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

Churcher and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 1306 (23 May 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2022/5523
Re:Stephen Churcher
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
Date:23 May 2023
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
......................[sgd]..................................................
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – refusal of disability support pension – whether applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised – whether impairments rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) Sch 2 Cl 4
CASES
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1
Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252
SECONDARY MATERIALS
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
Senior Member A Nikolic AM CSC
23 May 2023
INTRODUCTION

On 23 November 2021, the Applicant lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (“DSP”),[1] in which he listed several physical and psychological conditions affecting his ability to work.[2] The claim was rejected by Centrelink on 2 December 2021[3] and subsequently affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer on 14 January 2022.[4] The Applicant’s appeal to the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (“AAT1”) was unsuccessful.[5] On 27 June 2022, he lodged a further appeal with the General Division.[6]
[1] Exhibit R1, 218.
[2] Ibid 242.
[3] Ibid 251.
[4] Ibid 263-269.
[5] Ibid 7-10.
[6] Ibid 1-6.
The hearing was conducted on 22 May 2023 by telephone. The Applicant was self-represented and gave evidence under affirmation. The Respondent was represented by Ms Stefana Doslo, a solicitor from Services Australia. For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 63-year-old Australian citizen. He holds a heavy truck licence and has previously worked on ships and as a plant operator.[7] The Applicant reports spending approximately 10 years on Workcover because of a workplace accident and stress resulting from the handling of his claim.[8]
[7] Ibid 93; 214; 216; 245.
[8] Ibid 198.
Legislative Framework
Qualifying requirements for DSP are set out at s 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”). It must be established that:
(a) the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b) the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(c) one of the following applies:
(i) the person has a continuing inability to work;
(ii) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system;
In relation to s 94(1)(c)(i), a person has a ‘continuing inability to work’ if:
(i) they have an inability to work due to their accepted impairments for 15 hours or more a week; and
(ii) they have actively participated in a Program of Support (“POS”).
Under s 94(3B) of the Act, participation in a POS is not required if the person has a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single impairment table. Where a person’s impairment is not a severe impairment, they must have actively participated in a POS within the meaning of s 94(3C) of the Act. The term ‘actively participated’ means satisfying the requirements in a legislative instrument made by the Minister, titled Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014. Under ss 5 and 7 of that instrument, active participation means partaking in a POS, which is wholly or partly funded by the Commonwealth, for a period of at least 18 months during the 36 months prior to the date of claim.
The Impairment Tables referred to in s 94 of the Act are contained in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination). They assign ratings reflecting the level of functional impact a condition has on an applicant. Only medical conditions that are permanent, have been fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and are likely to persist for at least two years, can be allocated points under the Impairment Tables.
EVIDENCE
The Tribunal took into evidence:
(a)Two bundles of documents lodged by the Respondent; one numbering 333 pages[9] and the other 76 pages;[10]
(b)A letter from Peninsula Health dated 9 May 2023 was also taken into evidence, which states the Applicant is on the waiting list for ‘Laparaoscopic hiatus hernia repair + anterior fundoplication +/- open’;[11] and
(c)A Medical Certificate from general practitioner Dr Simon Beaty dated 9 May 2023.[12]
[9] Exhibit R1.
[10] Exhibit R2.
[11] Exhibit A1.
[12] Exhibit A2.
The available records disclose that the Applicant unsuccessfully applied for DSP in 2014.[13] The Tribunal has considered a report by his general practitioner, Dr Graham Cato, who stated:[14]
‘…physio made [the Applicant’s neck and back pain] worse…[and]…nothing will help him…Stephen has constant pain at rest…all conditions are now degenerative so will be expected to worsen, thus worsening his symptoms’.
[13] Exhibit R1, 111.
[14] Ibid 159-169.
Dr Cato also claimed the Applicant had been diagnosed with PTSD by a psychiatrist and future treatment would include ‘counselling’. There is no expert evidence to confirm a PTSD diagnosis, or counselling subsequently undertaken. Dr Cato further stated that the Applicant was ‘on no medication as it doesn’t seem to have helped and has side-effects…various antidepressants and analgesics of no effect – over many years’.[15] Dr Cato referred to the Applicant seeing ‘numerous pain specialists’, which is not corroborated by the materials currently before the Tribunal. A Job Capacity Assessment Report dated 3 June 2014, found the Applicant was waiting to see a neurosurgeon for spinal pain,[16] was not taking regular pain relief, and his back / neck conditions were not fully treated or stable.[17] Similarly, his claimed PTSD was not considered fully treated or stable, because the Applicant was not receiving medical treatment, or taking medication, or undertaking counselling.[18] He was found to have a baseline capacity of 15-22 hours per week in ‘Moderate semi skilled’ work.[19]
[15] Ibid 165-166.
[16] Ibid 176; 178.
[17] Ibid 171.
[18] Ibid 172.
[19] Ibid 173-174.
A Job Capacity Assessment Report dated December 2015 concluded that the Applicant’s spinal condition was not fully treated and stabilised, because it was ‘not unreasonable to expect there may be significant functional improvement with optimal treatment’.[20] In terms of impairment effect, the Job Capacity Assessment Report stated:
