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

[2017] AATA 1359

Bzovski and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1359 (28 August 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2016/6493

Re:Jan Bzovski

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

Date:28 August 2017

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

........................[sgd].......................................

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment – qualification period – impairment rating of at least 20 points – whether conditions fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised – level of functional impact – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

CASES

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Guide to Social Security Law

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

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

28 August 2017

DECISION UNDER REVIEW

1. Mr Bzovski has asked the Tribunal to review the decision made by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) on 18 November 2016 to affirm the decision to reject his claim for disability support pension (DSP) made on 4 March 2016.

   ISSUES

2. The issues to be decided in this application are:

   (a)whether, at the time Mr Bzovski  applied for DSP on 4 March 2016  (or within 13 weeks of that date), i.e. to 3 June 2016 (the qualification period) he had a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment(s); and if so,

   (b)whether Mr Bzovski’s impairment(s) attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables); and if so,

   (c)whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work (CITW).

   FACTS

3. The Applicant was born in 1954 and is 63 years of age.

4. The Applicant suffered a work-related injury in 2009.

5. On 18 March 2014, the Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident (MVA).[1]

   [1] T34, pp. 222, 229.

   LEGISLATION

6. The relevant legislation is contained in:

   (a)the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act);

   (b)the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act);

   (c)the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables); and

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

   (e)Government policy set out in the Guide to Social Security Law is also relevant, and should be applied in the absence of cogent reasons to not follow such policy.[2]

   [2] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.

   QUALIFICATION FOR DSP

7. Section 94 of the Act sets out the qualification criteria for DSP. It provides that a person is qualified if:

   (a)they have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment(s),

   (b)that impairment(s) attract(s) an impairment rating of 20 points or more from the Impairment Tables, and

   (c)the person has a continuing inability to work.

8. Part 2 of the Impairment Tables sets out the rules for applying the Impairment Tables. Section 6 of the Impairment Tables sets out rules for assessing the level of functional impairment of conditions and assigning impairment ratings.

   Issue 1: Does the Applicant have any impairments?

9. There was no dispute that the Applicant suffers from several medical conditions and therefore has impairments.

10. The Tribunal considers the evidence in relation to each condition separately. It has taken into account the written and oral evidence before it, including that of the Applicant and his daughter, and the written and oral submissions made on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent. The Applicant told the Tribunal a number of times that his memory is not good. Bearing in mind that the Tribunal is concerned with his various conditions during the qualification period, it did not find his evidence at the hearing reliable.

11. The Applicant expressed his opinion strongly that the Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) reports and the decision of AAT1 were biased against him. The Tribunal has taken into account the reports of what the Applicant said at the JCAs and AAT1 hearing, together with all the reports by doctors of what the Applicant has said. 

12. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s daughter was doing her best to assist her father and the Tribunal.

13. Evidence addressing the Applicant’s condition outside the qualification period, including medical certificates, assists the Tribunal only to the extent that it casts light on the Applicant’s condition during the qualification period.

14. The Tribunal accepts that two conferences in this Tribunal were by telephone and not in person. The Applicant did attend the AAT1 hearing and the hearing before the Tribunal in person.

    Issue 2: Do the impairments rate at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables?

15. A condition must be “permanent” before it can be assessed under the Impairment Tables. To be permanent, the condition must be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and is more likely than not to persist for more than two years. It is relevant to consider whether reasonable treatment has been undertaken and whether any further reasonable treatment is likely to lead to significant functional improvement within the next two years.[3]  In making those findings, the Tribunal has to take into account whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition and the treatment or rehabilitation given and planned for the next two years.[4] 

    [3] Impairment Tables, subsections 6(4), (5), (6) and (7).

    [4] Impairment Tables, subsection 6(5).

    Major Depressive Disorder – Table 5

16. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s Depression is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and argues that it should be assessed under Table 5 as 5 points. 

