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

DQJZ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 30 (18 January 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2018/1513
Re:DQJZ
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal: Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member
Date:18 January 2019

Place:Sydney

The decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division is affirmed.
........................[sgd].................................
Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – impairment – whether disability is fully diagnosed, treated and fully stabilised – whether applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables – mental illness – physical ailments – fibromyalgia - decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division is affirmed
LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94(1) and (2)
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION
Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member
18 January 2019

This is my decision and reasons in the matter of DQJZ and the Secretary, Department of Social Services (the “Department”), 1513 of 2018.
In relation to this matter, it is a review of a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT1”), dated 7 March 2018. That decision affirmed the Departmental decision on 22 September 2017, to reject the applicant’s claim for a disability support pension, which she lodged on 9 June 2017.
As a result of changes to the law in 2011, it is now much more difficult to get a Disability Support Pension (“DSP”).
REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION 94(1) AND (2) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 (CTH) (THE “ACT”).
Under section 94(1)(a) of the Act a person has to have an impairment. There is no issue here. Indeed, the applicant has several impairments.
Secondly, section 94(1)(b) of the Act the impairments have to add up, under the Impairment Tables Determination of 2011, to at least 20 points and unless 20 points are allocated to an applicant for any one table alone, then to qualify, a person has to have participated in a Program Of Support (“POS”) for 18 months out of the 36 months prior to applying for a DSP.
Thirdly, section 94(2) of the Act, states that if that occurs, an applicant still has to show a continuing inability to work within two years, for at least 15 hours plus a week, independently of a POS.
In the applicant’s case, in relation to the program of support requirements, she would have had to have done 18 months (546 days) in the 3 years up until the date of her application on 9 June 2017.
She has done 156 days in 2014 and 2015. She went back on the program of support in July of 2017, that is, during the claim period. Accordingly, she does not satisfy the requirements of the POS provision in the Act.
One can get around not doing the program of support if one is severely disabled and can get 20 points for any one of the tables. If that occurs, an applicant only has to show that it is highly unlikely that he/she is not going to be able to do 15 hours a week plus, independently of a POS within two years. Normally, if someone gets 20 points under any of these tables, it really is very unlikely that he/she would be able to work, certainly within two years, if not again, unless for some reason, their condition suddenly improves which most of the time simply is not the case.
As can be seen the bar is a very high one.
Contrary to this is that a person can apply at any time, they just have to dot the I’s and cross the T’s of the legislation and they need to have medical supporting evidence. Self-reporting is not enough. An applicant needs something from his/her doctor. In the case of a diagnosis for mental health illnesses, it has to be made by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist. After that, an applicant’s own General Practitioner can comment in terms of how he/she is going in accordance with the tables, as he/she can, in relation to any of the other ailments under any of the other 14 tables.
APPLICANTS EVIDENCE – BACKGROUND
The applicant is 52. She married her husband in 2007. She had been married before. She left school in year 10. In her written statement to the Tribunal, she described a very sad childhood, losing both her parents, having issues with an alcoholic brother, having a very difficult first husband, living in very difficult conditions and also experiencing some significant health issues. The health issues effectively culminated in the fact that from 1995 onwards, she was unable to do any real work.
Her last jobs and in fact, a job she was permanent in for some three years prior to experiencing difficulties, was cleaning as a contract cleaner and she thoroughly enjoyed that job. She said, “I liked cleaning, but my body did not” and that is the only job that she is likely to do. She was not very good with spelling and did not do terribly well in the other jobs she tried prior to getting into cleaning. She was a good cleaner and she certainly did that well until health problems intervened.
