Dorothy Coventry and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2013] AATA 824
[2013] AATA 824
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2013/2942
Re
Dorothy Coventry
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe
Date 29 October 2013 Date of written reasons 20 November 2013 Place Brisbane (heard on the Gold Coast) The decision under review is affirmed.
........................[Sgd]................................................
Senior Member Bernard J McCabe
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Pensions, benefits and allowances – Disability Support Pension – Participation in Programs of Support – Decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 42A
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Bernard J McCabe
20 November 2013
Ms Coventry applied for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) in September 2012. Her application was refused. Ms Coventry did not attend the hearing on the Gold Coast despite being given proper notice that it was to occur. Her absence was unexplained. Rather than adjourning the hearing or dismissing the matter for non-appearance pursuant to s 42A(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I decided it was appropriate to proceed to hear the matter in the applicant’s absence. I decided to affirm the decision under review. I gave oral reasons for that decision. The written reasons that follow are based on the transcript.
In order to be eligible for the DSP Ms Coventry must satisfy a number of medical criteria. These criteria are outlined in s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). The Tribunal must look at the evidence available at the time, and the following 13 week period, when reviewing Ms Coventry’s application for DSP. The question is not whether the applicant would be eligible for DSP now, but would she have been eligible at the time of her application.
The first criterion is that the applicant must have an impairment. As it happens, the evidence suggests Ms Coventry suffers from a number of impairments including anxiety and depression, alcohol dependence and fibromyalgia.
The second requirement is an award of at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables. The respondent submitted, based on the medical reports and the Job Capacity Assessment report (included in exhibit 1), Ms Coventry’s impairments would not be awarded the required points under the relevant Impairment Tables. I have no basis for disputing that evidence. The evidence certainly does not suggest the applicant was likely to get 20 points under a single table.
A continuing inability to work is the final requirement in cases such as this. That can be satisfied if Ms Coventry undertook a Program of Support over 18 months within the three years prior to the date of her DSP claim. There are exceptions to this requirement, most obviously where the applicant is awarded 20 points under a single Impairment Table. There is no evidence suggesting an exception can be made in this case.
Ms Coventry has not fulfilled the Program of Support requirements. She has failed to meet this requirement of the legislation. That means her application cannot succeed.
CONCLUSION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 7 (seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Bernard J McCabe. ........................[Sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated 20 November 2013
Date of hearing 29 October 2013 Applicant No appearance Solicitors for the Respondent Department of Human Services
0
0
0