17. The Applicant argues that the appropriate rating is 20 points.

18. On 28 July 2015, Dr Oldtree-Clark, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, carried out a whole person impairment (WPI) assessment apparently at the request of the Applicant’s solicitor, for the purpose of the MVA claim and prepared two reports dated 8 September 2015.

19. The WPI assessment was carried out in accordance with the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) which is relevant to New South Wales workers compensation and motor vehicle accident claims. Dr Oldtree-Clark set out the PIRS criteria. The ratings are from 1, no deficit, to 5, which is totally impaired. Following are Dr Oldtree-Clark’s assessments of the Applicant’s Major Depressive Disorder according to the PIRS criteria:

·     Self-care and personal hygiene

He has care from his family on a gratuitous basis. A moderate impairment rating on psychiatric grounds alone.

·     Social and recreational activities           

He has stopped most of his former activities in sports on a restricted basis. A mild impairment on psychiatric grounds alone.

·     Travel

His driving is limited. No recreational driving. A mild impairment on psychiatric grounds alone.

·     Social functioning (relationships)

He has no present relationship and no prospect of such. A moderate impairment on psychiatric grounds alone.

·     Concentration, persistence and

pace

He is able to listen to music and goes out to listen to Serbian music. A mild impairment on psychiatric grounds alone.

·     Employability

He is not presently employable. A moderate impairment on psychiatric grounds alone.

1. The PIRS criteria are not the same as those in the Impairment Tables. However, the doctor’s comments about the impact of the condition on the Applicant’s function, is relevant. Dr Oldtree-Clark’s opinion was that the condition was permanent and stable and not likely to alter substantially in the next 12 months and that the Applicant had reached maximal medical improvement “within the bounds of the stated definition”.

2. Dr Oldtree-Clark reported the following in his psychiatric report. The Applicant attended the consultation on 28 July 2015 alone and travelled by train to the assessment. The doctor’s address is in the Sydney CBD. The Applicant’s workplace accidents did not stop him from working. He developed a carpal tunnel syndrome which was operated on. His claim for the work injury was resolved in March 2013. He went back to work on light duties after the settlement but since the MVA things have got worse and he has stopped working. The doctor continued: “Because of his ongoing apprehension, his fear of driving and travelling, and generally depressed mood, he has been seeing a psychologist.” He was living by himself. His daughter comes and helps him out three times a week but otherwise he lives alone. He no longer goes fishing and has given up all his former activities and sports and music. He can still play the piano accordion but it makes him cry. He has virtually stopped driving. He has some outside activities but no longer goes to church or movies. He likes to listen to music. He neglects himself in the sense that he does not buy new clothes. His daughter comes around and insists that he clean and clothe himself properly. He used to go regularly to the Bonnyrigg Sports club and now only goes when there is the Serbian music playing. His driving is limited and he finds parking difficult.

3. The doctor noted that the Applicant has suicidal thoughts and ruminations, has put on weight, suffers insomnia and shows melancholic features. The doctor found the Applicant presently incapable of working. In response to the question “does the patient have a loss of capacity either in the past or in the future or a loss of capacity to perform any work activities, which were performed prior to the injury?” The doctor responded: “Uncertain”.

4. Dr Natale, has been the Applicant’s General Practitioner for over seven years. He completed the medical report dated 27 February 2016 which accompanied the DSP application. He did not mention the Applicant’s depressive disorder. 

5. In a further report dated 10 June 2016, Dr Natale wrote that the Applicant’s chronic depression was a consequence of his ongoing chronic pain and disabilities.

6. Dr Tomic, Clinical Psychologist, provided a report dated 30 March 2016. Dr Tomic declined to provide a further report when the Applicant requested him to do so in 2017.  The Applicant wrote that Dr Tomic advised that any further information or clarification required about the Applicant’s condition “should be forwarded to him directly by phoning his office”.

