Dauenhauer and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2020] AATA 3359

Dauenhauer and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 3359 (1 September 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/7949
Re:Laszlo Dauenhauer
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R West
Date:1 September 2020
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...........[sgd].............................................................
Member R West
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – chronic back pain – monocular doubling of vision – chronic right shoulder pain – chronic left knee pain – whether conditions fully treated and stabilised in the qualification period – whether impairments attract rating of 20 points or more under Impairment Tables – decision affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Cases
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Re [2012] AATA 922
Covenden and Secretary, Department of Social Services, Re [2018] AATA 353
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALD 133; [2014] AATA 447
Secondary Materials
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R West
1 September 2020
BACKGROUND

This matter concerns a review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services & Child Support Division) dated 7 November 2019 affirming the decision of the then Department of Human Services (Department) to refuse the Applicant’s claim for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
The relevant history of the matter is as follows:
·The Applicant made his original application for DSP on 6 February 2019.
·On 13 February 2019 a Disability Support Pension Medical Assessment of the Applicant was conducted.
·Centrelink assessed and refused the application on 23 February 2019 (Initial Decision).
·
An authorised review officer (ARO) affirmed this decision on

3 September 2019 (ARO Decision).
·A review of the ARO Decision was conducted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services & Child Support Division) (First Tier Review) and a decision affirming the ARO Decision was handed down on 7 November 2019.
·The Applicant applied for a Second Tier Review on 3 December 2019.
A hearing in relation to the Second Tier Review was held by telephone on 4 June 2020. The Applicant was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Ms Gawidziel of the Australian Government Solicitor.
The hearing was conducted in the context of restrictions placed on the community in response to the COVID–19 pandemic. These restrictions necessitated that the hearing not be conducted in person. The Applicant and the Respondent each consented to the hearing proceeding on 4 June 2020 on the basis that it was conducted by telephone.
LEGISLATION
The Tribunal has had regard to the following relevant legislation in making its decision:
·Social Security Act 1991 (the Act);
·Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act);
·Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables) (the Rules): a determination made by the Minister under s 26(1) of the Act which came into effect on 6 December 2011;
·Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014; and
·Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
QUALIFICATION PERIOD
A decision in relation to the granting of DSP must be made having regard to the Applicant’s condition in the period commencing on the day the application is lodged and the 13 weeks thereafter. This is called the qualification period.[1]
[1] See ss 37 and 42 and cls 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 of the Administration Act.
In this case the qualification period commenced on 5 February 2019 and ended on

