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

Dignam and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 3439 (7 September 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2019/6717
Re:Aaron Dignam
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member W Frost
Date:7 September 2020
Place:Canberra

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
............................................................
Member W Frost
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – pensions, benefits and allowances – disability support pension –- eligibility for disability support pension – whether the applicant’s impairments are fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised - whether 20 points or more under the impairment tables during the relevant period – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 37, 43
Social Security Act 1991 ss 94, 26
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 ss 17, 1169
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 sch 2 cl 4; s 5, 6, 10, 11
Cases
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447
Gallacher and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123
Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252
Swanson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] AATA 606
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member W Frost
7 September 2020
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, Mr Aaron Dignam, is 45 years old and lives in Queanbeyan, New South Wales. Mr Dignam has multiple medical conditions that give rise to his claim for the Disability Support Pension (DSP), which was made on 5 July 2018 and is the subject of this decision.
Mr Dignam’s claim for the DSP was rejected by the Department of Human Services, now Services Australia (referred to here as the Agency). In August 2019, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the Agency’s decision to reject Mr Dignam’s claim for the DSP and, in October 2019, the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) also affirmed this rejection. Mr Dignam subsequently applied for review of the AAT1 decision by the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal).
The Agency, on behalf of the Respondent, did not consider that Mr Dignam was qualified for the DSP at the date of his claim in July 2018, or within the relevant 13 weeks thereafter, because four of his five conditions, while fully diagnosed, were not ‘fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’, with the fifth condition not considered to have been ‘fully diagnosed’. Accordingly, none of these conditions could be assigned an impairment rating to meet the required 20 points in the impairment tables (Impairment Tables) set out in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Determination). The Agency also contended that Mr Dignam did not have a continuing inability to work.
ISSUE
The issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr Dignam was qualified to receive the DSP at the date of his claim on 5 July 2018 or within the following 13 weeks.
BACKGROUND
In May 2012, Mr Dignam suffered an injury to his right shoulder while working as a freight handler and delivery driver.[1] A representative of Mr Dignam’s employer, Keltean Pty Ltd, reported that the injury occurred when he was ‘unloading pallets off truck when 2^nd pallet was unstable, he grabbed at it to save from falling & injured his right shoulder’.[2] Mr Dignam also reported at the time that the injury happened when ‘trying to save a 600kg pallet from falling off tailgate of truck’.[3]
[1] Exhibit R1, T4, pages 91-96; Exhibit R2, ST2, page 300.
[2] Exhibit R1, T4, page 91.
[3] ibid., page 93.
Up until 26 April 2013, Mr Dignam received weekly compensation payments in relation to his 2012 injury.[4]
[4] Exhibit R2, ST2, page 300.
On 24 July 2014, Mr Dignam was granted the DSP.[5]
[5] Exhibit R1, T32, page 265.
In 2016 and 2017, Mr Dignam received lump sum payments for workers’ compensation and public liability in relation to his 2012 injury.[6]
[6] Exhibit R2, ST2, pages 298-303.
On 9 March 2017, the Agency cancelled Mr Dignam’s then receipt of the DSP due to the application of a ‘Compensation Preclusion Period’ as a result of his receipt of the abovementioned lump sum payments arising from the workplace injury (Preclusion Period). Pursuant to sections 17 and 1169 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Act), payment of the DSP is affected by a person receiving a lump sum compensation payment, which generally results in a ‘lump sum preclusion period’, during which the DSP is not payable to that person. The Agency found that the Preclusion Period ran from 27 April 2013 (being the day after Mr Dignam was last paid weekly compensation payments) to 21 December 2018.[7]
[7] ibid.
On 5 April 2017, following Mr Dignam’s requested review of the Agency’s decision, an ARO affirmed the cancellation of Mr Dignam’s DSP, but changed the Preclusion Period by extending it until 24 October 2020.[8] As a result of the ARO’s decision in April 2017 regarding the Preclusion Period, and in circumstances where there is no evidence before this Tribunal of that decision no longer being applicable, Mr Dignam is unable to receive payment of the DSP until after 24 October 2020 (subject to meeting the eligibility requirements of that social security payment).
[8] ibid.
On 5 July 2018, Mr Dignam lodged his DSP claim, that is the subject of this decision, with the Agency (being Document numbered ‘T24’ in the bundle of documents lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act)).[9] In his claim form, Mr Dignam listed his ‘disabilities or medical conditions’ as being: right shoulder injuries/tear, osteoarthritis in both knees, sleep apnoea, left shoulder tear, diabetes, hip displacement, back spasms and a low immune system.[10] This decision of the Tribunal relates only to the eligibility of Mr Dignam to receive the DSP for his medical conditions as they were during the qualification period in 2018. This decision does not consider the length or applicability of the Preclusion Period, including to any payment of the DSP, which was the subject of an ARO decision in 2017 and has not been appealed to the Tribunal, and is not the subject of this proceeding.
[9] Exhibit R1, T24, pages 216-246.
[10] ibid., page 240.
On 15 July 2018, Mr Dignam’s claim for the DSP was rejected by the Agency on the basis of its assessment that his conditions did not amount to an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.[11]
[11] Exhibit R1, T27, pages 250-251.
On 8 August 2019, an ARO of the Agency affirmed the rejection of Mr Dignam’s DSP claim.[12] The ARO found that Mr Dignam’s conditions were ‘right shoulder disorder, bilateral knee disorder, obesity, insulin resistance, sleep apnoea and mental health disorder’, but did not accept these as permanent because they had not been ‘fully treated and stabilised’.[13] The ARO further noted that:[14]
I acknowledge these conditions affect your day to day functioning. However, there was insufficient medical evidence lodged detailing what specialist treatments and investigations have been undertaken to reduce the current functional impact of your conditions on your work capacity. Therefore, these conditions are not optimally treated and cannot be considered for an impairment rating.