7. The Applicant was initially referred to Dr Tomic to assess whether he had suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder following the 2014 MVA. In the 2016 report, Dr Tomic’s opinion was that the Applicant met the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder for which he was receiving psychological treatment and taking anti-depressive medication.

8. In respect of self-care and personal hygiene, Dr Tomic said that the Applicant had a moderate impairment and noted that he frequently appeared unkempt and dishevelled. The Applicant had told Dr Tomic that he was able to live independently and look after himself but needs constant prompting to attend to his everyday needs.

9. Dr Tomic assessed the Applicant as having a severe impairment in relation to social/recreational activities. The doctor quoted the Applicant as saying that he was not actively involved in any kind of amusement or recreational life and would not attend social parties even if accompanied by a supporting person. He said that he avoids people as he is afraid of being negatively judged, ridiculed or humiliated.

10. The doctor assessed the Applicant as having a severe impairment in respect of interpersonal functioning. Dr Tomic reported the Applicant as determining that he frequently experiences tension and arguments with other people and that his previous friendships have been seriously strained because he has difficulty communicating with people in an appropriate manner.

11. Dr Tomic assessed the Applicant as having an extreme impairment in relation to concentration and task completion. The doctor reported that the Applicant makes known that he has difficulty following simple instructions and has to repeatedly check things. The Applicant also said that he was unable to concentrate on reading or watching TV programs for longer than five minutes. Due to his poor concentration he avoids driving.

12. Dr Tomic assessed the Applicant as having a severe impairment in relation to behaviour, planning and decision-making. The doctor assessed the Applicant is mentally unable to adapt to life in the community and make appropriate decisions for his future living.

13. The doctor assessed that the Applicant had a severe impairment in relation to work/training capacity and was unable to accept responsibility for any kind of formal employment, including voluntary work, for at least two years. In addition, the Applicant was incapable of undertaking trade training programs for employment or general education purposes.

14. Dr Tomic replied to an email from the Respondent’s solicitor on 12 April 2017.  From 16 June 2014 until 14 July 2016, the Applicant had attended 31 treatment sessions. The Applicant was again referred to Dr Tomic in 2017 and had attended two sessions of psychological treatment in March and one in April. Dr Tomic has not referred the Applicant to a psychiatrist because she judged that “he would benefit more from achieving an increased level of active and independent functioning through psychological treatment”.

15. A face to face JCA was carried out on 29 April 2016 by a registered Occupational Therapist with contribution from a Clinical Psychologist. The JCA did not consider that this condition had been fully treated and stabilised and was therefore not permanent, and made no assessment of the impairment.

16. The JCA reported the Applicant’s symptoms to be reduced mood and avoidance of driving and stated that the Applicant reported living alone and being able to complete all activities of daily living independently, utilising public transport without issues due to his preference not to drive, and presented at the appointment with appropriate hygiene and dress.

17. The JCA undertaken on 27 February 2017 was a File Assessment undertaken by an Accredited Exercise Physiologist with contribution from a Registered Psychologist. This JCA accepted that the condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and recommended a rating of 5 points.

18. In his report dated 13 February 2017, Dr Natale expressed the opinion that during the qualification period, the Applicant suffered a major depressive disorder which “has a severe functional impact on activities, involving mental health function” and assessed the condition as rating 20 points under Table 5. 

19. Dr Natale recorded the medications that the Applicant takes for his depression and chronic pain. He said that the side-effects of those medications impair the Applicant’s alertness and so further restrict his abilities. He stated that he had seen a decline in the Applicant’s level of social activities; “apart from his traditional music he no longer participates in activities with his grandson and daughter”. He wrote that the Applicant no longer goes fishing and no longer enjoys the company of friends and acquaintances.

20. Dr Natale noted that the Applicant continues to consult a psychologist and that the Applicant feels that this situation is hopeless because he is in chronic pain, is physically incapacitated, has no prospect of obtaining employment, has financial stress and limited social and recreational activities.

