DICKMAN and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (Social services second review)

[2019] AATA 4052

DICKMAN and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 4052 (3 October 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:           2019/0160

Re: WAYNE DICKMAN

APPLICANT

AndSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Ms Amy Wood, Member

Date:3 October 2019

Place:Melbourne

The decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) on 18 December 2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Secretary for action pursuant to the findings outlined in this decision.  

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

Amy Wood, Member

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – impairment rating during qualification period – continuing inability to work – decision under review set aside

Legislation

Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

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
Social Security Guide 

REASONS FOR DECISION

Amy Wood, Member

3 October 2019

BACKGROUND

1. On 07 November 2017, Wayne Dickman (“the applicant”) lodged a claim dated 03 November 2017 for the Disability Support Pension (“the DSP”).[1] He relied on an injury to his lower back.[2]

   [1] T4, pages 9-18.

   [2] T4, page 15.

2. The applicant was born in June 1956 and was 61 years of age at the time he lodged his claim for the DSP.

3. On 17 April 2018, the applicant’s claim for the DSP was rejected. This decision was internally reviewed by an Authorised Review Officer ( “the ARO”) who affirmed the original decision.[3]

   [3] T15, page 51.

4. The applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) (“AAT1”) for a review of the decision made by the ARO. On 18 December 2018, the AAT1 affirmed the decision.

5. On 09 January 2019, the applicant lodged an Application with the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal seeking a review of the decision made by AAT1.[4]   

   [4] T1, pages 1-2.

   HEARING

6. The Application was listed for hearing at Melbourne on 02 August 2019. Both parties were legally represented by capable solicitor advocates.

7. The applicant and his current treating general practitioner, Dr Lalor, gave evidence and were cross-examined.[5] The following documents were tendered before closing submissions were made by the parties:

   ·Exhibit A – Section 37 documents marked T1 to T25.

   ·Exhibit B – Job Capacity Assessment Report dated 5 February 2019.

   ·Exhibit C – Supplementary Section 37 documents marked ST1 to ST3.

   ·Exhibit D – Medical report prepared by general practitioner, Dr Kieran Lalor dated 31 January 2019.

   ·Exhibit E – Medical report prepared by orthopaedic surgeon, Mr David de la Harpe dated 31 July 2019.

   [5] Dr Lalor appeared by telephone.

   ISSUE IN DISPUTE

8. The Tribunal is requested to review the decision made by AAT1. AAT1 determined that the applicant did not qualify for the DSP between the date the application was lodged and in the 13 weeks thereafter (“the qualification period”) as required by s 94 (1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”).[6] AAT1 was not satisfied that the applicant’s circumstances fulfilled the criteria set out in s 94 of the Act.

   [6] Between 07 November 2017 and 06 February 2018.

9. The applicant submitted that he did qualify for the DSP during the qualification period. He submitted that the injury to his lumbar spine was an impairment deserving of a rating of 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) (“the Impairment Tables”). He also submitted that at the time he had a continuing inability to work.

10. The respondent submitted that the appropriate impairment rating under the relevant Impairment Table is five points; and that this rating, in and of itself means that the applicant did not qualify for the DSP. It submitted that, if the Tribunal were against the respondent in respect of its primary submission, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined under ss 94(2) and (5) of the Act.

11. It is noted that there is no dispute that the applicant’s impairment was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised at the relevant time. 

    DID THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENT ATTRACT A RATING OF 20 POINTS OR MORE?

12. The applicant submitted that the documents before the Tribunal provide ample medical evidence upon which it should find that the applicant’s impairment was severe viz. 20 points.

13. The applicant referred the Tribunal to the opinions of the following medical practitioners:

    (a)Dr John Weinrich, the applicant’s treating general practitioner for 29 years; 

    (b)Mr David de la Harpe, the applicant’s treating orthopaedic surgeon; and

    (c)Dr Kieran Lalor, the applicant’s current treating general practitioner (Dr Weinrich’s successor).