She had been on a disability support pension from 2000 to 2011. It gave her the financial security to get out of a disastrous marriage. She is now in a good marriage with her husband. He unfortunately, has had injury problems himself, working in the mines, where he was a driver of mine machinery. He worked from 2010 to 2013 and that was the reason she had to cease being on a disability support pension in 2011, because her husband’s income was too high.
He subsequently had an accident and he is now aged 64. He is on workers’ compensation. That will see him through, until he gets his aged pension and he has some superannuation as well. That would appear to be in a couple of years’ time when he turns 66.
It is because of his ongoing income (including the amount he is getting for workers’ compensation), that his wife narrowly misses out on qualifying for Newstart. Were she to get a disability support pension, it would seem it would be means tested and she may not get a full pension, but clearly, she would get something.
THE AILMENTS
There are a number of conditions.
Fibromyalgia, a fatigue condition. Table 1 applies. It is fully treated, diagnosed and stabilised. The respondent concedes 10 points.
A lower limb condition, where Table 4 applies. It is also fully treated, diagnosed and stabilized. The respondent concedes 5 points there.
The other conditions relate to the right shoulder, anxiety and depression, hip and also (Table 7) migraines and there is conjecture as to whether they are fully diagnosed, treated and stabilized.
I have to be satisfied that those ailments, as at the claim period, were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised. I am guided by the evidence before me in relation to that.
What I intend doing now is going through the tables for all of those conditions, relying basically on what the applicant herself has told me. In some instances, this will be backed up to varying degrees by doctors and medical evidence. In some instances, it is not. However, for the point of the exercise, I will go through that, because I think it is important, for reasons I will give.
If any of those conditions get 20 points, the applicant does not need to do a program of support. If the conditions add up to 20 or more points, then the applicant has to do a program of support and has to do 546 days out of the three-year period, up to 9 June 2017.
THE DAILY ROUTINE OF THE APPLICANT
The applicant has indicated in her evidence today, that she and her husband do help each other. She does not sleep terribly well. She often wakes up and cannot get back to sleep. She will get up at about 8.30AM and she will help her husband out of bed. She will help him with showering. He does have a chair he can sit in, but quite often he will stand. She sits down. She has got a long brush that helps her clean his feet and his lower legs and she will help him out of there. She will also help put his pants on, because that is difficult for him. He is a tall man. He is pretty useful when it comes to getting things and putting clothes on the line, getting things off shelves and putting things away, because she has some difficulty doing that. He cannot get things lower down. She can. She is pretty good at getting stuff off the bottom shelf and then putting things back there.
He is a cook. She will help him with the cooking, doing things he cannot, and he will do things that she cannot. She is able to vacuum. She will just have to have a little bit of a rest now and again. She might do 10 minutes and then have a rest and do some more. She might take the whole day or set aside a day to vacuum the house.
She does not tend to walk about anywhere much. She will drive to the local shops, which is about a kilometer. She will get out and either uses a walking stick or the trolley to push around and to lean on. She will get the items of the shelf. As I have indicated, if she is by herself, she will have to reach up and get items, but it is not easy, and it is not something that she indicated she could do, in terms of getting a lot of items from a top shelf, one after the other.
He will carry in heavy items and she will carry in lighter items. There is one step only to negotiate to get into their home. There are apparently a number of internal steps up in to a ‘Cape Cod’ type arrangement in the house they live in and she has fallen down the stairs there before which caused some problems. Apart from those stairs, which it seems she now does not use, it is not too much of a difficulty getting things in to the house as there is only one step from the front yard into the house.