‘In regard to his lower back, customer advised that he can bend to floor level and knee height but sometimes may need to kneel to do so. He reported that his pain levels fluctuate.
He advised that he is still able to lift and carry but may "pay the price" afterwards. He said that he would limit himself to 15 kgs.
Customer advised that he is able to walk for approx. 300 metres before experiencing aching in low back and hips. He advised that this hip pain started about 3 years ago. He stated that he is able to drive for an hour before needing to get out and stretch. He reported that his symptoms are all worse in cold weather.
Customer advised he is able to adequately manage his headaches with medication.’
[20] Ibid 181.
In relation to PTSD, it was noted that the Applicant still planned to undertake counselling. The condition was assessed as not fully treated or stabilised because:
‘…treatment over the past several years has been limited to medication only. Medication also appears to have been inconsistent as customer was noted to be not taking any medication at time of previous JCA in June last year’.[21]
[21] Ibid 182.
The Applicant was again assessed in December 2015 as having a baseline capacity of 15-22 hours per week in ‘light less skilled…part-time work in a sedentary-light role with allowance for regular postural change’.[22] This was expected to increase to 23-29 hours per week within two years, concurrent with ‘vocational counselling, liaison with potential employers and post placement support’.[23]
[22] Ibid 184.
[23] Ibid 184-185.
In his current DSP application dated 23 November 2021, the Applicant referred to ‘Anxiety Depression’ and not PTSD. He also claimed ‘Osteoarthritis pain in hips back neck’, ‘hiatus hernia’, and ‘Barrett’s Osophagus (sic) with Gastritis.[24] He claimed these conditions had significantly affected his work capacity since March 1999. In assessing the Applicant’s eligibility, it was concluded that:
‘Barrett's oesophagitis, mild reflux oesophagitis, and mild gastritis can be considered permanent, fully diagnosed, however, do not meet the criteria for fully treated and stabilised as evidence available does not detail exhaustion of reasonable treatment (past current, planned, effect), prognosis or persisting impact on ability to function. Conditions of Anxiety/depression/panic disorder/social phobia, are assessed to be permanent, but do not meet the criteria for fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised as evidence available indicates the diagnosis has not been confirmed by a Clinical Psychologist/Psychiatrist as required by the Guidelines;, nor is there evidence of exhaustion of reasonable treatments, prognosis or persisting functional impact.
New evidence by Dr Chekuri, psychiatrist, 13/10/21 confirmed anxiety/depression and recommended the client commence on medication and strongly encouraged psychology. Therefore, the condition is deemed diagnosed but not fully treated/stabilised.’[25]
[24] Ibid 242.
[25] Ibid 256.
The Tribunal notes that on 28 October 2019 the Applicant submitted a form to the Respondent, stating he would undertake 30 hours of voluntary garden maintenance work over a two-week period for an organisation in his local area.[26]
[26] Ibid 204.
The Applicant’s oral evidence is summarised as follows:
(a)He was on worker’s compensation for ‘about 10 years’ after a work-related injury suffered in 1999, after jumping of a backhoe and feeling pain in his neck and between his shoulders, which caused him to ‘never be the same since’.[27] The Applicant said the consequences of this injury and a long period of work stress caused him to have a ‘breakdown’. The Applicant said he saw a specialist for his back and neck ‘years ago’.
(b)The Applicant said he refuses to take some medications prescribed by psychiatrists for his depression and anxiety because of adverse side effects: ‘I’ve refused medication and will stay with my normal medication’. When asked why he declined an in-patient opportunity to trial other prescribed medications in an environment where side effects could be monitored and adjustments made, the Applicant stated: ‘I know what medications do’ and further claimed he could not take medications because of his Barrett’s Oesophagus and living circumstances. When asked about evidence that he lived in stable accommodation on his brother’s property, the Applicant said this was no longer the case and he now resided in a bus.
(c)Ms Doslo asked the Applicant about a social media profile in his name, which referred to him being ‘Followed by 50 people’. The profile contains posts between December 2022 and March 2023 about the Applicant undertaking activities like open ocean paddling, ‘ebike’ riding with a friend near a river, and a reference to camping.[28] The Applicant agreed this was his social media page and the pictures were of him, including while paddling a watercraft on the ocean He stated: ‘So what if I can lift my arms, that changes in Winter’.
(d)When asked about evidence that he was on surgical waiting lists for a hernia repair and hip replacement, the Applicant claimed he has put the hip surgery on hold because there is no one to care for him during his recovery. He also claimed to have been told ‘last week’ that the date for his hernia repair was ‘put on hold’. He again claimed: ‘I can’t do nothing about not being able to take pain medication because of my Barrett’s’.
[27] Ibid 104.
[28] Exhibit R2, 67-76.
Key Issues
Past refusal of the Applicant’s DSP application is based on the assessment that his conditions do not warrant an impairment rating of 20 points. The Tribunal must decide:
(a)The relevant period for the Applicant’s claim?
(b)Did the Applicant have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment(s) as defined under the Act during the relevant period?
(i)If yes, were these capable of being assigned 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the relevant period?
(ii)If the Applicant’s impairment(s) is/are of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, are 20 points assigned under a single Impairment Table (severe impairment)?
(iii)If the Applicant did not have a severe impairment during the relevant period, but her impairment(s) nevertheless attract a rating of 20 points or more, does she have a continuing inability to work or has she participated in a POS?
WHAT IS THE RELEVANT PERIOD FOR THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM?