7 May 2019.
In assessing whether a condition has stabilised and is likely to persist for the future, the Tribunal must look at the situation during the qualification period, having regard to the evidence. Evidence of the Applicant’s condition subsequent to the qualification period is not relevant, save as to the weight the Tribunal might give to competing prognostications made about the Applicant’s condition during the qualification period.[2]
[2] See Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 992 at [34]; Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALD 133 at [33] and Re Covenden and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 353 at [7].
DSP QUALIFICATION
To qualify for a DSP an applicant must satisfy the requirements set out in s 94(1) of the Act as assessed during the qualification period.
In essence s 94(1) of the Act requires that:
·the Applicant have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
·the Applicant’s impairment or impairments is/are fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and likely to persist for more than two years; and
·the Applicant has a severe impairment (an impairment rating of at least 20 points on a single Impairment Table); or the Applicant’s impairments together rate at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables; and
·the Applicant has a continuing inability to work; or the Secretary is satisfied that the Applicant is participating in the supported wage system.
Section 94(2) of the Act provides that a person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the person has a severe impairment or has actively participated in a program of support and the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work or undertaking a training activity independently of the program of support within the next two years.
Section 7 of the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 provides that a person has actively participated in a program of support if they have participated in a program for at least 18 months in the three years immediately prior to the date of claim.
THE EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
In conducting the Second Tier Review the Tribunal has had regard to the documents produced by the Respondent pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) (T Documents and Supplementary T Documents) and the oral evidence of the Applicant.
In addition, at the conclusion of the hearing on 4 June 2020, the Tribunal directed that the Respondent provide written submissions in relation to the availability of access to specialists in the public health system that could have been utilised by the Applicant and offered the opportunity to the Applicant to provide a written submission in reply. On 11 June 2020 the Respondent provided a written submission annexing a Monash Health Guidelines – Rheumatology and a Monash Health Guidelines – Orthopaedics. The Applicant provided a written reply submission on 16 June 2020.
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
The Applicant’s claim on review relates to the following conditions:
(a)chronic lower back pain;
(b)monocular doubling of vision;
(c)chronic right shoulder pain; and
(d)chronic left knee pain.
The first issue for determination for each condition is whether the Applicant’s claimed impairments can be rated under the Impairment Tables. An impairment rating can only be assigned if the Tribunal is satisfied that during the qualification period the Applicant’s condition causing the impairment is permanent, that is, fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and likely to persist for more than two years[3].
[3] The Act, s 94(1).
Chronic lower back pain
The Respondent accepts that this condition has been fully diagnosed but contends that it cannot be assessed under the Impairment Tables because it has not been fully treated and stabilised. In the alternative, the Respondent contends that the condition should be attributed an impairment rating of 10 points under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables.
The Applicant gave evidence that he worked as a carpenter until ceasing work in March 2017, but had chronic lower back pain since 2004. He said that he went to the bathroom and his back just went. He described the extent of the impairment resulting from his back condition during the qualification period. He said that he was able to drive for five or 10 minutes in his local area but would experience pain. He said his son often drives him and he does not travel much. He said he has trouble raising his arms above shoulder height because of lower back pain. He said he can turn his head from side to side by moving his whole body. He said he could not bend forward at all and in order to pick things up below knee height he had to bend his legs to a kneeling position and then push up using his right leg. He said that he was able to sit on a chair for five or 10 minutes but after that it starts to hurt. He said he can stand up from a sitting position by himself using his arms to assist in lifting himself. He said he can shower and dress himself and perform simple housework such as washing a few dishes and making himself a cup of coffee and preparing a meal. He said he lives with his son who does the main housework, such as vacuuming.
The Applicant’s lower back condition was diagnosed by Dr Andrew C. Patrick, his treating doctor, as a degenerative condition which was initially documented in 2004 and became worse in 2015[4]. A CT scan conducted in 2004 noted small and moderate protrusions in the lumbar spine[5], and degenerative changes and two disc protrusions were noted in a further CT scans conducted in February 2015[6] and April 2015[7]. A CT scan conducted in August 2019 noted degenerative changes in the lumbar spine and disc herniation[8].
[4] ST1 at p.2
[5] T3
[6] T5
[7] T7
[8] T32
On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s chronic lower back pain was fully diagnosed during the qualification period.
In considering whether a condition has been fully treated, s 6 of the Rules requires a consideration of what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition and whether treatment is continuing or planned in the next two years.
The Respondent noted that in March 2015 the Applicant had presented to the Emergency Department of Monash Health and was recommended to follow up with his doctor, to see a physiotherapist and to take paracetamol as required[9]. The Respondent pointed to Medicare records to assert that the Applicant had only attended five sessions of physiotherapy between March 2015 and February 2020[10].
[9] ST 1
[10] ST4 at p.62
The Applicant gave evidence that he was referred to a specialist, Dr Tim Godfrey, a rheumatologist, in March 2015[11] but he did not attend an appointment because he could not afford to pay for the consultation. He said he went to the Emergency Department of Monash Health instead. The Applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he had three sessions of physiotherapy at Monash Health in 2004 and he attended the Glen Iris Physiotherapy clinic for sessions of physiotherapy on 9, 12, 16, 21 and 28 May 2015 under Medicare and one further private session on 11 June 2015. He said that the treatment didn’t help much and he could not afford any further treatment. The Applicant confirmed that this was the extent of his physiotherapy treatment prior to 2020.
[11] ST 3
The Applicant also confirmed in his evidence that he had not consulted with any other specialist in relation to treatment for his lumbar condition.
On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s lower back condition had not been fully treated during the qualification period. The Applicant had not sought specialist assessment, nor received specialist treatment. He had limited treatment by a physiotherapist in 2015 and had no physiotherapy for well over three years prior to the qualification period. There is no evidence that further treatment was planned for the next two years.
