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

Dearing and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1119 (20 July 2017)
Division:General Division
File Number(s): 2016/6467
Re:Ms Barbara Dearing
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Anna Burke, Member

Date:20 July 2017
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution determines that Ms Dearing satisfies all the requirements of s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 and thereby qualified for the Disability Support Pension as at the date of her claim.
[sgd]....................................................
Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension –– whether qualified – bilateral foot pain (symptomatic flat feet) and bilateral shoulder severe osteoarthritis disorder fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised – bipolar affective disorder not fully diagnosed – whether impairment attracts rating of 20 points or more under Impairment Tables – whether program of support had been undertaken – decision set aside and substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; s 37
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999; ss 63, 80 & 118(13)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011; paras 6(3)(a) & 6(4)
Social Security Act 1991; ss 26, 27(3) & 94(1)
REASONS FOR DECISION
20 July 2017
INTRODUCTION

Ms Dearing (the Applicant) is seeking a second tier review of the decision made by the Secretary, Department of Social Services (the Respondent) to refuse to grant the Applicant Disability Support Pension (DSP) pursuant to s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
On 11 April 2016 Centrelink found that Ms Dearing was not entitled to DSP as she did not meet the requirements of the Act. Centrelink is the service provider for the Department of Social Services.
The application was heard on 22 May 2017. At the hearing, Ms Dearing was self-represented and accompanied by her daughter. Mr Joshua Lessing, a solicitor in the employ of Sparke Helmore Lawyers, appeared for the Respondent.
THE ISSUES IN CONTENTION
The issues in contention are whether Ms Dearing, during the relevant period:
(a)had a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment;
(b)had a diagnosed condition which has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and is likely to continue for at least two years;
(c)had a fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised condition or conditions which attracted 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables); and
(d)had a continuing inability to work.
BACKGROUND
Ms Dearing, who is now 61 years of age, relocated from Queensland to Victoria to reside with her children as she required ongoing support with daily living activities. Prior to leaving the workforce, Ms Dearing had undertaken numerous clerical roles and her last job was as a school crossing supervisor. She had to cease this role because of her medical condition. Ms Dearing has had multiple surgeries over the years for her symptomatic flat feet condition.
On the 8 February 2016 Ms Dearing made an application for DSP.
On the 1 April 2016 Centrelink had a job capacity assessment (JCA) conducted on Ms Dearing. The JCA report found that:
·Ms Dearing’s condition of symptomatic flat feet resulted in pain, stiffness and cramping in the feet, leading to difficulty in walking and standing. Ms Dearing reported she can manage to walk up to 30 minutes in the morning, but this is reduced to 10 minutes in the afternoons. Standing and climbing stairs is difficult. While she can use public transport, she only manages with the help of others and only if she can get a seat. She predominately relies on her car to get around. Lower limb deficiencies were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and attracted 10 impairment points under Table 3 - Lower limb function.
·Shoulder and upper arm disorders were not considered fully treated and stabilised. The medical report notes that Ms Dearing is awaiting left shoulder surgery. Ms Dearing reported pain in both shoulders, reduced strength of right thumb and hand, and some numbness in the right hand. Nil points were awarded for this condition.
·Spinal disorder was not considered fully diagnosed treated and stabilised given there is no recent diagnosis, assessment, and treatment plan in place. Ms Dearing advised intermittent pain in the lower back and recent exacerbation of lower back pain radiating to the left leg. Nil points were awarded for this condition.
·Musculoskeletal disorder, rheumatoid arthritis in both hands, and onset of Dupuytren’s contracture were not verified on the medical documentation. Subsequently, nil points were awarded.
·Anxiety and depression were noted in current medical documents, but were not deemed to have been diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, which is a requirement under the legislation. As such, nil points were awarded.