They do travel outside of the Upper Hunter Valley region. About once a month, they will go and see friends or friends will come to their place. The Applicant’s husband has grandchildren who are aged eight and nine years old. They live in the Newcastle region and the Applicant and her husband will travel there by car. They share the driving from their place to the Applicant’s husband’s grandchildren’s place. It takes them about an hour-and-a-half and the applicant indicated that she might drive for half an hour, then they would swap. They would drive for approximately 30 minutes at a time.
She is able to wash and her husband can put things on the line if he is there. They try to help each other again with the gardening, and they even share lawn mowing. They need to have breaks whilst doing so. They cannot afford to pay anyone to do things.
They have looked after a house in the Newcastle region and they have shared looking after a little dog. It did not need much exercise. The applicant’s husband took it for a walk of about 150 meters along the creek near where they were staying. The applicant said she did use a stick vacuum cleaner to pick up the dog hair from the house they were looking after.
HUSBAND’S EVIDENCE
The applicant’s husband adhered to his statement and also agreed with what his wife had said in her evidence before the Tribunal but felt that she had not stressed her issues concerning her anxiety or depression as much as she should have. I noted that too, I must say. She gave a fairly detailed explanation of a lot of physical activities, but there was not much about anxiety and depression.
He indicated that he would often find her sitting down and crying a couple of times a day. He would think he had done something wrong, but it was not him at all, it was basically her depression.
She has had the same doctor since 2005 and her doctor has provided two letters. The most recent letter was a report to the Tribunal dated 9 October 2018 and it said:
“To Whom It May Concern, regarding DQJZ,
DQJZ’s anxiety level, at June 2017, was severe. Using the mental health functional levels, her status at the time was severe functional impact. Her counselling was delayed until September 2017; therefore I stated that as at June, her anxiety was not well controlled. However due to the chronic nature of her conditions, significant functional improvement was not likely to occur, despite reasonable treatment. Therefore, overall, her condition is stabilised.”
That was to correct what had been said in an earlier letter. I have no reason to doubt the applicant when she told the Tribunal that the doctor actually looked at the Tables in some detail. Unfortunately, the doctor did not put that down in writing and perhaps, had she been called to give evidence she might have been able to help further on that point.
I do say, rather than the applicant worrying too much about that, the applicant’s description of her own conditions, which I am going to take as gospel for the purpose of this exercise, (even though I cannot do that legally, but I will explain why) are relevant.
I note at any rate we would need another report from the doctor or clarifying evidence from the doctor because unfortunately, whilst she was looking at the Tables and she noted “Severe functional impact”, she does not say anything else. She has to address the descriptors in the tables. There has got to be some evidence to say why there is a severe functional impact.
The Applicant’s doctor’s letter of 2 July 2018 is of more assistance. It is a report in answer to questions from Stephen Shepherd, Conference Registrar. The doctor replied:
Report in answer to questions and letter from Stephen Shepherd, AAT, 31 May 2018.
She said “As at June 2017”, (that is, as at the claim period) “Fibromyalgia, descriptor, moderate impact rating, 10”. Everyone agrees to that, so I do not need to go any further.
To have a moderate functional impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina:
(1) The person:
(a) experiences frequent symptoms (e.g. shortness of breath, fatigue, cardiac pain) when performing day to day activities around the home and community and due to these symptoms, the person:
(i) is unable to walk (or mobilise in a wheelchair) far outside the home and needs to drive or get other transport to local shops or community facilities. …….
(b) is able to:
(i) use public transport and walk (or mobilise in a wheelchair) around a shopping centre or supermarket.
Clearly, she can walk around a shopping centre or supermarket and:
(ii) perform work-related tasks of a clerical, sedentary, clerical or stationary nature (that is, tasks not requiring a high level of physical exertion).
That is certainly the case here.
Unfortunately, the applicant cannot get 20 points, which is severe functional impact, because to get that, she has to experience, fatigue when performing light, physical activities and has to be unable to walk around a shopping centre without assistance from a person, or walk from the carpark in to the supermarket without assistance from a person, or use public transport without assistance from a person.
She does not take public transport because she uses the car, but all of those things really do not apply to her. She can actually walk around herself, leaning on the trolley, to get around the shopping centre.