In assessing whether a condition is fully stabilised, the Tribunal is required to consider whether the person has undertaken reasonable treatment, as defined in s 6(7) of the Rules. If the person has undertaken reasonable treatment, the question is whether any further treatment would be unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years. If the person had not undertaken reasonable treatment, the question is whether significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years is not expected, even if reasonable treatment is undertaken, or there is a medical or other compelling reason not to undertake reasonable treatment.
The Respondent contends that reasonable treatment of the Applicant’s lower back condition would include specialist review and management of his condition and treatment including physiotherapy, surgery, cortisone injections and alternative medication.
This assertion is supported by the conclusion of the DSP Medical Eligibility Assessment conducted in February 2019, which was:
…There is no medical evidence to indicate that the claimant has been assessed by a specialist nor has participated in all reasonable treatment (treatment that is reasonably accessible, regularly undertaken or performed, has a high success rate and where substantial improvement can reliably be expected) for this condition (such as management by orthopaedic surgeon or neurosurgeon, regular physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and multidisciplinary pain management program). It is anticipated that this with reasonable treatment, significant functional improvement is likely to occur in the next 2 years. As such, this condition cannot be considered reasonably treated or stable for DSP purposes[12].
[12] T25 at p.80
The Tribunal accepts that the treatment identified by the Respondent for the Applicant’s condition is appropriate treatment, but the question is whether such treatment is reasonable treatment.
Section 6(7) of the Rules provides that reasonable treatment is treatment that:
(a)is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person;
(b)is at a reasonable cost;
(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity;
(d)is regularly undertaken or performed;
(e)has a high success rate; and
(f)carries a low risk to the person.
The Applicant’s principal contention in relation to the reasonableness of such treatment was the cost and his inability to pay for it given his limited financial resources. This issue was the subject of the supplementary submissions lodged by each of the parties subsequent to the hearing.
The Respondent’s supplementary submission added the Monash Health Referral Guidelines (the Guidelines) in relation to Rheumatology and Orthopaedics. The Respondent contended that the Guidelines show that a person with back and neck pain with limb motor or sensory findings can be referred for specialist treatment in the public health system by their GP if treatment by a physiotherapist has been unsuccessful. The Respondent acknowledged that wait times for non-urgent assessment are long, but asserted that the Guidelines indicate that if the applicant’s conditions are urgent – that is, if there is a presence of ‘red flag’ symptoms such as weight loss, night pain, or fevers or there is evidence of nerve root symptoms – then the applicant will be assessed for early investigation. The Respondent noted that general rheumatology services are available through a GP referral at Monash Centre Clayton, Dandenong Hospital and also at the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
The Applicant relied principally on the opinion of his treating doctor, Dr Patrick, that the Applicant’s conditions, including the lower back pain, were permanent taking into account what the Applicant could afford financially as he cannot afford to pay for specialists, physiotherapy, surgery or rehabilitation services. The Applicant acknowledged in his supplementary reply submission that treatments are available in the public health system as per referral guidelines attached by the Respondent. The Applicant added that accessing the services is difficult because there is high demand for such treatment with very long waiting lists and the emphasis is on emergency treatment.
The Tribunal recognises that the services available through Monash Health and other public health organisations are not ideal and that they involve significant waiting lists. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the treatments available, including physiotherapy, surgery, cortisone injection and medication are of a kind which is regularly undertaken and performed and can be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity with a low risk for the patient. Such treatment is available at a location reasonably accessible to the Applicant[13]. As a public patient the Applicant would not be burdened with unreasonable cost. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the treatment available to public patients through Monash Health is reasonable treatment.
[13] The Applicant lives in a metropolitan area south-east of the Melbourne CBD.
While the Applicant attended the Emergency Department at Monash Health in 2015, he did not seek access to the services provided by Monash Health on referral by his treating doctor and so did not have access to the reasonable treatment available after that time and during the qualification period. Where an applicant has not undertaken reasonable treatment the question is whether significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years is not expected, even if reasonable treatment is undertaken, or there is a medical or other compelling reason not to undertake reasonable treatment.
There is no evidence, other than the Applicant’s concerns regarding waiting lists, to indicate that there is a medical or other compelling reason for the Applicant not to undertake the reasonable treatment available. There is no medical evidence to indicate that a significant functional improvement should not be expected if the reasonable treatment is undertaken. In fact, the conclusion of the DSP Medical Eligibility Assessment conducted in February 2019 is to the contrary.
For these reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s lower back condition was fully treated and fully stabilised during the qualification period and the Applicant’s lower back condition cannot be assessed under the Impairment Tables.
Chronic right shoulder pain
The Respondent accepts that this condition has been fully diagnosed but contends that it cannot be assessed under the Impairment Tables because it has not been fully treated and stabilised. In the alternative, the Respondent contends that the condition should be attributed an impairment rating of zero points under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables.
Having reviewed the medical evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s chronic right shoulder pain has been fully diagnosed. The condition was first identified in an ultrasound scan in October 2013[14] and subsequently diagnosed by the Applicant’s treating doctor in May 2017[15], August 2018[16] and October 2019[17].
[14] T4
[15] T9 at p.22
[16] T13 at p.31
[17] T19
The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence at the hearing that he had not had any physiotherapy treatment for his shoulder condition prior to and during the qualification period. He stated that his shoulder condition had limited his ability to perform exercises to address his chronic lower back pain and as a result the physiotherapy he undertook in February 2020 for his back condition included treatment for his shoulder. He also confirmed that his shoulder condition had not been reviewed by a specialist and he had not undertaken pain management treatment because he could not afford it. The Applicant’s treating doctor reported that he had treated the condition with anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics[18].
[18] See T13, T19 and T21