14. The applicant submitted that the opinions of all three practitioners support a finding that the applicant’s impairment was severe at the relevant time. In particular, the opinion of his treating orthopaedic surgeon, who stated in his report dated 31 July 2019:

    This is to certify that I have reviewed Wayne Dickman’s file. It would appear that I first attended him in 2004 and then not again until 2018. MRI scan of his spine to evaluate his disabling low back pain was performed at this time [namely, in 2018]. From the scan there was a finding that there was chronic superior end plate infraction at L2 and L3 with up to 30% reduction of vertebral body height. This would indicate significant damage to the bones in his lumbar spine which is long standing in nature and most likely would have been present at the end of 2017 as the descriptor [the radiologist] used the word “chronic”. Due to these findings, which explain his disabling low back pain I feel that he is totally and permanently incapacitated for gainful employment. (My emphasis added)[7]

    [7] Exhibit E.

15. The applicant anticipated that the respondent would rely on the opinion of general practitioner, Dr Michael Pickavance. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal should disregard Dr Pickavance’s opinion because (in short):

    (i)he was not the applicant’s regular general practitioner;

    (ii)his opinion is at odds with three other medical practitioners;

    (iii)his examination was made approximately six months after the expiration of the qualification period;

    (iv)his opinion makes no reference to the Impairment Tables, in particular, no reference to the descriptors contained within them;

    (v)his opinion is flawed because it failed to take into account the fluctuating nature of the applicant’s condition as required by Rule 11, sub-sections (3) and (4); and

    (vi)his opinion makes no reference to factors such as pain, and whether the movements performed by the applicant during the examination on 13 August 2018 could be done on a repetitive or habitual basis (as discussed in the Social Security Guide).

16. In reply, the respondent submitted that the medical evidence relied on by the applicant is not referable to the qualification period. Therefore, it cannot support a finding that the applicant’s impairment justified a rating of 20 points. The respondent relies on the following evidence:

    ·self-reporting by the applicant on 07 November 2017 when he was interviewed face-to-face for the purpose of the Employment Services Assessment Report;[8]       

    ·self-reporting by the applicant on 06 April 2018 when he was interviewed by telephone for the Job Capacity Assessment Report;[9]

    ·self-reporting by the applicant on 27 July 2018 when he was interviewed face-to-face for the purpose of a further Job Capacity Assessment Report;[10] and

    ·the clinical note authored by Dr Michael Pickavance dated 13 August 2018,[11]  with verbal confirmation by Dr Pickavance by telephone on 05 February 2019, to the effect that the functional evaluation performed by him of the applicant on 13 August 2018 was valid during the qualification period.[12] 

    [8] T6, pages 20-24.

    [9] T8, pages 27-33.

    [10] T13, pages 41-48.

    [11] T12, page 40.

    [12] Exhibit B, pages 2-3.

17. The respondent submitted that the opinion of Dr Pickavance is the most compelling and reliable medical evidence because he was well-placed to provide an opinion in relation to the applicant’s functioning during the qualification period. It submitted that Dr Pickavance’s opinion was consistent with the way in which the applicant himself described his functional capacity during and after the qualification period. It also submitted that the medical evidence relied on by the applicant[13] should not be taken into account because the reports fail to refer to the applicant’s condition during the qualification period.

    [13] Report of Mr David de la Harpe dated 25 May 2018 (Exhibit E), reports of Dr John Weinrick dated 12 October 2018 and 10 January 2019 (Exhibit C) and report of Dr Kieran Lalor dated 31 January 2019 (Exhibit D).

18. The Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant at the commencement of the hearing. In summary, he stated that he injured his lower back in November 2001 whilst working as an automotive technician (or similar). He lodged a WorkCover claim and was off work for a number of years. During this time he received the DSP. This ceased when his claim against his former employer was settled and he was naturally excluded from receiving a government pension for a period of time.