[12] Exhibit R1, T30, pages 255-257.
[13] ibid., page 256.
[14] ibid., page 257.
On 22 August 2019, Mr Dignam applied to the AAT1 for review of the Agency’s decision.[15] In his application, Mr Dignam claimed the decision was wrong because ‘nothing is different or has improved since I was on a disability pension previously and I’m asking for a review to look at reducing my preclusion period’.[16]
[15] Exhibit R1, T31, pages 260-263.
[16] ibid., page 263.
On 8 October 2019, the AAT1 affirmed the rejection of Mr Dignam’s DSP claim.[17] The AAT1 found that four of Mr Dignam’s conditions, being right shoulder disorder, bilateral knee disorder, sleep apnoea and diabetes/obesity, were neither ‘fully treated’ nor ‘fully stabilised’ and Mr Dignam’s fifth condition, a mental health condition, was not ‘fully diagnosed’ and therefore none of these conditions could be assigned any impairment rating under the Impairment Tables.
[17] Exhibit R1, T2, pages 5-9.
On 17 October 2019, Mr Dignam lodged an ‘Application for Review of Decision’ with this Tribunal.[18] In the application, Mr Dignam stated that: ‘I think the decision about my disability pension and preclusion period is wrong’. The Tribunal again notes that the 2017 decision of the Agency regarding the Preclusion Period is not before this Tribunal for review.
CONSIDERATION
[18] Exhibit R1, T1, pages 1-4.
What is the qualification period for assessment of eligibility for the DSP?
Clause 4(1) in Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act) sets out how to determine the ‘start day’ for a social security payment, as follows:
If:
(a)a person (other than a detained person) makes a claim for a relevant social security payment; and
(b)the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the payment; and
(c)assuming the person does not sooner die, the person will, because of the passage of time or the occurrence of an event, become qualified for the payment within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made; and
(d)the person becomes so qualified within that period;
the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the social security payment.
Pursuant to the above, the Tribunal is required to assess Mr Dignam’s DSP claim based on his conditions as at the date his claim was made or within the following 13 weeks.[19] The ‘start day’ for Mr Dignam’s claim for the DSP is the day he lodged that claim, which was 5 July 2018, and the 13 week qualification period therefore runs from that date until 4 October 2018. As explained to Mr Dignam at the hearing, in accordance with the legislative requirements, if there has been any deterioration or change to Mr Dignam’s medical conditions suggesting he may have become qualified for the DSP at a later time (that is, after the end of the qualification period in October 2018), it is irrelevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of his impairments during the qualification period for the purpose of this application and he may seek to make a new claim for the DSP based on the current status of his conditions.
[19] Swanson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] AATA 606 at [7]-[8]; Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252 at 253; Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922; and Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447 at 31-33.
In Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 at [34], the Tribunal stated that:
In the Tribunal’s consideration as to whether a condition has been stabilised and is likely to persist for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal must look at the situation as it was, and the evidence that was available, at the time of the application for DSP (and the subsequent 13 weeks). Any subsequent evolution of a particular condition might be relevant to any weight the Tribunal places on competing prognostications or on an assessment of the quality of the medical reports provided (most notably where evidence indicates that the creator of a medical report may not have had access to all relevant information or may not have turned his or her mind to all the relevant issues). This point is important as it is quite frequently the case that appeals on DSP decisions arrive at this Tribunal twelve or more months after the initial DSP application was refused. In many instances, the natural course of illnesses or injuries has then become more obvious, thereby confounding the professional opinions honestly proffered by thorough and conscientious treating doctors. If a medical condition has progressed since the time of the original DSP application, then it is up to the applicant to make a new DSP application. It is not open in law for this Tribunal to use any evidence of such progression to directly award a DSP because of those changed circumstances.
The Federal Court of Australia in Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123 has endorsed the principle, discussed in Harris[20] and Fanning,[21] that medical reports that come into being after the qualification period will only be relevant to the extent that they refer to the applicant’s condition during the qualification period.[22]
[20] Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252.
[21] Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447.
[22] Gallacher and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123 at [25]-[29].
Accordingly, the Tribunal can only consider Mr Dignam’s eligibility for the DSP within the qualification period commencing on 5 July 2018 and ending on 4 October 2018, assisted by medical information regarding his conditions as they were during that period, not following the end of that qualification period on 4 October 2018.
However, even if the Tribunal were to find that Mr Dignam was eligible during the qualification period for the DSP based on his medical conditions, he would be unable to receive payment of any DSP until the currently applicable Preclusion Period expires on 24 October 2020, subject to meeting all other relevant requirements for that social security payment.
What are the qualification criteria for the DSP?
Section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Act) relevantly provides that a person is qualified for the 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)one of the following applies:
(i) the person has a continuing inability to work…
Evidently from the terms of the above provision, each element of these qualification criteria set out in subsection 94(1)(a) to (c) of the Act must be satisfied for a person to qualify for the DSP.
The Impairment Tables
The Impairment Tables for the DSP and the rules for their application (Rules) were made by legislative Determination pursuant to section 26(1) of the Act. In accordance with section 27 of the Act, the Impairment Tables to be applied by the Tribunal are contained in the Determination, which took effect from 1 January 2012.
As noted above in these reasons, under subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act, a person’s impairment must be determined to be 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. As set out in section 5 of the Rules, the Impairment Tables are: function based rather than diagnosis based; describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations; and are designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment and not to assess conditions.