She can also perform light day to day household activities, like folding and putting away laundry or light gardening. So, she misses out there. She simply can do all of those things and is able to do them to some degree or other. She has to be totally incapable of doing them to qualify for 20 points
The next table is the upper limb function, and this relates to her right shoulder. The Doctor, in her July report of this year says:
Right shoulder pain over three to four months. Ultrasound on 8 June 2017, showed mild bursitis. Was referred to physiotherapy. Attended over about two months. Likely to be stabilised, unless further to cause flare up. Rated at 10 points.
There is some issue there as to whether, this condition was fully treated and stabilised and there were some issues there as to whether that actually was the case during the period. The Doctor gives a rating of 10. She turns to the hip, right side:
Long history of right hip pain since 1997. Intermittent hip region pain since then. Past history of bursitis and fibromyalgia affecting hip. Had a fall late 2013, aggravated hip. June 2017 was to have physiotherapy and outcome was not yet clarified, therefore unable to state if stabilised at that date.
I would agree with the Doctor that condition was not fully treated and stabilised, on the evidence available. I will however, for argument sake, give it a rating, as I said I would.
Spine, “A moderate impact rating of 10”. The Doctor does not go in to any detail there.
Mental health:
Long history of anxiety since 1995. Managed since then with intermittent counselling and CBT of the flare ups of anxiety, including more recently. In 2014/2015, had counselling over approximately six months to stabilise. Further counselling from a referral, June 2017, to fine tune anxiety management. Note that therapy was delayed to availability of counsellor. Has since stabilised with ongoing maintenance counselling. At June 2017, had not yet had a chance to stabilise.
The Doctor, in her July 2018 did not allocate any points.
Migraines:
History of recurrent migraines since teenager. Has seen specialist in the past. Treated with analgesics and is on long-term preventative medication. Occurrences are variable. Over past few years, range from two per month to one every two months. June 2017 was stabilised. Descriptors do not fit experience. During episodes of migraines, she has poor concentration and altered vision. No loss of consciousness. Lasts about 24 hours in general. Mild. 5 is the closest level, except frequency is more than twice per year.
She finally concludes her letter by saying:
Fitness for works hours at June 2017, DQJZ, has severe anxiety that was ongoing in addition to her other health conditions that had been addressed. I do not think that she was fit for 15 hours per week work. Since then, I do not think she has improved enough to be fit for 15 hours per week work. The chronic nature of her condition is not likely to lead to considerable improvement over two years.
Quite a powerful statement there from the Doctor.
As I said, upper limb conditions (Table 2) and even where the Doctor has not said these are fully treated and stabilised, I will still rate them, just on what the applicant has said, because I think it is a useful exercise.
For the upper limb condition, mention was made that there would be a mild functional impact on activities using hands or arms,. The first descriptor states ( for 5 points )
(a) picking up heavier objects (e.g. a 2 litre carton of liquid or carrying a full shopping bag)
We have evidence that her husband carries the heavier items, but we have no evidence that she has difficulties :
(b) Handling very small objects (e.g. coins)
(c) Doing up buttons.
(d) Reaching up or out to pick up objects.
Accordingly as she needs to satisfy 3 out of the 4 descriptors and as she only satisfies one out of four, she would not even get five points under that table.
Lower limb. Table 3:
The applicant has given evidence that indicates to me she would qualify for 5 points. Could she get 10 points? (Remember though, this would have to be fully treated, diagnosed and stabilised.) To get 10 points :
(1) At least one of the following applies:
(a) The person is unable to walk far outside their home and needs to drive or get other transport to local shops or community facilities
Yes, she does need to drive - Continuing:
(2) The person is able to use public transport or a motor vehicle and walk around in a shopping centre or supermarket
Yes, she can do that, and the impairment rating includes a person who can:
(b) move around independently using walking aids (e.g. quad stick, crutches or walking frame)
If that condition was fully treated, diagnosed and stabilized as at the claim period and there is some significant evidence indicating it might not be fully treated and stabilized as at that time, she would get 10 points.