The Applicant’s DSP application was lodged on 23 November 2021. In accordance with clause 4(1) of Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), he had to satisfy the DSP criteria within a 13-week period from the date of claim lodgement, which ended on 22 February 2022 (“the relevant period”).
The Applicant referred to other medical issues during the hearing beyond those referred to in his DSP application. In assessing whether he satisfies the requirements at s 94 of the Act, however, evidence regarding functional impact after the relevant period can only be considered if it casts light on functional impact during the relevant period.[29]
DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL OR PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?
[29] Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1, [27]-[28], citing Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252,253 [1]
It is not contested that the Applicant suffered from the claimed conditions during the relevant period, in satisfaction of s 94(1)(a) of the Act.
WERE THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENTS CAPABLE OF BEING ASSIGNED 20 POINTS OR MORE UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?
When submitting his DSP application, the Applicant stated: ‘There is no improvement with my Barrett’s its at risk developing cancer (sic).’[30] He also claimed to have received ‘mental medications, physical medications, physio treatment…from 1999 to 2021’, which encompassed counselling and treatment from his general practitioner.[31] He stated that ‘medication is not fixing the problem’. In his current evidence he agreed that he was placed on surgical lists for a hip replacement to address his osteoarthritis and to repair a hernia.
[30] Exhibit R1, 242.
[31] Ibid 242-243.
Attention now turns to consideration of the Applicant’s claimed conditions.
Anxiety and depression
The Applicant suffered a ‘stress injury’ associated with his past work injury claim, for which he successfully claimed compensation in 2003.[32] A report linked to this claim dated 28 April 2003, in which the Applicant claimed to be totally and permanently disabled, stated: ‘He stopped seeing his psychiatrist in early 2001 and no longer has physiotherapy’.[33] The Applicant’s general practitioner, Dr Graham Cato, stated on 14 May 2014: ‘Became depressed following his work injury due to pain, lack of cooperation from employers, physical disability’.[34]
[32] Ibid 97-98.
[33] Ibid 99.
[34] Ibid 167.
The Applicant has been prescribed several medications by a psychiatrist but refuses to continue with these because of purportedly adverse side effects. He refers to some past counselling, for which there is a paucity of corroborating evidence. He claimed at the last Tribunal hearing to have no hobbies, spends his time watching television, doesn’t read books, pays his bills online, and has some friends and family.[35] Given the evidence at the current hearing about activities undertaken by the Applicant, including open ocean paddling and e-bike riding, doubts are raised about the.
[35] Ibid 10 [18].
The Tribunal has considered the following expert evidence:
(a)A letter from the Applicant’s general practitioner, Dr Graham Cato, dated 15 October 2010, stated that the Applicant had ‘wanted to try some sort of work largely for psychological reasons,’ but ‘is unable to work in any capacity, considering the legislative requirements, indefinitely (sic)’.[36] In a Certificate of Capacity dated 26 November 2010, Dr Cato stated the Applicant was unfit for any duties from 24 November 2010 until 24 February 2011.[37]
(b)A letter from psychiatrist Dr Venkat Chekuri dated 13 October 2021, stated:[38]
‘I recommend the following:
1. A trial of duloxetine, starting at 30 mg and gradually increasing the dose to a maximum of 120 mg per day in increments of 30 mg at a time once every two weeks. Please note pharmacogenomics testing only suggested possible inadequate response and not other adverse effects. Once he is established on duloxetine, depending upon response and tolerance, Deptran could be ceased.
Alternate options to consider could be Brintellix and Valdoxan.
2. A trial of small dose of Seroquel 25 mg pm could be trialled for episodic anxiety.
3. If further pharmacological treatment is needed, Lyrica starting at an initial dose of 50 mg three times a day and increasing up to a maximum total daily dose of 300 mg could also be tried.
4. I have provided him with some psychoeducation regarding aetiology and treatment of anxiety disorders. He did not appear very motivated to trial any other treatments citing the chronicity of his symptoms. I strongly encouraged him to engage with psychology which could help to improve his insight and he could work on anxiety management. ·
5. I advised him to increase his activity levels and also develop some hobbies and interests, so that he has a proper structure and purpose for his day.
6. I have not arranged for any further followup.
[36] Ibid 106.
[37] Ibid 107.
[38] Ibid 215-216.
The Introduction to Table 5 - Mental Health Function requires that a diagnosis of a mental health condition must be made by either a psychiatrist or another medical practitioner with evidence from a clinical psychologist. The Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant’s depression and anxiety are fully diagnosed. These conditions were not fully treated or stabilised during the relevant period, however, because the evidence discloses potentially more efficacious medication has been recommended, which the Applicant has declined to take. This includes an opportunity to test and adjust medications in an in-patient setting, where side-effects can be assessed in a closely supervised environment. There is also a paucity of evidence about the Applicant undertaking counselling that was recommended for his mental health conditions. The Applicant’s reasons for declining to take prescribed medications are unpersuasive and unreasonable. It follows the Tribunal cannot assign an impairment rating. Even if the Tribunal is wrong about this and the Applicant’s depression and anxiety was fully treated and stabilised, the available evidence does not persuasively correlate with the requirement for either a moderate or severe impairment under Table 5. The Applicant continues to live independently and has contact with some family and friends, including through his social media profile. He also engages in activities like ocean paddling and e-bike riding.
Pain in hips, back, neck