The Monash Health Guidelines indicate that public patients are able to access services to treat shoulder conditions. Notwithstanding the limitations arising from long waiting lists, the Tribunal is satisfied that assessment and management of the condition by a specialist, physiotherapy and a multidisciplinary pain management programs are all reasonable treatments available to the Applicant as a public patient. The evidence does not establish that significant functional improvement to a level enabling the Applicant to undertake work in the next two years could not be expected if such treatment was utilised.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s chronic right shoulder pain had been fully treated or stabilised during the qualification period and the condition cannot be assigned a rating under the Impairment Tables.
Chronic left knee pain
The Respondent accepts that this condition has been fully diagnosed but contends that it cannot be assessed under the Impairment Tables because it has not been fully treated and stabilised. In the alternative, the Respondent contends that the condition should be attributed an impairment rating of 10 points under Table 3 of the Impairment Tables.
A radiologist’s report of 12 July 2016 noted the results of an x-ray of the Applicant’s left knee. It recorded that there were no fractures or dislocations and normal joint alignment, but there was early degeneration including underlying chondromalacia patella but no evidence of other degeneration[19]. The Applicant’s treating doctor noted left knee pain in medical reports in May 2017[20], June 2017[21], August 2018[22], September 2018[23] and October 2018[24]. An Employment Services Assessment Report dated 20 June 2019[25] noted chronic pain in the Applicant’s left knee and referred to x-rays showing degenerative changes.
[19] T8 at p.21
[20] T9 at p.22
[21] T11 at p.27
[22] T13 at p.31
[23] T16 at p.35
[24] T19 at p.39.
[25] T29 at p.87
On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s chronic pain condition in his left knee was fully diagnosed during the qualification period.
The Applicant described the extent of the impairment resulting from his left knee condition. He said that he can walk to his local shops and could walk around the supermarket using a trolley for five minutes or so before taking a rest by leaning against the wall. He said he uses a walking stick when he has to, but he can walk without it. He said he shops at the supermarket once per week and is able to walk from his car to the supermarket and get his groceries using the trolley. He also goes to the post office, the pharmacist and to medical appointments himself.
The Applicant’s treating doctor reported that he had treated the condition with anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics[26], but the Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence that prior to and during the qualification period he had not had any physiotherapy treatment for his left knee condition and had not been reviewed by a specialist or received other treatment. His treating doctor stated that the Applicant could not afford further treatment such as specialists, physiotherapy, surgery, rehabilitation programs or other services[27].
[26] T9 at p.22
[27] T51 at p.130
For the reasons discussed more fully in relation to the Applicant’s chronic back pain, the Tribunal is satisfied that reasonable treatment was available to the Applicant at Monash Health as a public patient on referral by his treating doctor and there is no medical evidence to indicate that a significant functional improvement should not have been expected if the reasonable treatment had been undertaken. As the Applicant had not undertaken such treatment during the qualification period, his condition cannot be considered fully treated and fully stabilised and an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables cannot be applied.
Monocular doubling of vision
The Respondent accepts that this condition has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and stabilised and should be attributed an impairment rating of five points under Table 12 of the Impairment Tables.
The condition was first identified in July 2017 by Dr Mark Steiner[28] who reported that.
He complains of floaters in both eyes and vertical doubling which is monocular. He describes a clear image and above that a slightly lighter one but it seems only for computer work. Furthermore it gets worse as time goes on when he is doing his work.
On examination acuities best corrected were 6/6 right and left with a small myopic correction. He described subjective monocular double vision on the right side today. Otherwise everything else was all basically fine apart from some early cataract which I am sure is the cause of his symptoms.
Dr Steiner concluded that:
At this stage nothing further needs to be done. At some stage in the future he might need to have cataract surgery.
[28] T12 at p.30
Dr Patrick reported that the Applicant had early cataracts, floaters and doubling of vision in his reports of July 2017[29] and October 2018[30].
[29] T21 at p.45
[30] T19 at p.39
The Applicant saw Dr Kanimoly Sukumaran, optometrist, in September 2019[31] who noted that on examination the Applicant had good visual acuity in each eye and that his intraocular pressure was normal. He noted possible operculated retinal hole in the infero-temporal periphery of the right eye, but no retinal tears or retinal detachment in either eye. He noted also that visual field testing showed some superior defects in both eyes. Dr Sukumaran advised the Applicant to see an ophthalmologist regarding his symptoms but the Applicant declined his referral indicating that he wished to discuss it with Dr Patrick first.