·Ms Dearing was assessed as having a temporary work capacity of 0-7 hours per week, a baseline work capacity of 8-14 hours per week, and a capacity within two years (with intervention) of 15-22 hours per week.
On the 11 April 2016 Centrelink wrote to Ms Dearing to inform her that her DSP had been refused as she did not have an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
On 19 May 2016, on internal review, a departmental Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the earlier Centrelink decision and found Ms Dearing did not meet the program of support requirements.
On 19 October 2016 the Social Security and Child Support Division of the Tribunal (AAT1) affirmed the decision of the ARO and found:
·bilateral foot pain was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and attracted five impairment points under Table 3 - Lower limb function.
·bilateral shoulder pain was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and attracted five impairment points under Table 2 – Upper limb function.
·bipolar affective disorder was not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised.
·there was insufficient evidence to conclude that carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis of the hands caused a functional impairment.
On 29 November 2016 Ms Dearing sought a review of the AAT1 decision by this division of the Tribunal, as she believed her conditions, which were originally deemed by a JCA assessment to attract 20 points over two tables, were sufficient to qualify for DSP. She also asserted she had completed a program of support. In accordance with Schedule 2, s 4(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act), Ms Dearing’s qualification for DSP is to be determined from the date of her claim to a date 13 weeks thereafter, being 27 June 2016.
On 8 March 2017 a JCA file review was conducted on Ms Dearing and found that:
·symptomatic flat feet was considered fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and attracted 10 impairment points under Table 3 – Lower limb function.
·bilateral shoulder severe osteoarthritis, right shoulder replacement, right carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis of the hands, finger joint deformities and Dupuytren’s nodules were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and attracted five impairment points under Table 2 – Upper limb function.
·spinal disorder was not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised.
·work capacity was 8-14 hours per week rising to 15-22 hours per week within the next two years with intervention.
Relevant Legislation and Issues
Section 94(1) of the Act provides that a person is qualified for a DSP if:
(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)the person has a continuing inability to work as defined by the Act.
It is agreed that at the time of application, Ms Dearing suffered from medical impairments arising from bilateral foot pain, bilateral shoulder osteoarthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis of the hands and bipolar affective disorder, that caused impairment and she therefore satisfied s 94(1)(a) of the Act.
The Impairment Tables require that an impairment rating can only be assigned if the condition causing that impairment is “permanent”.[1]
[1] Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011; section 6(3)(a)
Section 6(4) of the Impairment Tables state that a condition is “permanent” if:
(a)the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and
(b)the condition has been fully treated; and
(c)the condition has been fully stabilised; and
(d)the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
The introduction to each relevant Impairment Table requires that “self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient” and that “there must be corroborating evidence of the person’s impairment”.
Additionally, the introduction to Table 5 of the Impairment Tables, which is to be used where a person has a permanent condition resulting in functional impairment due to a mental health condition, states that the diagnosis of the condition “must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (this includes a psychiatrist) with evidence from a clinical psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist)”.
The determinative issue in this review is whether, at the time of her application, Ms Dearing suffered an impairment of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables and, if so, whether she had a continuing inability to work.
The Impairment Tables are function-based rather than diagnosis-based and describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms, and limitations. They are designed to enable the assignment of ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment and not to assess conditions (see Part 2, s 5(2)).