The Applicant reports experiencing pain in his back, and neck since 1996.[39] An Employment Services Report dated 6 May 2019 states that his hip pain ‘started about 3 years ago’.[40] The Tribunal notes the Applicant sustained a work-related shoulder and back injury, with a ‘designated injury date of 10^th March 1999’,[41] for which he received worker’s compensation for approximately a decade. A report refers to this injury being sustained when he ‘suffered immediate pain in his neck and between his shoulder blades when he jumped off a backhoe at work’, causing him to develop and experience ‘a variety of physical and emotional symptoms’.[42]
[39] Ibid 99.
[40] Ibid 198.
[41] Ibid 98.
[42] Ibid 104.
The Tribunal has considered the following expert evidence:
(a)Right shoulder. An MRI of the Applicant’s right shoulder and scapula on 3 August 1999 disclosed ‘mild to moderate degenerative changes’.[43]
[43] Ibid 92.
(b)Hips and pelvis. An x-ray of the Applicant’s hips and pelvis dated 21 September 2012 disclosed ‘moderately severe osteoarthritic changes’.[44] He had an outpatient’s appointment on 5 May 2022 at the Osteoarthritis Hip & Knee Clinic.[45] There is evidence that the Applicant was placed on a waiting list for hip replacement surgery, although his uncorroborated evidence at the current hearing is that he has removed himself from this list. On current evidence, the Tribunal finds this condition is not fully treated and stabilised. It cannot therefore be assessed under the impairment tables and does not attract any impairment points.
[44] Ibid 108.
[45] Ibid 279.
(c)Spine.
(i)A CT scan of the Applicant’s thoracic spine on 15 November 1999 disclosed:
‘spondylitic lipping anteriorly between the vertebrae. No disc herniation can be seen. Osteoarthritic effects both 8th costo-transverse joints. No intrinsic bony pathology can be seen’.[46]
[46] Ibid 93.
(ii)An MRI of the Applicant’s cervical spine on 28 January 2000 disclosed ‘no signs of demyelination. Degenerative changes as described at C4/5 and C5/6’.[47] A report from orthopaedic surgeon Dr Owen Williamson dated 26 June 2000 stated:[48]
[47] Ibid 94.
[48] Ibid 95.
‘I spoke to Mr Churcher by phone last week. A recent bone scan of the spine revealed no abnormalities…
I have reassured Mr Churcher that be docs not have a serious underlying cause for his pain and is probably related to deconditioning of the extensor paravertebral muscles.
l recommend that you refer Mr Churcher to a local physiotherapist for supervision of a graduated active exercise program aimed at strengthening these muscles as well as the shoulder girdle muscles.
Mr Churcher's pain should respond to a physical exercise program, but if it doesn't, I would recommend that you refer him for assessment and management through a multidisciplinary spinal rehabilitation unit such as that at the Victorian Rehabilitation Centre.
I have not arranged to review Mr Churcher again.
(iii)An MRI of the Applicant’s lumbar spine on 25 May 2001 disclosed:
‘Disc desiccation associated with bulging, particularly at L3/4 and L4/5. There is little if any thecal and no nerve root sheath encroachment.’[49]
(iv)An MRI of the Applicant’s cervical spine on 14 April 2014 reported ‘multilevel degenerative changes…resulting in a variable degree of indentation of the anterior surface of the cervical cord, and neural foraminal narrowing at several levels.’[50]
[49] Ibid 96.
[50] Ibid 109.
While the Tribunal accepts the pain experienced by the Applicant in his back, neck, and hip is diagnosed, it was not fully treated or stabilised during the relevant period. This includes because of the absence of expert materials from spinal / pain specialists and the fact he was placed on a wait list for hip surgery, which is likely to alleviate his hip symptoms. There is no evidence to corroborate his claim at the current hearing that he has voluntarily removed himself from the hip surgery wait list. Even if the Tribunal were to accept that the Applicant has shoulder, back, hip, and neck conditions that were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, the available evidence does not attract impairment points. That is because the Applicant lives independently, undertakes his own self-care, engages with others on social media, and undertakes activities like open ocean paddling and e-bike riding.