Can she get 20 points? Well, she has to be unable to walk around a shopping centre without a human helping her or go from the car park or stand up from a sitting position without a human. She does not need the help of another person to do that as she is not severely disabled in terms of this table and so she could not get 20 points. However, on my assessment, were her lower limb condition to be fully treated, diagnosed, or stabilised, she would get 10 points.
In terms of the spine (table 4 Lower back), even the AAT1 and the respondent agree on 5 points. To get 10, there has to be a moderate functional impact involving spinal function. Her doctor says, yes, she does have that, but does not go into detail. To get 10 points:
(1) the person is able to sit in or drive a car for at least 30 minutes, ( she can do that on her evidence ) and at least one of the following applies
(a) the person is unable to sustain overhead activities (e.g. accessing items over head height)
Is she unable to sustain overhead activities, accessing items above head height? Her husband tends to do that. It boils down to what is sustained. She can certainly do it. She does it if she has to. She indicated she could not walk along in a shopping centre and get items off the top shelf one after the other.
On that basis I would say she can access items above head height but she cannot sustain it.
Another criteria is:
(b) the person has difficulty moving their head to look in all directions.
(e.g. turning their head to look over their shoulder)
The applicant does have difficulty doing that so both these descriptors are satisfied. Accordingly she would get 10 points.
She would not get 20, because she really has to be totally unable to do any of those things.
I would give her 10 points for Table 4 and 10 points for Table 1 and I have indicated, if everything was fully treated, diagnosed and stabilised, what I would do for Table 2 and 3 on what she told me, but she would need medical evidence to back that up.
Table 5, mental health. A person can get 5 points if:
(1) the person has mild difficulty with most of the following:
(a) self-care and independent living:
Example: The person lives independently, but may sometimes neglect self-care, grooming or meals.
There is no real evidence of that. She lives with her husband, but there is no real evidence of neglecting self-care.
(b) social/recreational activities and travel;
Example 1: The person is not actively involved when attending social or recreational activities.
Example 2: The person sometimes is reluctant to travel alone to unfamiliar environments.
No evidence really either way there.
Continuing:
(c) Interpersonal relationships.
Example: The person has interpersonal relationships that are strained with occasional tension or arguments.
Probably not, although, if you count crying a couple of times a day on occasions, that could mean a strained relationship or tension, not so much an argument.
There is no indication that she has difficulty focusing on complex tasks for more than an hour, (d) because she has been concentrating here and she seems quite an intelligent person.
Continuing:
(e) behaviour, planning and decision-making.
Example 1: The person has unusual behaviour’s that may disturb other people or attract negative attention and may sometimes be more effusive, demanding or obsessive than is appropriate to the situation.
Example 2: The person has slight difficulties planning and organising more complex activities.
There is no real evidence of that and there is no evidence that if she was in a job or training there would be interpersonal conflicts that would need, “Intervention by a supervisor, manager or teacher”.
As it appears she would probably satisfy only two or three out of the six descriptors necessary to get 5 points she may only get zero points for mental health.
I note what the Doctor has said. The Applicant’s doctor has clearly indicated that the applicant has severe issues there. So, this is all the more reason for her doctor to say exactly, addressing the descriptors, what she bases that on, because, listening to the applicant give evidence it just did not strike me that she was experiencing significant mental health problems and it seems that these descriptors were ones that she would not necessarily meet, even for 5 points let alone more. Detailed medical evidence addressing the descriptors is necessary in relation to her mental health condition.
Finally, in terms of Table 7, the Brain Function. To get 5 points for a mild functioning impact:
(1) The person is able to complete most day to day activities without assistance and has mild difficulties in one of the following:…
When looking at the tasks outlined in the criteria, there is no evidence that she forgets to complete tasks, or that she has some difficulty concentrating on complex tasks for more than an hour or has difficulty solving problems or planning problems or prioritizing complex decision making or understanding complex instructions. I note the Doctor has given her 5 points, but on the evidence available, or lack thereof, it would be difficult for me to allocate points. I would need more information from the Doctors. On the evidence before me, I would allocate zero points, but I do note the Doctor gave 5.
The purpose of the above exercise was to indicate that even at its highest, on the evidence by the applicant, it appears that she cannot get 20 points for any one of those Tables as at the claim period and indeed possibly even now.
I do note that some of the conditions have worsened. Not so much Table 1, fibromyalgia, but some of the other conditions have, especially I think, the migraines, the shoulder and the hip and so, I think it would be very prudent for the applicant to get further medical evidence in relation to those ailments.
I have already indicated during the course of the Tribunal hearing that for the program of support, unfortunately the applicant had only completed 156 days out of 546, in the three years prior to 9 June 2017 which is the period I have to look at. She started a new program on 27 July 2017. She was discharged from that program in September 2017. Accordingly, because that is a program started after she made her claim, it cannot be counted for the purposes of this application. It can be counted in any future claim.
I note her comments in that regard, in relation to the fact that she was told by the people running the program that they could not do anything for her. They could not send her off to do any jobs because of her medical conditions and therefore, she should be discharged. She was a voluntary member of the program.