Section 6 of the Rules sets out how to apply the Impairment Tables when assessing functional capacity and assigning impairment ratings for a person. When applying the Impairment Tables, the impairment ‘must be assessed on the basis of what the person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for the person’ (subsection 6(1)). The Impairment Tables may only be applied after the person’s medical history has been considered and an impairment rating can only be assigned if the person’s condition causing the impairment is ‘permanent’ and the impairment ‘is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years’ (subsections 6(2) and (3) of the Rules).
Subsection 6(4) of the Rules provides that a person’s condition is ‘permanent’ if each of the following criteria is met:
(a)the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner;
(b)the condition has been fully treated;
(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.
In determining whether a condition has been ‘fully diagnosed’ and ‘fully treated’ for the purposes of subsections 6(4)(a) and (b), subsection 6(5) of the Rules provides that the following is to be considered:
(a)whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and
(b)what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and
(c)whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.
Under subsection 6(6) of the Rules, a person’s condition is ‘fully stabilised’ if:
(a)either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or
(b)the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(i) significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or
(ii) there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.
The Rules provide, at subsection 6(7), that ‘reasonable treatment’ is treatment that:
(a)is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; and
(b)is at a reasonable cost; and
(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity; and
(d)is regularly undertaken or performed; and
(e)has a high success rate; and
(f)carries a low risk to the person.
The presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean there will be an impairment to which an impairment rating can be assigned under the Impairment Tables if the condition has no functional impact on the person, including because there has been appropriate treatment for that condition (subsection 6(8) of the Rules).
Subsection 10(1) of the Rules states that table selection from the available Impairment Tables is to be made applying the following steps:
(a)identify the loss of function; then
(b)refer to the Table related to the function affected; then
(c)identify the correct impairment rating.
When assigning an impairment rating, section 11 of the Rules provides that:
(a) an impairment rating can only be assigned in accordance with the rating points in each Table; and
(b)a rating cannot be assigned between consecutive impairment ratings (example: A rating of 15 cannot be assigned between 10 and 20); and
(c)if an impairment is considered as falling between 2 impairment ratings, the lower of the 2 ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied; and
(d)a rating cannot be assigned in excess of the maximum rating specified in each Table.
Was there a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment?
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it, including Mr Dignam’s medical and related reports regarding his conditions, that Mr Dignam had impairments during the qualification period that meet subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act, being that a person ‘has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment’.

While the Respondent accepted that Mr Dignam suffered impairments so as to satisfy this criterion for qualification for the DSP, the Respondent contended that during the qualification period none of Mr Dignam’s conditions could be assigned an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables in order to satisfy subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act, being an impairment ‘of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables’.
Do Mr Dignam’s conditions attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables?
The Tribunal considers Mr Dignam’s impairments below and whether he can be assigned an impairment rating of 20 points or more in relation to those impairments such as to satisfy subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Left and right shoulder condition
In relation to Mr Dignam’s left and right shoulder condition, while the Tribunal accepts that it was ‘fully diagnosed’ as of the qualification period in accordance with subsection 6(4)(a) of the Rules, based on the evidence submitted to the Tribunal it is not satisfied that Mr Dignam’s left and right shoulder condition was ‘fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’ during the qualification period as required by subsection 6(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules.
To this end, the Tribunal sets out the documentary evidence in relation to Mr Dignam’s left and right shoulder condition, as follows:
(a)On 21 June 2012, Dr Maurizio Damiani, Orthopaedic Surgeon, certified that Mr Dignam had that day undergone right shoulder surgery for ‘repair of labral shoulder tear’ (or ‘rotator cuff repair’) and was unfit for work until 15 October 2012 and outlined a post-operative physiotherapy plan for Mr Dignam.[23] Dr Damiani completed a further undated medical certificate which certified Mr Dignam as unfit for work until 14 December 2012.[24]
[23] Exhibit R1, T7, pages 105-106.
[24] ibid., pages 108.
(b)On 11 December 2012, a ‘Work Readiness Assessment Report’ completed by Vaish Muralidharan, Injury Management Consultant with ‘WorkFocus Australia’, made the following relevant recommendations for Mr Dignam to achieve his return to work by March 2013:[25]
[25] Exhibit R1, T9, pages 114-117.
Ongoing vocational rehabilitation services are appropriate to assist Mr Dignam in his return to a new role as per recommendations from Dr Buczynski.
WorkFocus Australia to commence workplace preparation and job seeking for Mr Dignam following a Vocational assessment.
WorkFocus Australia to continue to monitor Mr Dignam’s progress with his gym program and attend medical reviews with Dr Buczynski to ensure relevant upgrades in his functional capacity.
(c)On 16 December 2012, Stuart Andrews from ‘Fit-To-Manage’, Rehabilitation Specialists, reported that Mr Dignam had completed a ‘twelve-week physical rehabilitation program’ and that:[26]
[26] Exhibit R1, T10, pages 118-119.
At the completion of the FTM program, Mr Dignam stated that his right shoulder symptoms have significantly improved and he stated that he is far less guarded about using his right shoulder. Mr Dignam informed FTM that he has been regularly undertaking the home based stretching exercises that FTM has out in place for him as part of his ongoing self managed exercise program and as a result he is feeling far more mobile and more confident about self-managing his right shoulder condition long term.
In closing, given Mr Dignam’s progress with FTM to date, I am confident that he will be able to self-manage his bilateral shoulder condition in the future as long as he remains committed to the self managed exercises that FTM has put in place for him.
(d)On 23 January 2013, Anita Nikoloska, Rehabilitation Consultant with ‘WorkFocus Australia’, noted that Mr Dignam was ‘certified fit for modified duties for 40 hours per week from 11 January 2013 to 12 February 2013’, with the following strategies to be implemented:[27]
[27] Exhibit R1, T11, pages 120-129.