19. The applicant stated that his wife established a cleaning business in 2004. He explained that after he had completed a Pain Management Program, he joined his wife in the business, until the business became too much for them. He explained that in 2013 they sold the business. However, he continued to work cleaning carpets for approximately 20 hours per week. He said that he was able to manage this for some time because the work was flexible and he could do it at his own pace. He explained that mid-way through 2017, he was struggling and could not deal with the pain in his lower back. He was becoming unreliable and did not want to let anyone down.

20. The applicant informed the Tribunal that in October 2017, he commenced receiving Newstart Allowance. However, after about a month or so, he was advised by Centrelink to apply for the DSP - which he did on 07 November 2017. He explained that his answers to Centrelink Officers were always based on his capacity on a good day because, on a bad day he cannot do anything. He gave evidence that he has about one good day followed by about four bad days. He explained that he always has a bad day if he pushes himself too much the day before. He also explained that there is no pattern or warning in respect of his bad days, so he is unable to predict in advance when he will have one.

21. The applicant stated that he experiences constant pain in his lower back but that it fluctuates in severity. He said that when his pain is aggravated, the pain goes into his legs and he cannot get comfortable. He said that the pain impacts on every aspect of his life and he explained that he finds it difficult trying to fight the pain. He stated that he gets blurry vision and relies on a walking stick because of his lower back pain. He was taken through the descriptors in Table 4 of the Impairment Tables, and confirmed that he cannot perform the various activities referred to. He confirmed that he has had the same limitations, symptoms and pain since mid-2017, when he ceased work.

22. In relation to treatment, the applicant gave evidence that Dr John Weinrich had been his treating general practitioner for about 29 years, before he retired on 24 January 2019. He stated that the first time he saw Dr Kieran Lalor was on 31 January 2019. Under cross-examination, he agreed that with medication he can do things (like sitting) for longer periods. However, he gave evidence-in-chief in relation to the fact that he is allergic to codeine and that other medications give him unpleasant side-effects such as an upset stomach and drowsiness. He also stated that his situation affects his capacity to concentrate. The applicant explained that he has been told by Mr de la Harpe that surgery is not an option for him because too many discs in his lumbar spine have been injured and if he was to fuse one, the next disc will go.

23. In relation to his capacity for work, the applicant gave evidence that he did not know anything about a Program of Support. He stated that he was advised to wait for the outcome of this claim before engaging with Centrelink. He gave evidence-in-chief that he is a proud man and that he doesn’t like to admit his limitations. He said that he was always polite and nice to the Centrelink Officers. Under cross-examination, he agreed that he had indicated to Centrelink that he could perhaps become a carer or a social/welfare worker. He confirmed that he does not cope well with accepting his limitations, and that whilst he has indicated that he could probably do this type of job, in reality he knows he probably can’t.

24. The applicant stated that he went to high school but did not complete Year 9. He explained that he can use a computer but that his skills are limited. For example, he acknowledged that he completed an E-record computer course at the Smart Business Centre in Ballarat in 2007 but explained that he could only use some sections of the program. He also gave evidence that when he was running his own business, he only spent an hour a week doing accounting-type work.

25. Under cross-examination he was asked about the care he provides to his 47-year-old, intellectually disabled step-son. He explained that he takes him to things such as cricket or to get a haircut or to go shopping.

26. The applicant gave his evidence in a straightforward manner without any embellishment. The Tribunal formed the view that he was a person who tended to understate, rather than overstate, the severity of his situation. The Tribunal found his evidence and presentation entirely credible and reliable. 

27. Dr Kieran Lalor gave evidence and was cross-examined over the telephone. In summary, he said that he commenced treating the applicant in January 2019. He said that the notes confirmed that the applicant’s regular GP before him was Dr John Weinrich. He stated that the notes showed that Dr Weinrich saw the applicant a couple of times in November 2017, and that at that time he was complaining of referred pain, sciatic pain and osteo-arthritis in the neck. He said that 90% of the applicant’s consultations before he commenced treating him were with Dr Weinrich.