Section 6(1) of the Impairment Tables sets out that, when assessing functional capacity, a person’s impairment must be assessed on the basis of what a person can, or could do, not on the basis of what a person chooses to do or what others can do for the person.
Section 6(8) of the Impairment Tables further provides that the presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean that there will be an impairment to which an impairment rating can be assigned. In other words, a person may be diagnosed with a condition but, with appropriate treatment, the impairment rating from the condition may not result in any functional impact.
Therefore, it is necessary, to consider the Applicant’s medical conditions with reference to the applicable Impairment Tables.
THE TRIBUNAL’S CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
Evidence before the Tribunal
The evidence before the Tribunal includes; two sets of documents provided pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents” and the “Supplementary T documents”; the respondent’s application for review; and additional medical reports provided by Ms Dearing.
DOES MS DEARING HAVE A PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL OR PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT?
Section 94(1)(a) of the Act provides that to qualify for disability support pension in the first instance, a person must suffer from an impairment.
The parties accept that Ms Dearing suffers from bilateral foot pain, bilateral shoulder osteoarthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis of the hands, and bipolar affective disorder. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Ms Dearing suffers from these conditions and meets the requirements of s 94(1)(a) of the Act.
As noted above, s 94(1)(b) of the Act states that the second requirement to qualify for DSP is that the person’s impairments rate 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
DOES MS DEARING HAVE MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE RATED AT 20 POINTS OR MORE UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES?
Bilateral foot pain (symptomatic flat feet)
Ms Dearing has provided her detailed medical records from Nambour General Hospital to Centrelink to indicate the extensive medical treatment she had undergone in respect of the bilateral foot pain. The records contain the following relevant entries:
·2 July 2004: a right foot and right ankle x-ray showed considerable deformed foot and ankle suggestive of tibialis posterior rupture.
·19 January 2006: Dr Chris Bernedt, orthopaedic registrar, diagnosed bilateral flat feet deformity in both feet. He recommended no surgery at that time but rather referral to a podiatrist and orthotics. He thought a ruptured tendon was indicated. His diagnosis was confirmed by x-rays.
·28 July 2006: Dr Stefan Besser, orthopaedic surgeon, diagnosed pes planus deformity bilaterally.
·Surgical procedures were noted as:
o2008 right foot calcaneal TAL
o2009 right foot removal of extruding screw
o2009 left foot calcaneal TAL and shortened big toe
o2010 right ankle triple fusion
o2011 left ankle triple fusion
o2013 right foot hardware removal and diagonal heel bone slice and reposition with hinge
Dr Mark Bown, general practitioner, provided a medical report for Ms Dearing’s DSP claim on 13 February 2013 in which he opined that Ms Dearing was suffering from bilateral tibialis posterior dysfunction. He reported that Ms Dearing had undergone triple fusion in both ankles and was suffering pain and stiffness in both feet and ankles, significantly impacting her endurance and mobility.
Dr Mark Bown, general practitioner, also provided a medical report for Ms Dearing’s DSP claim on 10 December 2014, in which he opined that Ms Dearing was suffering from osteoarthritis and had undergone extensive surgery to both feet. Her condition left her in pain and altered the gait of both feet, which resulted in marked reduction in her endurance, stamina and impaired her mobility.
Dr Prashanth Kumar Narasimhaiah, general practitioner, provided a medical certificate of incapacity on 15 April 2016, in which he opined that Ms Dearing has bilateral hereditary painful feet, for which she has had multiple surgeries. He concluded she is not fit to do even a desk job as she is unable to sit, stand, or walk for prolonged periods of time. This is not expected to change in the next two years at least.
Ms Dearing further contended at the hearing that at the time of the DSP application she was unable to do any of the following:
·     walk around the shopping centre or supermarket without assistance - she had to lean on the supermarket trolley to get around;
·     walk from the car park into a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance - she would park in the disabled car space nearest to the supermarket entrance and had to rely on her walking stick;