WorkFocus Australia to assist Mr Dignam to obtain a Work Trial in one of the vocational occupations identified with a view to clarifying his suitability, work capacity for this occupation and facilitating job placement.
Mr Dignam to continue completing treatment to assist with pain management.
WorkFocus Australia to provide job seeking skills training and assistance to Mr Dignam to assist in developing job seeking skills.
Mr Dignam to attend regular medical reviews with Dr Buczynski, Nominated Treating Doctor, to obtain an update on his progress and treatment options.
WorkFocus Australia to liaise with the treating parties and Mr Dignam to review his current treatment and to obtain updates on medical progress.
(e)On 12 April 2013, Dr Leslaw Buczynski, General Practitioner, completed a ‘Medical Certificate for Workers Compensation’ in relation to Mr Dignam’s ‘R shoulder injury’ and declared him unfit to work from that date until 28 June 2013 when he would again be reviewed.[28] Also on 12 April 2013, Dr Buczynski completed a ‘Medical Report’ to be submitted to the Agency in relation to Mr Dignam’s right shoulder condition and his eligibility for the DSP.[29]
[28] Exhibit R1, T15, page 133.
[29] Exhibit R1, T16, pages 135-145.
(f)On 22 May 2013, Dr James Bodel, Orthopaedic Surgeon, relevantly reported that:[30]
[30] Exhibit R1, T17, pages 147-151.
Returning [to] the shoulder, he was eventually referred to Dr Damiani who confirmed significant rotator cuff pathology and he recommended a surgical repair which was done on 21 June 2012. I have seen the operative report indicating that there was damage to the subscapularis and the supraspinatus and he required a debridement of a lesion on the glenoid and removal of a loose body and microfracture of the glenoid. The supraspinatus had a full thickness bursal-sided tear about 1cm wide.
At this stage a year later, Mr Dignam indicates that this has helped but has not cured the symptoms. He did have continuing pain and a repeat MRI scan was offered but not yet done.
…
There is impingement in the region of the right shoulder but no instability. There is no lack of elbow, wrist or hand movement and no clinical sign of radiculopathy. There is no reflect abnormality or sensory impairment in the upper limbs.
…
The treatment letters from Dr Damiani confirm that he has responded well to the surgery on the shoulder although the shoulder is by no means normal. He has recommended further investigation to see if anything further can be done to assist him.
…
His prognosis remains guarded. He is considerably overweight. He has significant pathology in the right shoulder and he has arthritis in both knees. He must reduce his weight and improve his fitness levels in order to optimise his long term outcome.
…
This gentleman’s treatment has been appropriate particularly in the shoulders, the further investigations recommended by his doctors are also appropriate to further assist him in recovery.
…
This gentleman does have a partial incapacity to work. He is not fit to drive trucks or to get in and out of trucks because of his ongoing knee and shoulder pain. He will need to be retrained in alternative duties and he should be able to work 20 hours a week in permanently modified duties.
…
Future treatment will include the investigation [sic] and surgery may follow as a result of those findings although I believe it is unlikely.
…
This gentleman’s care and rehabilitation requirements are a difficult issue, he is considerably overweight and has gained 20kg in weight since his injury. He must reduce his weight to have any chance of returning to reasonable function.
(g)On 18 September 2013, a Job Capacity Assessment Report completed for the Agency found that Mr Dignam’s right shoulder condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and recommended assigning an impairment rating of 5 points under the Impairment Tables, which was insufficient to be eligible for the DSP.[31] The report also recommended that Mr Dignam receive ‘specialist disability employment interventions’ with a Disability Employment Services provider due to his right shoulder condition and bilateral knee condition.
[31] Exhibit R1, T18, pages 155-164.
(h)On 7 March 2014, Dr David Sonnabend, Orthopaedic Surgeon, examined Mr Dignam and reported that:[32]
[32] Exhibit R1, T20, pages 187-193.
He has taken large amounts of analgesics, initially Endone and Oxycontin and more recently Panadeine Forte. He has been taking Panadeine Forte daily for approximately 15 months, using 12 to 15 tablets per day.
…
Mr Dignam is woken at night by shoulder pain. Mr Dignam copes moderately well with dressing and undressing, and can reach overhead without excessive difficulty, although there is some discomfort over the top of the shoulder when he does so. Mr Dignam describes his problem as one of awkwardness, tightness and discomfort rather than pain. In general terms, he feels that is right shoulder is static, or that he may in fact be losing strength slowly with time.
Currently, Mr Dignam’s left shoulder is in fact more painful than the right. Mr Dignam has experienced increasing pain in the left shoulder over the last six months. He is a heavy man, weighing over 150kgs, and lifting himself largely with his left hand out of a recliner chair in which he generally sits places an enormous load on the left shoulder. He blames this for his current situation.
…
Mr Dignam has not had an MRI since his surgery. It was recommended by Dr Damiane [sic] but the insurers declined responsibility and the investigation was too expensive for Mr Dignam.
…
Mr Dignam’s right shoulder problem is clearly related to the injury of May 2012. Mr Dignam has undergone no imaging of his right shoulder since his surgery of June 2012, and the nature of any ongoing right shoulder pathology is unclear. There may well be failure of healing of the right rotator cuff or subscapularis repair, or complications of the anchors used for those repairs. The size of Mr Dignam’s shoulders and his general bodily habitus make it almost impossible to reach an accurate diagnosis on the grounds of physical examination alone, and I believe further imaging studies are indicated…The use of an “open” MRI is one imaging option. Alternatively, careful ultrasound examination together with new plain radiographs of both shoulders would be of assistance. Ultrasound of Mr Dignam’s shoulders would be a difficult undertaking, and should be performed by a Radiologist with particular skill and expertise in shoulder ultrasound if it is to be relied on. I would not be surprised of further imaging studies did confirm failure of the supraspinatus and subscapularis repairs.