28. Under cross-examination, Dr Lalor agreed that the results of the MRI performed on 22 May 2018 did not show any nerve root compression.[14] However, he explained that this can happen when the investigation is performed whilst the patient is lying down and therefore the compression may be missed by the image. He gave evidence that he unequivocally (“100%”) believes that the applicant has nerve root compression because he can clinically see the signs of (“what has to be”) nerve root compression.

    [14] T11, page 37.

29. Dr Lalor stated that his opinion in his report dated 31 January 2019 is based on his assessment of the applicant in January 2019. He stated that he ignored the note taken by Dr Pickavance in August 2018 because he was not the applicant’s primary general practitioner.

30. Dr Lalor gave evidence that since he commenced treating the applicant in January 2019, he has not observed any improvement or change. He also stated that there had not been any event from November 2017 until now which would have caused his patient’s current condition.

31. Dr Lalor also confirmed that the experience of pain can adversely impact upon a patient’s capacity to concentrate.  

32. The state of the medical evidence in this matter is not ideal. The mandatory criteria are not specifically referred to by any practitioner, on any date between 07 November 2017 and 06 February 2018. This is not a criticism of the individual practitioners. No doubt they are very busy caring for patients rather than researching the Social Security Impairment Tables and writing detailed reports. In fact, the applicant gave evidence that when he requested a further and better report from his treating orthopaedic surgeon, Mr de la Harpe allegedly said “I’m a surgeon, not a report writer”. Likewise, the language used by Dr Lalor in his report dated 31 January 2019 indicates that he was perplexed and frustrated by the need for a further report because “incredibly” the letter written by his predecessor was not “enough evidence to satisfy the powers that be” regarding his patient’s injuries. 

33. In this case, both parties refer to and rely on opinions produced after the expiration of the qualification period. The applicant’s case primarily relies on the opinion of the treating orthopaedic surgeon, Mr David de la Harpe, dated 31 July 2019. Whereas, the respondent’s case primarily relies on the opinion expressed on 05 February 2019 by the applicant’s occasional treating general practitioner, Dr Michael Pickavance. Despite the fact that the opinions relied on by both parties have been produced after the qualification period had expired, both opinions refer to (or are referable to) the qualification period. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is permitted to rely on them when forming a view as to the state of the applicant’s impairment to his lumbar spine during the qualification period.[15]

    [15] See the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the matter of Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123 at [24]-[29].

34. The Tribunal has read and considered all of the evidence tendered. No single medical opinion relied on by either party provides a complete response to the criteria in the Impairment Tables. However, on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s lumbar spine condition did justify a 20 point rating within the qualification period.

35. The Tribunal notes that although the opinions of Mr de la Harpe (in his report dated 31 July 2019) and Dr Weinrich (in the Medical Certificate dated 06 November 2017 and his report dated 10 January 2019) do not address the descriptors in the table, they do corroborate, and they are entirely consistent with the candid and direct evidence given by the applicant in relation to his spinal function as at November 2017 (which referred specifically to each descriptor in the table). Furthermore, whilst the 31 January 2019 report of Dr Lalor does not refer to the qualification period, when his opinion is read in conjunction with the opinion of Mr de la Harpe, the evidence comfortably demonstrates that the applicant’s impairment to his lumbar spine justified a rating of 20 points at the relevant time. These opinions, together with the oral evidence given by Dr Lalor – that no event has occurred since November 2017 to have caused the applicant’s current presentation – leaves little doubt in relation to the state of the applicant’s impairment during the qualification period.    

36. The Tribunal is not persuaded that it should prefer the opinion of Dr Pickavance. Firstly, unlike Mr de la Harpe, Dr Pickavance does not explain how the results of his clinical examination on 13 August 2018 are referable to the qualification period. Secondly, his opinion is inconsistent with the applicant’s credible and direct evidence and the evidence of Mr de la Harpe. Finally, the clinical note produced on 13 August 2018[16] appears to be at odds with the opinion he provided in a letter addressed to Centrelink on 22 June 2018. In that letter he stated that the applicant’s condition renders him permanently unfit for work[17] viz. the impairment was severe.

    [16] T12, page 40.

    [17] T11, page 36.