·     stand up from a sitting position without assistance;
·     use public transport without assistance.
Ms Dearing also indicated that she undertakes minimal household activities or chores, and relies heavily on her children to perform the majority of the housework. She was unable to walk for longer than 15 to 20 minutes. She does take the dog for a walk to the park, but the park is opposite her home and when she gets to the park, she sits on the bench and lets the dog run around. She drives only for short distances and relies heavily upon her children to assist with her daily living activities such as washing her hair and putting on clothing.
Ms Dearing presented at the hearing as an honest and forthcoming individual. She displayed difficulty in walking, relied upon her walking stick and had difficulty getting in and out of the chair. Her hands showed finger and joint deformity and it was obvious she had extreme difficulty performing tasks such as filling a glass of water, picking up a pen, finding objects in her handbag and using her mobile phone.
In assessing all the evidence before the Tribunal, a decision has to be reached about whether Ms Dearing has an accepted diagnosis of bilateral foot pain (symptomatic flat feet) resulting in a severe functional impact on activities using her lower limbs. This condition is long-standing and has been extensively treated and the Tribunal accepts it is fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised. Impairment Table 3 - Lower limb functions relevantly states:
There is a severe functional impact on activities using lower limbs.
(1)       The person:
(a)       is unable to do any of the following:
(i)        walk around a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance;
(ii)       walk from the carpark into a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance;
(iii)      stand up from a sitting position without assistance; and
(b)       requires assistance to use public transport.
(2)       This impairment rating level includes a person who requires assistance to:
(a)       move around in, or transfer to and from a wheelchair (e.g. the person needs personal care assistance to use a toilet); or
(b)       move around using walking aids (e.g. a quad stick, crutches or walking frame), that is, the person needs assistance from another person to walk on some surfaces and could not move independently around a workplace or training facility, even when using a walking aid.
Whilst the Tribunal found that Ms Dearing had extensive difficulties with her mobility, it was not satisfied that it was extensive enough to award 20 impairment points under Table 3, as she was still able to walk and drive her car. The Tribunal found the condition was moderate and awarded 10 impairment points under Table 3.
Bilateral shoulder pain, carpal tunnel syndrome/osteoarthritis of the hands/onset of Dupuytren’s contracture
Dr Bown provided a medical report for Ms Dearing’s DSP claim on 13 February 2013 in which he opined that Ms Dearing was suffering from advanced osteoarthritis in the right shoulder and at that time, she had seen an orthopaedic surgeon and was awaiting surgery. Ms Dearing has had physiotherapy in the past and had taken analgesics. She was suffering pain on lifting and any use of the right arm, affecting dexterity and movement.
Dr Bown provided a further medical report for Ms Dearing’s DSP claim on 10 December 2014, in which he opined that Ms Dearing was suffering from osteoarthritis and had undergone a right shoulder replacement. The condition caused pain in her shoulders and elbows which had resulted in reduced right upper limb function as a result of shoulder surgery and carpal tunnel release.
Ms Dearing provided her detailed medical records from Nambour General Hospital to Centrelink to indicate the extensive medical treatment she had undergone in respect of her upper limb pain. The records contain the following relevant entries:
·28 October 2012: MRI scan of the right shoulder showed severe osteoarthritic degenerative changes, an ossified loose body, and a partial thickness bursal surface tear of the medium posterior substance insertional fibres of supraspinatus.
·31 March 2004 shoulder reconstruction surgery.
·11 July 2014: x-ray on right shoulder noted alignment appeared satisfactory.
·28 July 2014: Dr Graham Schapel, neurologist, diagnosed Ms Dearing’s potential entrapment mononeuropathy of the left median nerve at the wrist, confirmed by nerve conduction study.
·18 September 2014: right carpal tunnel release performed.
·27 November 2015: it was noted that following Ms Dearing’s right total shoulder reconstruction last year she had full range of motion and left shoulder osteoarthritis, but at that stage not bad enough to warrant total shoulder reconstruction.