21. Dr Natale concluded that because of these complex reasons he believed that the Applicant will continue to suffer depression and that it will become worse as he ages and becomes more incapacitated. 

22. The Applicant suffers physical and mental conditions. The Tribunal finds that Dr Natale does not clearly distinguish between the Applicant’s impairments resulting from his physical conditions and those resulting from his mental condition. While it may be difficult, that is what the Impairment Tables require. Dr Natale wrote that the Applicant relies on his daughter to assist him with housework, cleaning, vacuuming, making the bed, laundry, preparing meals and shopping. He said that the Applicant does not have the physical capacity to perform the more arduous activities of daily living and he does not have the psychological stamina in terms of motivation and concentration to sustain himself without assistance.

23. The Tribunal does not accept some of the factual bases on which Dr Oldtree-Clark and Dr Tomic made their assessments. For example, the Tribunal does not accept their accounts of the Applicant’s recreational life and social interactions. There are various versions, but the Tribunal finds that the Applicant continues to engage in his musical activities, including performing, and also goes out socially, for example to picnics and is sometimes picked up by friends. He does have friends, although there may be occasional tension or arguments in his relationships with them and his daughter. 

24. The Tribunal finds that he does still drive regularly to a club which is about 10 minutes away from his home. It also finds that he was living alone during the qualification period, but has moved back to live with his daughter and grandson since then. During the qualification period, his daughter visited him three days a week to provide assistance.

25. The Tribunal finds that an impairment rating of 5 points is appropriate. It does not accept that the Applicant has moderate difficulties with most of the criteria so as to rate an impairment of 10 points.

    Spinal disorder – Table 4

26. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s spinal disorder has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and argues that the impairment should be assessed under Table 4 as 5 points.

27. The Applicant argued that 10 points was the appropriate rating.

28. Dr Bye, Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, issued a Medical Assessment Certificate dated 3 August 2011 in relation to right upper extremity, cervical spine and thoracic spine. He considered numerous medical reports and investigation reports. The assessment related to the 2009 work injury. He diagnosed soft tissue injury of the neck in the presence of multilevel cervical spondylosis but with no objective radiculopathy in the upper limbs, residual right carpal tunnel syndrome post-surgical decompression, rotator cuff impingement of the right shoulder in the presence of traumatic subacromial bursitis and partial thickness rotator cuff tear, and soft tissue injury of the thoracic spine with no evidence of objective radiculopathy or loss of structural integrity.

29. Dr Habib, Consultant in Orthopaedics and Trauma, prepared a report dated 22 May 2015 addressed to the Applicant’s solicitor. He had examined the Applicant on 17 June 2014, 9 July 2014 and 4 November 2014 in relation to the MVA injuries. Dr Habib recorded that the Applicant’s employment had been terminated in April 2010 because of his inability to return to his pre-injury unrestricted employment.

30. Dr Habib’s diagnosis was:

    ·Aggravation of injury of the neck from muscular ligamentous strain.

    ·Traumatic rotator cuff tendinopathy with subacromial impingement of the left shoulder.

    ·Chronic muscular ligamentous strain of the back, aggravation of the pre-existing condition, with referred but non-verifiable right radiculopathy.

31. Dr Habib’s prognosis was that the Applicant has residual symptoms of pain, restricted mobility and further activity limitations.

1. Dr Dixon, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, prepared two reports dated 8 December 2010 and two reports dated 10 March 2015 addressed to the Applicant’s lawyer. The first two related to the 2009 work injury. Dr Dixon said that the Applicant had sustained injuries to his neck, back and right shoulder and developed carpal tunnel syndrome on the right requiring decompression. The two 2015 reports related to the MVA. In the March 2015 general report Dr Dixon reported that the Applicant had difficulty with household chores and his daughter does the washing, ironing and laundry and some cooking for him as well as the bed making. He has difficulty cleaning the car. He does not play sport but does play a piano accordion in a band for elderly folk once a week with difficulty. In summary, Dr Dixon stated that the Applicant sustained neck and low back strain injury in the MVA together with a seatbelt injury to his left shoulder.

