Casson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 1161
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/2393

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JULIE CASSON

Applicant

And

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member
Date23 December 2008
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............[Sgd]...................
SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – benefits and entitlements – qualification for disability support pension – whether applicant’s impairment is of 20 points or more – whether the applicant has a continuing inability to work – decision under review affirmed
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), ss 94, Sch 1B
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 55, 103
Re Muir and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2005] AATA 902
Coates and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 938
Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650
R v Quinn [1962] 2 QB 245
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Ho v Powell (2001) 51 NSWLR 572
Re Watts and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 632
Re Crossland and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 864
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Michael (2001) FCA 1811
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Pusnjak (1999) 56 ALD 444
Li and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1606
REASONS FOR DECISION

23 December 2008   Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member

INTRODUCTION

1.      Ms Julie Casson has made a number of applications for disability support pension. She initially made an application on 7 March 2005 but this was rejected by Centrelink and subsequently by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 6 October 2005. A further claim was made on 2 January 2007 which was also rejected by Centrelink. On review, it was subsequently rejected by an authorised review officer (ARO) on 27 July 2007 and by the SSAT on 8 November 2007. The present claim before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was lodged on 21 December 2007. It was rejected by Centrelink and on review by an ARO. A further appeal to the SSAT was rejected on 8 May 2008.
2.      Ms Casson represented herself and was supported by her partner. The Respondent was represented by Mr Matt Amundsen.
ISSUES
3.      The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is:
Does Ms Casson have an impairment of 20 points or more under the Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension (Impairment Tables) with respect to her claimed conditions of one or more of:
(i)Osteoarthritis;
(ii)Lumbar spine condition;
(iii)Depression;
(iv)Obesity;
(v)Hypertension; and/or
(vi)Asthma.

EVIDENCE
4. Owing to the long history of this matter, there was substantial medical evidence provided in respect of a number of the above conditions. In a treating doctor’s report signed by the Applicant on 4 January 2005, Dr Betty Lee, stated that Ms Casson had a condition of osteoarthritis of the left ankle which significantly impacted on her ability…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Casson, appealed against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, which found that he was not entitled to the disability support pension. The dispute centered on whether Casson's impairment was of 20 points or more and whether he had a continuing inability to work, as required by the Social Security Act 1991. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues were whether the Tribunal could conclude, on the evidence before it, that Casson’s impairments met the criteria of 20 points or more under the relevant schedule, and whether Casson had a continuing inability to work, as required for the disability support pension. The Tribunal considered the weight of medical evidence and expert assessments, as well as the interpretation of statutory language and relevant case law.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence provided and found that it did not sufficiently demonstrate that Casson's impairments met the 20-point threshold or that he had a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the applicable statutory provisions and the precedents set in cases such as Re Muir and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Coates and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, and others. It was concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that Casson's impairments met the necessary criteria. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, upholding the Secretary’s determination that Casson was not entitled to the disability support pension.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

23 December 2008	Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member
INTRODUCTION