Dr Tom Treseder, orthopaedic surgeon, reported on 27 September 2016 that the right side total shoulder replacement inserted in 2014 was working well and found left shoulder osteoarthritis from observation. His report concluded, “I’m happy to say that she is likely to have significant loss of function and inability to work due to osteoarthritis in multiple joints, feet and bilateral shoulders, including her hands.”
Dr Prashanth Kumar Narasimhaiah, general practitioner, provided a medical certificate of incapacity on 15 April 2016 in which he opined that Ms Dearing had pain and stiffness in both shoulders, and had undergone multiple surgeries to the right shoulder. She has persisting pain and stiffness in both shoulders with sharp pains radiating to the hands. She is unable to do any type of work at all, as symptoms aggravate with even sitting for extended periods. No active surgical treatment is envisaged in the near future for either of her shoulders. The JCA report of 23 January 2015 undertaken face-to-face in Buddina recommended a 10 point rating under Table 2 - Upper limb function based on the medical evidence of Dr Bown, general practitioner, and Ms Dearing’s presentation.
The JCA file assessment on 8 March 2017 recommended a five point rating under Table 2 - Upper Limb function as there was only a mild impact on activities using hands or arms. However, it referred to the report by Dr Prashanth Kumar Narasimhaiah, general practitioner, of 7 February 2017 which noted the functional impact on activity using hands or arms: namely, that Ms Dearing cannot pick up a 1 L carton of liquid, cannot do up buttons or tie shoelaces, suffers cramps in fingers when trying to write or use a keyboard and cannot unscrew a lid off a soft drink bottle. Dr Narasimhaiah indicated to the JCA review that he could not confirm these impacts were present at the relevant date for assessment.
Ms Dearing contended at the hearing that at the time of the DSP application she was unable to do any of the following: pick up a 1 L carton full of liquid, pick up a light but bulky object, hold and use a pen and pencil, do up buttons or tie shoelaces, use a standard computer keyboard, and unscrew a lid on a soft drink bottle.
Ms Dearing advised that the condition Dupuytren’s contracture was a hereditary trait and was impacting many members of her family. She also advised that the condition was having a significant impact on her ability to utilise her hands and fingers effectively.
In assessing all the evidence before the Tribunal, a decision has to be reached about whether Ms Dearing has an accepted diagnosis of bilateral shoulder pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and arthritis, resulting in a severe functional impact on activities using her upper limbs. This condition is long-standing and has been extensively treated. The Tribunal accepts it is fully diagnosed treated and stabilised. Under Impairment Table 2 - Upper limb functions, impairment will have a moderate functional impact if:
There is a moderate functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1)       The person has difficulty with most of the following:
(a)       picking up a 1 litre carton full of liquid;
(b)     picking up a light but bulky object requiring the use of 2 hands together (e.g. a cardboard box);
(c)       holding and using a pen or pencil;
(d)       doing up buttons or tying shoelaces;
(e)       using a standard computer keyboard;
(f)        unscrewing a lid on a soft-drink bottle.
The Tribunal found that Ms Dearing had extensive difficulties with performing activities requiring use of her hands and arms and it was satisfied that these difficulties were extensive enough to award 10 impairment points under Table 2 as she was not able to perform the majority of the functions outlined.
Bipolar affective disorder
A report from Nambour General Hospital dated 7 November 2012 records bipolar affective disorder.
Dr Bown provided a medical report for Ms Dearing’s DSP claim on 13 February 2013 in which he opined that Ms Dearing was suffering from anxiety and bipolar affective disorder.
Ms Dearing explained she had had a psychiatric episode previously in respect of relationship issues with her former partner (who is also the father of her children) and has recently been seeing a psychologist to assist with mental health issues and sleeping disorder caused by her constant pain.
Under Impairment Table 5 - Mental health function the diagnosis of the condition must be by either a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. As there is no current evidence before the tribunal of Ms Dearing’s condition being diagnosed by either a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, no impairment rating can be assigned.
DOES MS DEARING HAVE A CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK?
To qualify for the DSP, Ms Dearing must not only satisfy the requirement that she has an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, but she must also demonstrate she has a continuing inability to work. Ms Dearing would be considered to have a continuing inability to work if she has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of s 94(3C) prior to her claim for DSP and her impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent her from doing any work independently of a program of support.