[31] T50 at p.129
Dr Patrick opined in his report of 20 October 2019[32] that the Applicant’s visual impairment was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised at the qualification period.
[32] T51
Having reviewed the medical evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s monocular doubling of vision was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the qualification period and likely to persist for the next two years.
The Applicant described the extent of the impairment resulting from his monocular doubling of vision. He said that he can read a newspaper, but it causes blurry vision and watery/burning eyes. He said he can read road signs and use a computer, but if he uses the computer for more than 15 minutes his eyes become blurry, especially at night. He said he needs bright light to see properly and if the light is dull, he cannot see. He said he can use public transport. He recognises people’s faces, but they need to be close and if he has been using the computer for more than 20 minutes his vision is worse, and people need to be within three or four metres before he can recognise them.
In assessing the functional impairment resulting from the Applicant’s condition under the Impairment Tables, the Tribunal is mindful of s 8(1) of the Rules which states that symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence
Dr Patrich confirmed in his report of 20 October 2019 that:
Mr Dauenhauer's records from the ophthalmologist and optometrist show that he complains that he has floaters in both eyes. The left eye is more watery than the right eye and has a larger floater on the middle that interferes with his vision and he feels there is a film over the eye and his vision feels blurrier on the left side. When he's looking at electronic screens like computer and telephone screens for more than 15-20 minutes or concentrating on normal printed reading, his eyes start to get tired and his vision gets even blurrier in both eyes. This also causes vertical double vision for short and long distances. The further the object is from Mr Dauenhauer, the more obvious the vertical double vison is as one item splits into two and the vertical space keep extending between the item and its duplicate as the distance keep increasing between Mr Dauenhauer and the item. This is very obvious at night if he needs to drive. His long-sightedness (that otherwise is reasonable) is distorted by his near-vision activities. After near- vision activities he needs to rest his eyes for several hours or overnight to return to normal.
Dr Patrick’s assessment was that the Applicant’s visual condition should attract an impairment rating of five points under Table 12 of the Impairment Tables.
Under Table 12 a mild functional impact on activities involving visual function attracting a rating of five points is applicable where the person can perform most day to day activities involving vision and has mild difficulties seeing things at a distance or close up when wearing glasses or contact lenses (if these are usually worn), and at least one of the specific factors listed in the Table apply. In the Applicant’s case the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant satisfies the criterion under paragraph (1)(d) that:
the person experiences some discomfort when performing day to day activities involving the eyes (e.g. mild occasional watering of the eyes, mild difficulty opening the eyes, or mild difficulty moving or coordinating the eyes, or difficulty tolerating bright lights and sunlight)
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant’s visual condition has a moderate functional impact on activities involving visual function such as would attract a rating of 10 points under Table 12. There is insufficient evidence that the Applicant:
(a)has very limited vision to the sides when looking straight ahead;
(b)needs to use vision aids or assistive devices other than spectacles and contact lenses for some tasks; and
(c)has difficulty performing some day to day activities involving vision (e.g. difficulty seeing the print letters, signs or route numbers on approaching buses or at train stations).
On this basis the Tribunal is satisfied that an impairment rating of five points under Table 12 is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed the Tribunal is unable to assess the Applicant’s conditions of chronic back pain, chronic right shoulder pain and chronic left knee pain under the Impairment Tables. The Applicant’s monocular doubling of vision attracts an impairment rating of 5 points on the Impairment Tables. While the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment as required by s 94(1)(a) of the Act, he does not meet the qualification criterion for a DSP under s 94(1)(b) of the Act that he have an impairment which is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. Accordingly, the Applicant was not qualified for a DSP at the date of his claim.
It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider the other matters raised in the Respondent’s submissions.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 64 (sixty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R West

...............[sgd].........................................................
Associate
Dated: 1 September 2020

Date of hearing: 4 June 2020

Date final submissions received: 16 June 2020

Applicant: By telephone

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Kate Gawidziel

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of hearing:	4 June 2020
Date final submissions received:	16 June 2020
Applicant:	By telephone
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Kate Gawidziel
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor