriate Table assessment that applied.

9. The Applicant also said his conditions, and in particular his back condition, were worse now than at the time of the filing of the DSP claim and so to the extent he gave evidence about his impairment he could not differentiate between the impairment at the time of filing the application for DSP, and his current impairment.

10. The Applicant was not being evasive. He did his best. But his memory was poor, and the Tribunal could not be satisfied as to what, in fact, was his impairment at the relevant time.

11. It must be noted that in relation to each of the relevant Impairment Tables under consideration, the diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient, and there must be corroborating evidence of the Applicant’s impairment.

12. The Applicant relied on his spinal condition, as satisfying his entitlement to an assessment of severe functional impairment and an assessment of 20 points pursuant to Impairment Table 4. This assessment he submitted meant that he did not have to undergo a program of support, and that he had a continuing inability to work which entitled him to the DSP.

13. However, the medical evidence in relation to his spinal condition was not directed to the date of the application for DSP or the Qualification Period. He clearly suffered from and was diagnosed with a degenerative spine condition. The report of Jones and Partners in 2013 and the CT Scan in November 2017, shortly before the filing of his application for DSP in January 2018, clearly demonstrates that he had a degenerative spine condition. The Tribunal needed to then consider the following:

    (a)  whether, and if so to what extent, the condition gave rise to functional impairment at the relevant time;

    (b)  what corroborating evidence was before the Tribunal in relation to that functional impairment; and

    (c)   whether the spinal condition was FDTS at the time of the application for DSP or during the Qualification Period.

14. The medical report of the Applicant’s treating general practitioner at the relevant time, namely Dr Mattner, was dated 1 February 2018 and referred only to nerve conduction study in relation to his HAVS being normal. A medical certificate by Dr Mattner dated 18 February 2018, included reference to his lumbar, thoracic and cervical spondylosis with symptoms of pain and decreased range of movement, but that certificate is not corroborating evidence in respect of a functional impairment. Hence, to the extent that there is any evidence of functional impairment, that evidence was self-reporting by the Applicant and not corroborated by his general practitioner or treating specialist.

15. Further, despite Dr Tingay in 2016 and Dr Clark in 2017 recommending referral to a pain specialist and audiologist, that referral had not occurred at the time of the application for DSP or during the Qualification Period. In addition, Dr Tingay recommended a trial of medication that the Applicant refused, and he had not commenced other medication previously recommended at the time of the application for DSP.

16. It is also apparent, both from the evidence of the Applicant and from the report of Dr Cartwright dated 17 January 2019, that she was the first medical specialist that the Applicant had consulted in relation to his spinal condition, for which he was to undergo further investigation and treatment. Dr Cartwright also opined that the Applicant’s left arm radicular symptoms may have a cervical or peripheral nerve cause. This opinion may provide explanation for the Applicant’s left arm nerve conduction study being normal. Hence, the Applicant’s spinal condition and HAVS were not FDTS at the time of filing of the application for DSP or during the Qualification Period.

17. Further, in respect of the Applicant’s HAVS, the JCA report date 5 June 2018 said that the Applicant was able to tie shoelaces, handwrite, do up buttons, carry lighter objects and look after himself which does not demonstrate a functional impairment to a level that entitled him to an assessment under Table 2. Mild functional impact under that Table is as follows:

    (1)The person can manage most daily activities requiring the use of the hands and arms, but has some difficulty with most of the following:

    (a)  picking up heavier objects (e.g. a 2 litre carton of liquid or carrying a full shopping bag);

    (b)  handling very small objects (e.g. coins);

    (c)   doing up buttons;

    (d)   reaching up or out to pick up objects.

18. The Applicant does not demonstrate a level of functional impairment to be entitled to an impairment rating pursuant to Table 2.

19. The psychiatric evidence in relation to the Applicant’s depression and anxiety substantially pre-dated the application for DSP. While Dr Clarke diagnosed major depression, he was unable to make a formal diagnosis of anxiety disorder and opined that his disability appears to be more associated with physical health problems rather than mental health. He agreed the Applicant be referred to Gambling Counselling.

20. The Tribunal also received a document from Dr Mattner prepared on 27 September 2018 headed “GP Mental Health Treatment Plan”[20]. It referred to a mental health diagnosis of depression with the goal of improving daily functioning, referral to a psychologist, and to consider a retrial of antidepressant medication because the Applicant did not tolerate Duloxetine. The date for mental health review was 27 November 2018.

    [20] T14, page 220.

21. The Tribunal also received what appeared to be page 1 of a report from Dr Marcus Bern psychiatrist dated 6 November 2018 addressed to Dr Mattner. It referred to the Applicant’s family history of schizophrenia, history of gambling, that he does not use alcohol or illicit drugs, a plethora of perceived physical symptoms which appeared “overvalued in nature, if not bordering on the delusional.” He said the Applicant’s mood had been intermittently depressed and anxious and he attributed his depression to him not having a girlfriend. He referred to other issues reported by the Applicant.

22. This evidence clearly indicates that the Applicant was undergoing further treatment for his mental health condition with the assistance of Dr Mattner and potentially Dr Bern in November 2018 and well after the application for DSP. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about the outcome of the mental health review of 27 November 2018. The Tribunal notes that shortly after this, the Applicant changed his treating general practitioner and commenced consulting Dr Jones on 21 January 2019. Dr Jones in her report dated 31 December 2019 referred briefly to the fact that that Applicant had longstanding mental health issues and referred to Dr Bern’s comments but does not detail anything about the treatment the Applicant was receiving.

23. The Applicant’s mental health condition was not FDTS at the date of the application for DSP. He was still being treated for that condition at the end of 2018 and it is not clear how the treatment of that condition progressed, if at all, when he commenced consulting Dr Jones in 2019.

24. As for the Applicant’s claim for iron deficiency, there is no evidence before the Tribunal in support of that claimed condition and upon which the Tribunal is satisfied that this condition was FDTS nor that it had any functional impact upon the Applicant.

25. The Applicant’s history of change in residence resulting in change in treating medical practitioners has likely impacted upon the treatment for his various medical conditions. He said in evidence that he was now consulting new medical practitioners in Queensland. However, as the AAT1 decided, there was no evidence before the Tribunal to enable any decision to be made with respect to the Applicant’s claimed condition, and that was also the state of the evidence with respect to this application for review of that decision.

26. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any one the Applicant’s claimed conditions were FDTS at the time of the application for DSP or during the Qualification Period entitling him to an assessment in accordance with the relevant Impairment Table.  

    Decision

27. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B J Illingworth.

67.     

…………………[sgnd]…………………………….

Administrative Assistant Legal

Dated: 13 November 2020

Date of hearing:	13 August 2020 (By telephone)
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented, with assistance from Mr Brian Saunders
Representative for the Respondent:	Ms Julie Edwards, Services Australia