1. In light of the above, and in the absence of a cogent explanation from Dr Pickavance as to how the 13 August 2018 results are referable to the qualification period, the Tribunal is not prepared to prefer the opinion he expressed to the Job Capacity Assessor on 05 February 2019.[18]

   [18] Exhibit B, page 2.

2. The Tribunal’s finding in relation to the nature and extent of the applicant’s impairment to his lumbar spine means that an evaluation of the condition of his cervical spine is unnecessary.

3. Having found that the applicant’s impairment to his lumbar spine rated 20 points, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined by s 94(1) (c) of the Act.

   DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK?

4. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s impairment was severe and justified a rating of 20 points. In these circumstances, the applicant must also satisfy the Tribunal that his impairment is sufficient to prevent him from doing any work independently of a program of support, or undertaking a training activity, within the next two years.             

5. The applicant submitted that at the time of the claim he had a continuing inability to work. He referred to and relied on the fact that on 12 October 2017, Centrelink refused to grant him a medical exemption from his job-seeking requirements because the medical certificate he provided[19] stated that his incapacity to work was not temporary.[20]

   [19] Completed by Dr Michael Pickavance dated 11 October 2017, see T18, page 58.

   [20] See T19, page 64.

6. The applicant also referred to and relied on the medical opinions provided by general practitioners, Dr Weinrich and Dr Lalor. Both practitioners have stated, on numerous occasions, and in various documents prepared since 06 November 2017[21] through to 31 January 2019, that the applicant has no capacity for either work or study and that this situation is permanent.

   [21] See T18, pages 59-60.

7. In relation to the Employment Services Assessment and Job Capacity Assessments, the applicant submitted that the opinions are flawed for a number of reasons,[22] and should not be accepted. He also submitted that the medical opinions expressed by the applicant’s treating doctors should be given more weight.

   [22] See page 11, p/g 53 of the Applicant’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 24 June 2019.

8. The respondent provided submissions in relation to the requirement in s 94(3C) of the Act to participate in a program of support. Having found that the applicant had a severe impairment, this requirement is no longer applicable.

9. The respondent submitted that in these circumstances, it will be relevant for the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined under the Act.

10. In the Secretary’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, the respondent clearly outlined all the factors which must be disregarded when assessing an applicant’s continuing inability to work (as set out in the Act, relevant case law and the Social Security Guide). It noted the definition of “work” pursuant to s 94(5) of the Act; and summarised the findings made by the Employment Services Assessment and the Job Capacity Assessment. These matters have all been considered by the Tribunal before coming to its view in relation to the applicant’s capacity for work.

11. The respondent submitted that the evidence establishes that the applicant has a work capacity of greater than 15 hours per week or that he has the capacity to undertake training (referred to as targeted interventions) which would equip him to work for 15 hours per week within 2 years. For example, by undertaking a pain management program, job matching sessions, vocational assessment and/or counselling, etc.   

12. The respondent also reiterated its submission in relation to the medical material relied on by the applicant; namely that it was prepared outside the qualification period and does not refer to the applicant’s capacity for work during the qualification period. 

13. In relation to the applicant’s capacity for work, he gave evidence that in 2017 he was performing carpet cleaning for one house per day which would take about 2.5 to 3 hours each day. As stated above, he stopped work in mid-2017 when he could not deal with the pain any longer and he was finding that he was no longer reliable. In response to the comment written by Mr Adrian Venville in an Invoice Statement,[23] the applicant agreed that he finished up due to a lack of work (not employment) with Mr Venville because he had purchased a new machine. He gave evidence that he finds it difficult to get comfortable and that in order to manage his pain, he alternates between lying down, sitting, and walking throughout the day. This has been the case since he ceased work in 2017.

    [23] T3 – Adrian Venville’s Cleaning Service – This is to certify that Wayne Dickman finished employment with my company in July 2017 due to lack of work.

14. As stated above, the Tribunal was impressed by the genuineness of the applicant. The Tribunal formed the view that he was a witness of truth who gave his evidence without any exaggeration.