The JCA report dated 23 January 2015 awarded 20 points to Ms Dearing under two different tables and found she had only partially completed her programme of support and therefore did not qualify for the DSP. The report’s assessor was a qualified social worker, who relevantly found; “Baseline work capacity is reduced due to combine impacts of lower and upper limb conditions. Pain in feet increases with prolonged standing and walking so Ms Dearing tends to drive to access local shops or services, However she does not require walking aid, nor need assistance to stand, walk from car parking to grocery stop, nor to walk around grocery shop”. The JCA report of 10 April 2016 assessed by a registered psychologist awarded a total impairment rating of 10 points and found a temporary work capacity of 0-7 hours per week, increasing to a baseline of 8 -14 hours per week and within two years with intervention to 15-22 hours per week. The report found: “Miss Dearing has a recommendation with intervention work capacity of 15-22 hours per week due to restrictions imposed by ongoing conditions. With disability–specific support such as job matching, work placement assessment/role modification and gradual return to work program to assist with returning to work in a suitable role that accommodates reduced functioning, work capacity is likely to increase to 15 – 22 hours per week.”
The JCA report of 8 March 2017 assessed by a physiotherapist awarded a total impairment rating of 15 points and found a baseline work capacity of 8-14 hours per week due to restrictions imposed by ongoing conditions and also found as per the report of 10 April 2016 that intervention would assist her likely return to increased hours of work.
Ms Dearing was referred to Wesley Employment Services and completed 104 weeks with the provider; she was automatically exited from the program as she had met the 104 week requirements.
Contrary to the JCA reports Wesley Employment Services found Ms Dearing would not benefit from the assistance of a disability employment service as outlined in a report to the Department of Human Services, pursuant to section 192 of the Act:
9. In your opinion, is Mrs Dearing solely because of her impairment prevented from improving her capacity to find, gain or remain in employment through continued participation program provided by Wesley employment services? Yes, the medical conditions were severe and could not participate employment discussions. Always attended appointments in a frail state.
10. Are there other factors not related to Mrs Dearing’s impairment that, in your opinion, may limit Mrs Dearing’s ability to benefit from the services provided by Wesley employment services? No, medical conditions totally prevented client from participating effectively that would lead to employment at some level.
Ms Dearing has completed a program of support with a Disability Employment Service and therefore satisfies 94(1)(c) requirement of the Act.
In the Respondent’s statement of facts, issues and contentions, it was stated “that the job capacity assessors have specialist knowledge and experience in identifying barriers to employment, intervention available programs, and suitable occupations to determine a works capacity.” The Secretary contends that the Tribunal should, particularly in the absence of any medical evidence to the contrary, rely on the JCA undertaken during the qualification period that found the applicant could work 15 – 22 hours per week within two years with intervention,
I note that there seems to be no uniform preference in the decisions of the Tribunal on whether the conclusions in a JCA report or a medical report should be preferred for the purpose of assessing continuing inability to work. I do not think an absolute preference should be expressed for either report, rather, the preference should be made on a case by case basis, taking into account the usual matters relevant to assessing the probative value of a report. Such matters include the field of expertise and qualifications of the person who wrote the report (or who made assessments forming part of the report), the duration and frequency of the report, the writer’s relationship with the person who is the subject of the report and the reliability and depth of the analysis within the report.
This view is consistent with the report of Wesley Employment Services, and the medical opinion of Dr Narasimhaiah, who found that Ms Dearing is not fit to do even a desk job as she is unable to sit, stand, or walk for prolonged periods of time and that this is not expected to change for at least the next two years. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that Ms Dearing has a continuing inability to work.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that, at the date of application, Ms Dearing was qualified to receive the DSP, as her impairments attracted 20 impairment points under the Impairment Tables based of her bilateral feet condition: 10 points for lower limb function and for her bilateral shoulder conditions and 10 points for upper limb function. Additionally, she satisfies s 94(1)(c) of the Act in that she had a continuing inability to work.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution determines that Ms Dearing satisfies all the requirements of s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 and thereby qualified for the Disability Support Pension as at the date of her claim.

I certify that the preceding 60 paragraphs (sixty) are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Anna Burke, Member

[sgd]........................................................................
Associate
Dated 20 July 2017

Date of hearing 22 May 2017

Applicant In person

Advocate for the Respondent

Solicitors for the Respondent

Mr Joshua Lessing

Sparke Helmore

[2017] AATA 1119

20 July 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Remedies