2. In summary, the Applicant reported residual persisting pain and stiffness in his neck and both shoulders and intermittent paraesthesia in the tips of the index and middle fingers of both hands and occipital-frontal migraine like headaches. Pain was localised to the mid and upper cervical spine with difficulty turning his head which impacts on his ability to drive, particularly to reverse park, change lanes and find the blind spot. His neck pain disturbs his sleep. He has difficulty elevating the arms above shoulder height and with heavy lifting and carrying due to shoulder pain. He has pain in his lower back and lumbar stiffness with radicular complaint with right sciatica and sensory changes in both great toes. He has difficulty with prolonged standing and sitting with a standing tolerance of 20 minutes, sitting tolerance of 30 minutes and a walking tolerance of 10 to 15 minutes. He does short drives each week with his band to play music for elderly folk. His back pain disturbs his sleep. His back condition impacts on his ability to do household chores, including shopping, cleaning, putting on his shoes and socks, and doing his toenails. The pain is in the lumbosacral facet joint area of his back and in the midline and he has difficulty with recurrent bending and stooping at home in any heavy lifting for example heavy laundry.

3. A Certificate dated 7 December 2015 was issued under the relevant legislation in respect of the Applicant’s permanent impairment arising from the MVA in regard to cervical spine, left upper extremity/shoulder, right upper/extremity shoulder and lumbar spine. The Applicant attended on that date unaccompanied. The medical assessor sets out in detail current symptoms, current and proposed treatment, findings on clinical examination and a review of documentation which was comprehensive. The permanent impairment was assessed as 9% which was less than the 10% required for compensation to be payable.

4. The Applicant told the medical assessor the following. He reported continuing on-going neck pain, low back pain and right shoulder pain since the 2009 industrial accident with discomfort described daily but on a low-grade intensity. The discomfort was also intermittent in those various areas. Prior to the MVA he could perform his own shopping and housework and pursued recreational fishing. His daughter who lives separately from him does assist him. He no longer goes fishing

5. In the February 2016 medical report, Dr Natale wrote that the condition with the most impact was degenerative disease of the cervical spine, lumbar spine with foraminal stenosis, bilateral shoulder tendinopathy, and osteoarthritis of the right hip, which had been diagnosed by Dr Habib, orthopaedic surgeon. Dr Natale listed several medications and past treatments for the conditions, and listed the symptoms as chronic pain and restriction of movement and stated that the Applicant may have further steroid injections/physiotherapy. Dr Natale wrote that the impact on function was impairment of movement, limited walking, bending, standing and carrying.

6. In his report dated 10 June 2016, Dr Natale wrote that the Applicant had difficulty sitting or standing for prolonged periods of time and was unable to travel by public transport because of those previously listed conditions.

7. In his report of 13 February 2017, Dr Natale agreed that the assessment of 5 points for degenerative disease of the cervical and lumbar spine was appropriate.

8. The 2016 JCA report did not accept that the condition was fully treated and stabilised and did not assess an impairment rating. The 2017 JCA recommended a rating of 5 points.

9. There were a number of reports of investigations in evidence, dating from 2010 to 2015, including CT scans, MRI scans, bone scan, and a report of a CT guided foraminal injection. Such reports do not reveal the functional impact of the reported conditions or degenerative changes or treatment.

10. Table 4 is concerned with a permanent condition “resulting in functional impairment when performing activities involving spinal function, that is, bending or turning the back, trunk or neck”. As is apparent, the evidence above includes evidence about the Applicant’s shoulder and lower limbs which are not relevant to the spinal impairment. 