The letter they have given does not really assist her in that regard and that is unfortunate. To me it reads as if she has asked to be discharged and accordingly, that is exactly what they have done and that is not the case at all, according to her. They have actually discharged her, because there is nothing much they could do in relation to helping her get any jobs.
I think that needs to be clarified. People who are volunteers in a program of support, because they are not sent there by Centrelink, (as opposed to people who are on Newstart and who are sent by Centrelink for a program of support) are often, discharged from a POS without a letter, as this Tribunal has seen in similar cases.
It is important for that letter to be clarified and for it to accurately reflect the fact that if she is correct in how she was discharged, the letter must say so. It should indicate that there is nothing they (the POS) can do for her and why - and therefore they are discharging her from the program. That then satisfies the legislation.
If for some reason, they are being difficult, I think that is something which should be taken up initially through the Department, (because the program of support is in fact provided by a local service, Disability Employment Services and Joblink Plus) and they are an agency of the Australian government.
If the Department does not rectify it, I would think a visit to the local Federal Member’s Office or to the Federal Ombudsman complaining about the matter, might well do the trick.
The current letter does not appear appropriate. I would have to really do some quick extrapolating of what it really meant to give it a meaning. It does not appear readily apparent. It looks as if it is saying that she wanted to get out, because of her medical conditions, rather than they told her, because of her medical conditions there was not anything they could and so they would need to discharge her.
That is effectively what the letter needs to say and that is perhaps something that the applicant’s representative can assist her on.
Finally, as I just indicated, I would agree with the Applicant’s doctor, in terms of her assessment of the applicant’s fitness for work. As at June 2017 she did not think the applicant was fit for 15 plus hours a week work, without assistance, within two years.
The applicant has given evidence that she has done her first aid certificate, outside of the claim period, back in November 2017. That then qualifies her to do work as a cleaner, but simply her medical issues were too much, and she not only seemed to express reluctance, but a fear that problems would arise even if she tried to do work as a cleaner.
This is the only thing that concerns me in that perhaps she should at last have a go at cleaning and just see how it goes. It seems to me, highly unlikely that she will be able to do 15 plus hours, but there may be something none of us really have appreciated, which might indicate it is possible.
It certainly would be worth a go as it would satisfy one way or the other my only reservation in accepting that she could not do 15 plus hours work per week.
However, on the balance of probabilities, which is the standard I have to apply (not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt where that factor might become an issue) I note that I have got a doctor’s report indicating that she could not do 15 hours plus per week and that is powerful evidence to that effect.
There is also evidence before the Tribunal of a history indicating that the applicant has not done anything since 1995 as well as the abovementioned doctor’s report - from a doctor who sees her regularly and has done since 2005.
That is pretty powerful evidence in support of that contention and I accept that as being the situation, on the balance of probabilities.
I feel it would be an ideal situation if there was some chance of her doing some work, just simply for self-confidence, and to earn a bit of extra money. I do not think it is particularly likely though, for the reasons I have given.
Accordingly, while she ticks a few boxes, her biggest problem is the program of support requirement.
Whilst on the most optimistic look at the evidence before me, as at the claim period the applicant had a number of ailments which might justify 10 points, there was nothing justifying 20 points for any one ailment. Even if she were to receive a total, it is 30 to 40 points as she cannot get 20 for any one of those ailments. The Applicant then has to do the program of support. Unfortunately she only did the program of support for 156 days out of the necessary 546 days that she was required to do as at the three-year period immediately before her application.
As it appears to me that the applicant clearly would not have much difficulty getting at least 20 points all up for her ailments were she to try again, she certainly needs to clarify her recent discharge from the program of support. If that were to be sorted out satisfactorily, she could look forward to success in a further application and I do recommend that to her.
It is crucially important however, that the Applicant’s doctor looks at all the descriptors in the tables that relate to the applicant’s ailments and then say what functions she can or cannot do. This is to satisfy the requirement as to the evidence needed to fulfill the descriptors and so justify why she thinks the applicant has a moderate or a severe functional impairment. That is what is needed to dot the I’s and cross the T’s. That is what the legislation requires.
There is no way I can get around that, no matter what I might think. I do not have any discretion nor does the Department and that is the only way that a person is going to be able to satisfy the requirements for a disability support pension, as it currently stands.
I think a trip to the doctor with the Tables and ensuring that the program of support people send a better letter, a letter that more accurately describes what occurred, means that there is a pretty fair chance that the I’s and the T’s will therefore be dotted. Therefore, the Applicant could then look forward to success in gaining a disability support pension, were she to apply again. But it is a matter of all the ducks lining up along the lines I have suggested.
For the above reasons the decision of the AAT1 will be affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 109 (one hundred and nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member

........................................................................
Associate
Dated: 18 January 2019

Date(s) of hearing: 20 November 2018

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr B Hamilton

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms K Dunlop

[2019] AATA 30

18 January 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Date(s) of hearing:	20 November 2018
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr B Hamilton
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms K Dunlop