15. In relation to the issue of work capacity, the Tribunal found the opinion expressed by the long-standing treating general practitioner, Dr Weinrich particularly compelling. On 06 November 2017 (the day before the commencement of the qualification period), Dr Weinrich stated that the applicant has “Chronic lumbar and cervical degenerative spine” which commenced on “06/11/2001”. He further stated that the condition is “Permanent (likely to persist for 2 years or more)” and that his patient’s symptoms will affect his capacity to work or study for “more than 24 months.” He confirmed that the applicant could not undertake his usual work or study and that he could not do any other work for 8 hours or more per week.

16. Of particular significance, the doctor stated:

    “This gentleman has battled hard for many years to be self supporting despite chronic pain. He has reached the stage at which it is not possible to work in any meaningful capacity. I believe he should go onto a disability support pension permanently.”[24]

    [24] T18, page 59.

17. The written opinion of Dr Weinrich in this medical certificate appears to be overwhelmingly genuine, balanced and sound. As he said, he has observed the applicant for many years and confirms that he is a stoical individual.

18. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is compelled to accept and follow Dr Weinrich’s opinion. In doing so, the Tribunal notes that the opinion is supported by the applicant’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Mr de la Harpe who, in July 2019, confirmed that the damage shown on the MRI in the applicant’s lumbar spine is of a long-standing (chronic) nature and would have most likely been present at the end of 2017. He also stated that due to the findings (on the MRI), which explain the applicant’s disabling lower back pain, he is totally and permanently incapacitated from gainful employment.[25]

    [25] Exhibit E.

19. The Tribunal is not prepared to prefer the opinions expressed by the employment consultants in relation to the applicant’s capacity for work and/or study over such convincing and learned medical opinion. Likewise, the Tribunal is not prepared to prefer the isolated medical opinion expressed by Dr Michael Pickavance on 05 February 2019. Firstly, Dr Pickavance was not the applicant’s regular general practitioner. Secondly, the purpose of his examination performed on 13 August 2018 is unclear – was the examination performed for an NDIS application; and if so, how do those results translate to an application for the DSP? Thirdly, the brief nature of the clinical note is open to speculation and guesswork. Such uncertainty is clearly unsafe and unsatisfactory.

20. Furthermore, the results of the examination performed by Dr Pickavance on 13 August 2018, and his opinion about them (as expressed on 05 February 2019) is somewhat, if not largely, contradicted by the following more contemporary opinions he gave in relation to the direct question of the applicant’s capacity for work, namely:

    (a)the Medical Certificate dated 11 October 2017 - T18, page 58 - Permanent condition, no prognosis given, unfit for work or study from 11/10/2017 to 08/01/2018, back pain may impact on his return to work or study – realistically given his age (61) and condition, his employability is very low…

    (b)the Medical Report dated 22 June 2018 addressed to Centrelink – T11, pages 36-37– This man has chronic, stable degenerative disease of the lumbar spine which is permanent and which renders him permanently unfit for work.

21. Finally, whilst the applicant made some positive representations to job seeking consultants in relation to his possible capacity for work and level of function, the Tribunal accepts that these representations were made by a stoical, cooperative and polite gentleman who was struggling to accept that his independent, working life had ended. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has placed little weight on the matters self-reported by the applicant when he was interviewed.   

22. Having reviewed all of the medical evidence, the job/employment reports and the oral evidence given at hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had a continuing inability to work and/or study during the qualification period, as required under the Act.

    CONCLUSION

23. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s circumstances satisfied s 94(1) (b) and (c) of the Act during the qualification period. Thus he qualified for the Disability Support Pension.

    DECISION

24. The decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) on 18 December 2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Secretary for action pursuant to the findings outlined in this decision.  

61.     I certify that the preceding sixty (60)   paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Miss Amy Wood, Member

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

Associate

Dated:            3 October 2019

Date of hearing:	02 August 2019
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Michael Tamblyn, Principal Lawyer, Social Security Rights Victoria.
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Jackie Vetter, Sparke Helmore Lawyers