11. The Tribunal finds that the appropriate impairment rating is 5 points, based on the opinion of Dr Natale.

    Rotator Cuff injury – Table 2

12. There is evidence about the rotator cuff injury in the previous section. There are various reports of investigations, including X-rays and MRIs of both shoulders and a record of an injection into the left subacrominal bursa in June and November 2014. The 2017 JCA recommended a rating of 0 points.

13. The Respondent accepts that the rotator cuff injury has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised but the functional impairment should be assessed under Table 2 as 0 points.  The Applicant accepts that the appropriate rating is 0 points.

14. Given the paucity of evidence about the impairment arising from this condition, the Tribunal considers that 0 points is the appropriate rating.

    Lower limbs – Table 3

15. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s lower limb condition has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and argues that appropriate functional impairment under Table 3 is 0 points. The 2017 JCA recommended a rating of 0 points.

16. The Applicant contends that the impairment rating should be 5 points.

17. The evidence about this condition is included in the section relating to the spine. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has some difficulty climbing stairs but does not accept that he is unable to stand for more than 10 minutes. He does not use a lower limb prosthesis or a walking stick. The Tribunal has taken into account his claim that he does not use a walking stick because he is embarrassed to do so but does not accept that evidence. The evidence does not show that he has ever used a walking stick.

18. A rating of 0 points is appropriate.

    Coronary artery disease – Table 1

19. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s coronary artery disease is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and assessed the impact on function under Table 1 as 5 points.

20. The Applicant contends that the appropriate rating is 5 points, as found by AAT1.

21. The four reports from Dr Newman, Consultant Cardiologist, provided in 2006 show that the Applicant had heart bypass surgery in about July 2005 but had continued smoking.  Following investigations, Dr Newman suggested that the Applicant take a small dose of beta-blocker. Dr Newman’s reports of the Applicant’s symptoms in 2006 are not useful to an assessment of his condition in the qualification period.

22. Dr Natale reported in his February 2016 report that the Applicant continued on medications for this condition and that the impact on the Applicant’s ability to function was poor endurance and physical stamina.

23. The 2016 JCA accepted that the condition was permanent but assessed it as having minimal impact on the Applicant’s ability to function and rated the condition as 0 points, based on the Applicant being able to undertake exercise appropriate to his age for at least 30 minutes at a time and having no difficulty completing physically active tasks around their home and community.

24. The 2017 JCA recommended a rating of 0 points.

25. The Tribunal finds that the evidence does show that the appropriate rating is 5 points.

    Rectal disorder and osteoarthritis right hand – Tables 13 and 2

26. The Respondent contends that both conditions have been fully diagnosed but were not fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period and therefore no rating can be assessed. The Applicant accepts a rating of 0 points.

27. The evidence shows that the Applicant had an X-ray ultrasound and imaging guided cortisone injection into the right hand on 2 February 2010.  

28. Dr Garvey, General Surgeon, prepared a Medical Assessment Certificate for the assessment of WPI dated 8 May 2012. Examination of the Applicant was carried out on 24 April 2012. He reviewed reports of two gastroenterologists dated 2011. The doctor’s summary of injuries and diagnoses was “haemorrhoids, with mild faecal incontinence”. He noted a normal colonoscopy, apart from two non-work-related polyps which had been removed. The doctor reported that activities of daily living were unimpaired. In his opinion all body parts had stabilised/reached maximum medical improvement.

29. The Tribunal finds that both conditions have been fully treated and stabilised. There is a paucity of medical evidence about impairment arising from these conditions. Ratings of 0 points are appropriate.

    CONCLUSION

30. For the above reasons, the appropriate impairment rating under the Impairment Tables is 15 points. The 20 point criterion is not satisfied.

31. The Tribunal affirms the decision made by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 18 November 2016 to affirm the decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for disability support pension made on 4 March 2016.

I certify that the preceding 81 (eighty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

.............................[sgd]....................................

Associate

Dated:  28 August 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	30 May 2017
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Department of Human Services