In the absence of further imaging studies, I am unable to provide an accurate diagnosis of Mr Dignam’s shoulder conditions (right and left) and hence unable to provide any realistic long term prognosis.
…
There is an obvious permanent disability related to the shoulder conditions, and a resultant incapacity for heavy manual work or work requiring strenuous or repetitive forward reaching or overhead activity with the right arm.
…
Long term prognosis depends on accurate diagnosis, which as noted above, is currently not available.
In the absence of accurate diagnosis, I am unable to provide any realistic advice regarding future treatment.
Mr Dignam’s care and rehabilitation requirements are complex. Supervised extensive weight loss would appear to be a major priority. Just how this should be approached, and whether bariatric surgery has any role in this, is beyond my expertise. Mr Dignam would benefit from active shoulder rehabilitation, but just how this should be approached, and what it would entail, depends on accurate diagnosis, currently not available. [emphasis in original]
(i)On 23 July 2014, Dr Buczynski completed another ‘Medical Report’ in relation to Mr Dignam’s right shoulder condition (among other conditions) for submission to the Agency and its consideration of Ms Dignam’s eligibility for the DSP.[33] On the following day, Mr Dignam was granted the DSP.[34]
(j)On 4 November 2014, a further Job Capacity Assessment Report completed by the Agency again found that Mr Dignam’s right shoulder condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, but on this occasion recommended assigning an impairment rating of 20 points under the Impairment Tables (being a ‘severe functional impact on activities using hands or arms’).[35] The report also recommended that Mr Dignam be referred to a Disability Employment Services provider, which referral was said to have been accepted by Mr Dignam.
(k)On 5 July 2018, Dr Buczynski reported in a medical certificate that Mr Dignam suffered from chronic right shoulder pain and certified him as unfit for work from that date until 31 December 2018.[36]
(l)On 3 October 2019, being after the qualification period, Mr Dignam had an x-ray and ultrasound on his shoulders.[37] The x-ray disclosed a degree of ‘degenerative change’ in both shoulders. The ultrasound showed tendinosis in both shoulders, in addition to bursitis in the right shoulder and a ‘thickening of subacromial/subdeltoid bursa’ in the left shoulder.
[33] Exhibit R1, T21, pages 194-204.
[34] Exhibit R1, T32, page 265.
[35] Exhibit R1, T23, pages 206-215.
[36] Exhibit R1, T25, page 247.
[37] Exhibit A1.
Following Mr Dignam’s workplace accident in 2012, it is evident that he had completed reasonable treatment for his right shoulder injury. However, as identified by Dr Sonnabend in March 2014, by that time, there were further medical issues affecting Mr Dignam’s right shoulder that had also begun to impede the functioning of his left shoulder. Dr Sonnabend further indicated a likelihood that the right shoulder injury had failed to properly heal following the 2012 surgery or at least that there were post-operative complications. Dr Sonnabend also identified comorbidities that affected Mr Dignam’s left and right shoulder condition and recommended further investigation and treatment, such as weight loss, rehabilitation and an MRI scan. In relation to this last recommendation, Dr Sonnabend stated that without further imaging he was unable to provide an accurate diagnosis of Mr Dignam’s right and left shoulder condition. Despite Mr Dignam being granted the DSP in July 2014, in addition to a Job Capacity Assessment Report recommending to the Agency in November 2014 that Mr Dignam’s right shoulder injury was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that as of the qualification period in 2018 Mr Dignam had undertaken the investigations or completed the treatments recommended by Dr Sonnabend in March 2014.
As a result, while the Tribunal accepts that Mr Dignam’s right and left shoulder condition was ‘fully diagnosed’ as at the qualification period, it is not satisfied that this condition was ‘fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’ and, pursuant to subsection 6(3) of the Rules, the Tribunal cannot assign an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables for this condition.
Bilateral knee condition
In relation to Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was ‘fully diagnosed’ as at the qualification period as required by subsection 6(4)(a) of the Rules. However, based on the evidence submitted to the Tribunal, it is not satisfied that this condition was ‘fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’ during the qualification period as required by subsection 6(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules.
To this end, the Tribunal sets out the documentary evidence in relation to Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition, as follows:
a.On 5 March 2013, Mr Dignam underwent an x-ray on both knees following a referral stating that he had sore knees ‘from getting in and out of truck’. The associated report stated that:[38]
[38] Exhibit R1, T13, page 131.
There are small bilateral joint effusions. There are tricompartmental osteoarthritic changes characterised predominantly by osteophytic lipping. Joint space is relatively well preserved.
b.On 13 March 2013, Dr Buczynski, General Practitioner, wrote that it ‘is very likely that chronic jumping out of the truck and the last incident aggravated his osteoarthritic changes in both of the knees’.[39]
[39] Exhibit R1, T14, page 132.
c.On 12 April 2013, Dr Buczynski completed a ‘Medical Certificate for Workers Compensation’ in relation to Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition and declared him unfit for work from that date until 28 June 2013.[40] Also on 12 April 2013, Dr Buczynski completed a ‘Medical Report’ to be submitted to the Agency in relation to Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition and his eligibility for the DSP.[41]
[40] Exhibit R1, T15, page 134.
[41] Exhibit R1, T16, pages 135-145.
d.On 22 May 2013, Dr James Bodel, Orthopaedic Surgeon, recorded a history of Mr Dignam developing ‘increasing knee pain and this came on gradually over a period of a week after the original injury’ at the workplace in 2012.[42] Dr Bodel relevantly reported that Mr Dignam:
[42] Exhibit R1, T17, pages 146-152.
did have x-rays eventually and he has been told that he has tri-compartmental osteoarthritis in the knees. He has been advised to take fish oil and glucosamine. He has had MRI scans ordered. He is taking Panadeine Forte.