Barrett’s Oesophagus and hiatus hernia
The Applicant was diagnosed with Barrett’s Oesophagus following a gastroscopy in November 2020.[51] The Applicant agrees he was placed on a wait list for surgical repair of a hiatus hernia concurrently diagnosed by gastroscopy.[52] The Tribunal notes a medical record advising him of an appointment at the Peninsula Health Upper Gastrointestinal Clinic on 11 August 2022.[53] The Applicant’s uncorroborated claim during the hearing is that surgery for this condition was put on hold last week. Given that future treatment continues to be contemplated, these conditions are not fully treated or stabilised, and do not attract any impairment points. Even if the Tribunal is wrong about this, the Applicant did not lead any evidence about impairment from these conditions, except for the uncorroborated claim that his Barrett’s Oesophagus prevents him taking medication. In the absence of expert opinion, the Tribunal does not accept this.
IF THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENT(S) IS/ARE OF 20 POINTS OR MORE UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES, ARE 20 POINTS ASSIGNED UNDER A SINGLE IMPAIRMENT TABLE (SEVERE IMPAIRMENT)?
[51] Ibid 206; 212.
[52] Exhibit A1.
[53] Exhibit R1, 278.
None of the Applicant’s claimed conditions are capable of being assigned 20 points or more under a single impairment table. It therefore follows he does not have a severe impairment within the meaning of section 94(3B) of the Act.
IF THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE A SEVERE IMPAIRMENT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, BUT HIS IMPAIRMENT(S) NEVERTHELESS ATTRACT A RATING OF 20 POINTS OR MORE, DOES HE HAVE A CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK OR HAS HE PARTICIPATED IN A POS?
The Applicant’s impairments have not been assigned any points under the impairment tables, meaning that he does not qualify for DSP under section 94(1)(b) of the Act. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether he has a continuing inability to work or has actively participated in a POS in the three years prior to lodging his DSP claim as required by section 94(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal does so for completeness.
The Applicant has not previously commenced or completed a POS, nor is he covered by any of the permissible exceptions, such as suffering a severe impairment. Based on the evidence about the activities he undertakes, including posts on his social media page as recently as dated 5 March 2023, and ability to do 30 hours of voluntary garden maintenance in his local area over a two-week period in 2019,[54] the Tribunal finds the Applicant did have an ability to undertake at least 15 hours of work per week, or, in the alternative, a training activity within two years of the qualification period. As such, the Applicant did not have a continuing inability to work.
[54] Ibid 204.
Conclusion
The Applicant did not satisfy ss 94(1)(b) and 94(1)(c) of the Act during the relevant period.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

36. I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

................[sgd]........................................................
Associate
Dated: 23 May 2023

Date of hearing: 23 May 2023

Advocate for the Applicant:
Applicant via telephone

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Stefana Doslo

[2023] AATA 1306

23 May 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Date of hearing:	23 May 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Applicant via telephone
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Stefana Doslo