…
This gentleman has pain in both knees. Any attempt to kneel, squat or climb aggravates the pain…
…
The arthritic change to the knee has been caused by a number of constitutional factors including his weight but the event that he describes has aggravated that underlying degenerative process. This injury does not incapacitate him for his pre-injury work.
…
Future treatment will include the investigation [sic] and surgery may follow as a result of those findings although I believe it is unlikely. In the longer term he will need knee replacements in his knees but he is far too young to consider that as an option at this stage.
…
This gentleman’s care and rehabilitation requirements are a difficult issue, he is considerably overweight and has gained 20kg in weight since his injury. He must reduce his weight to have any chance of returning to reasonable function. His knees will not tolerate his weight at this stage and he may need bariatric surgery to assist in that process.
e.On 18 September 2013, a Job Capacity Assessment Report completed for the Agency found that Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition was fully diagnosed, but not fully treated and stabilised and therefore did not assign an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables.[43]
f.On 17 January 2014, Dr Vincent de Giovanni, Forensic Occupational Psychologist, reported that Mr Dignam had stated that both his knees were injured, but he had not undertaken any treatment.[44] Dr de Giovanni also reported that Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition affects ‘mobility and a range of lower-limb functions (stairs, kneeling, squatting, transferring in and out of vehicles and chairs, etc)’. Dr de Giovanni also referred to an undated medical report from Dr Damian Smith which identified ‘patella-femoral joint irritability, pain and crepitation on examination and osteoarthritis identified on plain X-ray’.[45]
g.On 23 July 2014, Dr Buczynski completed another ‘Medical Report’ in relation to Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition (among others) for submission to the Agency and its consideration of Ms Dignam’s eligibility for the DSP.[46] Mr Dignam was granted the DSP on the next day.[47]
h.On 4 November 2014, a further Job Capacity Assessment Report completed by the Agency found that Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and recommended assigning an impairment rating of 20 points under the Impairment Tables (being a ‘severe functional impact on activities using lower limbs’).[48]
i.On 5 July 2018, being the day Mr Dignam made the DSP claim that is currently the subject of this proceeding, Dr Buczynski reported in a medical certificate that Mr Dignam suffered from chronic pain due to his bilateral knee condition and certified him as unfit for work from that date until 31 December 2018.[49]
j.On 26 July 2018, which was during the qualification period for the DSP, Dr Buczynski reported that since Mr Dignam’s workplace accident in 2012 he had suffered from ‘severe chronic pain, affecting both knees, shoulders and low back for which he has to take opioid analgesia, Targin and Endone’.[50]
k.On 3 October 2019, Mr Dignam had an x-ray and ultrasound on his knees.[51] The x-ray demonstrated degenerative change and osteophytes and a suprapatellar joint effusion in both knees.
l.On 8 October 2019, Mr Dignam advised the AAT1 that he had lost over 40kg since gastric sleeve surgery in May 2019.[52]
[43] Exhibit R1, T18, pages 155-164.
[44] Exhibit R1, T19, pages 165-186.
[45] ibid.
[46] Exhibit R1, T21, pages 194-204.
[47] Exhibit R1, T32, page 265.
[48] Exhibit R1, T23, pages 206-215.
[49] Exhibit R1, T25, page 247.
[50] Exhibit R1, T28, page 252.
[51] Exhibit A1.
[52] Exhibit R1, T2, page 8.

Despite a Job Capacity Assessment Report in November 2014 stating that Mr Dignam’s bilateral knee condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and evidence that he was undertaking pharmacological treatment, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that, as of the qualification period in 2018, Mr Dignam completed the investigations or further treatment for his bilateral knee condition recommended by Dr Bodel in 2013, such as a reduction in his weight. In this regard, in 2014, Dr Sonnabend observed that Mr Dignam’s weight had in two years increased from 123kg to 151kgs[53] and during the qualification period in July 2018, Dr Buczynski reported that Mr Dignam was 140kg and taking medication for his bilateral knee condition.[54] It was not until May 2019 that Mr Dignam had gastric sleeve surgery to seek to reduce his weight.
[53] Exhibit R1, T20, page 189.
[54] Exhibit R1, T28, page 252.
On the current evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, as at the end of the qualification period in October 2018, Mr Dignam had completed all reasonable treatment in accordance with subsections 6(6) and (7) of the Rules. Therefore, pursuant to the Rules, an impairment rating cannot be assigned to any impairment arising from this condition under the Impairment Tables.
Sleep apnoea
In relation to Mr Dignam’s sleep apnoea, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it was ‘fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’ as of the qualification period as required by subsection 6(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules. To this end, the Tribunal sets out the evidence in relation to Mr Dignam’s sleep apnoea, as follows:
a.    On 17 October 2014, Dr Buczynski wrote a referral letter to Dr Peter Jones, in the Department of Respiratory & Sleep Medicine at the Canberra Hospital, as follows:[55]
Thank you for seeing Aaron who was diagnosed with sleep apnea [sic] many years ago. Unfortunately he is not using CPAP because he says it was very uncomfortable. According to Aaron, it was in 2001 when he was first diagnosed. Aaron has also suffered an injury to his knees and right shoulder and he is not able to work. He is also not able to exercise and unfortunately has put on a lot of weight. He complains of sleep apnea [sic] symtpoms [sic]. His blood pressure is high and he is becoming insulin resistent [sic].
I would be grateful for a review of his sleep apnea [sic] and perhaps he may reconsider using CPAP again.
b.    On 4 November 2014, a Job Capacity Assessment Report completed for the Agency found that Mr Dignam’s ‘Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease’ was fully diagnosed, but not fully treated and stabilised due to insufficient evidence.[56]
c.     On 5 July 2018, Dr Buczynski reported in a medical certificate that Mr Dignam suffered from sleep apnoea, and his symptoms were ‘tiredness’.[57] There was no date of onset listed for this condition, however Mr Dignam told the AAT1 that he had suffered from sleep apnoea since 1999,[58] and told Dr Buczynski in 2014 that it was first diagnosed in 2001.[59]
d.    On 26 July 2018, being during the qualification period, Dr Buczynski stated that Mr Dignam ‘suffers from severe obstructive sleep apnea [sic] and hypertension’.[60]
e.    On 2 January 2019, being after the qualification period, Dr Stuart Miller reported that Mr Dignam’s ‘Level 2 sleep study’ conducted on 4 December 2018, identified ‘severe sleep apnoea’ and recommended a ‘trial of CPAP’.[61]
f.   On 8 October 2019, Mr Dignam informed the AAT1 that he lost 40kg and hired a CPAP machine in late 2018, five months after his DSP claim and after the qualification period.[62] The Tribunal notes for completeness that Mr Dignam also informed the AAT1 that he had an unsuccessful experience with a CPAP machine in 1999, but told this Tribunal that he has since bought a CPAP machine that he was successfully using to treat his sleep apnoea. To this end, Mr Dignam confirmed to the Tribunal that he had not completed all reasonable treatment by the end of the qualification period ending in October 2018.
[55] Exhibit R1, T22, page 205.
[56] Exhibit R1, T23, pages 208-209.
[57] Exhibit R1, T25, page 247.
[58] Exhibit R1, T2, page 8
[59] Exhibit R1, T22, page 205.
[60] Exhibit R1, T28, page 252.
[61] Exhibit R2, ST1, pages 283-297.
[62] Exhibit R1, T1, page 8.
Based on the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, as of the qualification period, Mr Dignam’s sleep apnoea was fully treated and fully stabilised, because he was not undertaking reasonable treatment during the qualification period, such as the use of a CPAP machine. In this regard, Dr Miller’s January 2019 report stated that Mr Dignam underwent a sleep study in December 2018,[63] which was after the end of the qualification period in October 2018. That is, Mr Dignam sought further investigation and treatment for his sleep apnoea after the qualification period. Accordingly, this condition cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.
[63] Exhibit R2, ST1, page 283.
Diabetes / Obesity
In relation to Mr Dignam’s diabetes and obesity, the Tribunal is not satisfied that they were ‘fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’ as of the qualification period as required by subsection 6(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules. To this end, the Tribunal sets out the documentary evidence in relation to this condition, as follows:
a. On 26 July 2018, during the qualification period, Dr Buczynski reported that Mr Dignam ‘has always been overweight but following the [2012] accident he gained more weight and now weighs more than 140kgs. Consequently he became insulin resistant and became diabetic’.[64]
b. On 8 October 2019, Mr Dignam informed the AAT1 that he had lost 40kg since May 2019, when he had gastric sleeve surgery, being after the qualification period.[65]
[64] Exhibit R1, T28, page 252.
[65] Exhibit R1, T2, page 8.
Mr Dignam told this Tribunal that he had developed diverticulitis as a result of the gastric sleeve surgery in May 2019. In this regard, medical professionals had reportedly informed Mr Dignam that in hindsight he should not have had this surgery due to its effect on his diet and he was currently ‘living off two minute noodles’ because he ‘can’t eat anything else otherwise I’m in pain’.
Based on the lack of evidence regarding this condition, specifically any treatment undertaken during the qualification period ending in October 2018, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Dignam’s diabetes was fully treated and stabilised at that time. Mr Dignam’s obesity is a comorbidity with his diabetes and was also not treated as of the qualification period. Therefore, the condition was neither ‘fully treated’ nor ‘fully stabilised’ in accordance with subsection 6(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules.
Mental health condition
In relation to Mr Dignam’s mental health condition, based on the evidence submitted to the Tribunal it is not satisfied that this condition was ‘fully diagnosed’, fully treated’ and ‘fully stabilised’ as of the qualification period and required by subsection 6(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the Rules.
To this end, the Tribunal sets out the documentary evidence in relation to Mr Dignam’s mental health condition, as follows:
a.On 18 January 2014, Dr de Giovanni, Forensic Occupational Psychologist, relevantly reported that:[66]
[66] Exhibit R1, T19, pages 165-186.
Mr Dignam is reporting extremely severe levels of depression and anxiety; and while these ideally would need to be more comprehensively evaluated, his apparent fixation on finding a medical answer to his problems because he believes this is where the only solution to his condition will be found suggests an Adjustment Disorder may be in evidence, so there may be some psychological issues that also need to be dealt with.
…
Mr Dignam was administered the Personality Assessment Screener…to briefly investigate the potential significance of his claim of psychological symptoms associated with his physical injury.
…
Follow-up assessment is very likely to identify significant problems with depression, anxiety, personal distress, tension, worry, and feeling demoralized.
…
He describes himself as living a hermit’s existence at this time by choice. Continuing to do so may result in more serious psychological consequences.
…
Mr Dignam is experiencing thoughts of death or suicide. Follow-up evaluation is strongly recommended and should include an immediate evaluation of current suicidal ideation as his ‘marked’ result in the Negative Affect domain points to there being some degree of potential threat of his acting on any suicidal thoughts.
Given these results from the PAS further clinical assessment by either a clinical psychologist…or psychiatrist appears warranted.
The DASS (Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale…) is a questionnaire comprising a set of three self-report scales designed to measure the negative emotional states of depression, anxiety and stress.
…
Mr Dignam’s profile from his responses to the DASS suggests he is experiencing a high level of psychological distress. This is consistent with what is suggested from the findings of the PAS…
…
Given Mr Dignam is reporting severe levels of depression, anxiety and stress; and he has been identified as having the potential for other problems of a psychological nature, the need for more comprehensive clinical or psychiatric evaluation is further reinforced.
b.On 23 July 2014, Dr Buczynski completed a ‘Medical Report’ in relation to Mr Dignam’s medical conditions for submission to the Agency in its consideration of Ms Dignam’s eligibility for the DSP. This report listed ‘depression due to chronic pain’ as a condition that causes ‘minimal or limited impact on ability to function’.[67] The Tribunal again notes that Mr Dignam was granted the DSP on the next day.[68]
c.On 26 July 2018, that is, during the qualification period, Dr Buczynski reported that as a result of Mr Dignam’s accident in 2012:[69]
he was not able to return to his usual job and has been unemployed since then. Subsequently he developed depression and anxiety although his psychological problems are going back long to his younger age…All the above health issues had severe impact to make his depression worse, significantly decreasing his motivation and ability to look for any work.
…
As part of his treatment for depression and anxiety he has a mental health plan but unfortunately is not able to afford a psychologist even with his plan.
d.On 31 October 2019, one year after the qualification period, Dr Buczynski prepared a mental health treatment plan for Mr Dignam in relation to his depression and anxiety and made a referral to a psychologist.[70]
e.On 21 July 2020, Narelle Reed, Mental Health Clinician, reported that Mr Dignam ‘has attended regular appointments for mental health assessment and intervention’ since 18 May 2020 for his ‘severe and complex health and mental health needs’ which are ‘consistent with symptoms of a Depressive disorder and with anxious symptoms’. Mr Dignam has been referred to a psychiatrist ‘for review and for diagnosis’.[71]
[67] Exhibit R1, T21, page 203.
[68] Exhibit R1, T32, page 265.
[69] Exhibit R1, T28, page 252.
[70] Exhibit R2, ST1, pages 291-297.
[71] Exhibit R2, ST3, page 304.
Mr Dignam told the Tribunal at the hearing that his mental health condition has ‘escalated’, he is a ‘hermit’ and no longer leaves the house, unless to shop very late at night to avoid interacting with people because he is a ‘walking, ticking time bomb’. Furthermore, he has a psychologist and counsellor regularly checking on his mental state because of concerns for his wellbeing.
Based on this evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Dignam’s mental health condition was ‘fully diagnosed’ as of the qualification period by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, as required under Table 5 of the Impairment Tables. In this regard, in 2014, Dr de Giovanni reported that Mr Dignam required ‘more comprehensive clinical or psychiatric evaluation’.[72] During the qualification period in July 2018, Dr Buczynski noted that Mr Dignam could not afford to see a psychologist.[73] Additionally, one year after the end of the qualification period, Dr Buczynski completed a mental health plan for Mr Dignam and referred him to a psychologist.[74] This year, Mr Dignam has been attending regular appointments with a mental health clinician, who has referred him to a psychiatrist ‘for review and for diagnosis’.[75] Accordingly, and pursuant to the Rules, Mr Dignam’s mental health condition cannot be assigned an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables.
[72] Exhibit R1, T19, page 184.
[73] Exhibit R1, T28, page 252.
[74] Exhibit R2, ST1, pages 291-297.
[75] Exhibit R2, ST3, page 304.
CONCLUSION
Mr Dignam made his claim for the DSP in July 2018. Although Mr Dignam’s present circumstances are such that a different outcome may be reached if he lodged a new DSP claim with the Agency together with supporting evidence regarding his conditions and associated treatment, for the purpose of the current review before the Tribunal, it must apply the terms of the Act and the Rules to his DSP application from July 2018 and throughout the qualification period ending almost two years ago on 4 October 2018.
As a result, and based on the evidence set out above in these reasons, the Tribunal finds that during the qualification period Mr Dignam could not be assigned any impairment rating under the Impairment Tables for any of his conditions. Mr Dignam’s claim for the DSP before the Tribunal therefore fails to satisfy subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act requiring an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.
Because the Tribunal has found that Mr Dignam did not have a total impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, given the conjunctive nature of subsection 94(1) of the Act, requiring each element to be met by an applicant, the Tribunal is not required to consider whether Mr Dignam had a ‘continuing inability to work’ pursuant to subsection 94(1)(c), in order to determine whether he meets this subsequent element of the DSP qualification criteria.
Accordingly, Mr Dignam’s application before this Tribunal is unsuccessful. This does not diminish the nature of the conditions suffered by Mr Dignam but rather that the requisite legislative criteria has not been met. The Tribunal also understands the frustration currently experienced by Mr Dignam in circumstances where his conditions the subject of his 2018 claim for DSP have progressed since he previously received the DSP up until 2014 because of some of those conditions. Again, the Tribunal does not seek to diminish the conditions experienced by Mr Dignam, but it has to apply the relevant legislative instruments to the evidence in relation to his conditions during the qualification period between July and October 2018. As the Tribunal has noted, Mr Dignam is able to make a new claim for the DSP with the Agency at any time, accompanied by contemporaneous evidence regarding his conditions and associated treatment.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the AAT Act.

I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member W Frost.

........................................................................
Associate
Dated: 7 September 2020

Date of hearing: 31 August 2020

Applicant: By telephone

Solicitor for Respondent: Mr Allan Quanchi, Services Australia

[2020] AATA 3439

7 September 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing

Jurisdiction

Date of hearing:	31 August 2020
Applicant:	By telephone
Solicitor for Respondent:	Mr Allan Quanchi, Services Australia