Ergun and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2017] AATA 33

Ergun and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 33 (19 January 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2016/1625
Re:Ridvan Ergun
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Andrew Cameron
Date:19 January 2017
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................................................................
Mr Andrew Cameron, Member
SOCIAL SECURITY - disability support pension – qualification – continuing inability to work – program of support – decision affirmed
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 Sch 2 Cl 4
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014
Cases
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1
Re Karaman and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 597
Eid v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 558
Dawson v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 332
Abdulrahman v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 150
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Andrew Cameron
19 January 2017
INTRODUCTION

Mr Ridvan Ergun seeks a review of a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (SSCSD) dated 2 March 2016 that affirmed a decision to reject his claim for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
By way of background:
(a)Mr Ergun is currently 53 years of age.
(b)Mr Ergun made a claim for the DSP on 20 August 2015.
(c)On 28 October 2015, a Centrelink employee determined that Mr Ergun was not medically qualified for payment of the DSP. Mr Ergun subsequently requested a review of the decision by an authorised review officer (ARO). The decision to reject the Applicant’s claim was affirmed by the ARO on 9 December 2015.
(d)On 9 December 2015, Mr Ergun then sought review by the SSCSD. On 2 March 2016 the SSCSD found that Mr Ergun’s impairments attracted a rating of zero points on the relevant impairment tables and, accordingly, he was not entitled to the DSP.
(e)On 15 March 2016, Mr Ergun sought review by this Division of the AAT.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Broadly, this Tribunal must determine whether Mr Ergun qualified for the DSP as at the date of his claim, being 20 August 2015, or within 13 weeks of that date: clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).
Ordinarily, the Tribunal’s role is to stand in the shoes of the original decision maker and consider the matter afresh (hearing de novo). Kirby J held in Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [43]:
…the Tribunal is not ordinarily confined to material that was before the primary decision-maker, or to consideration of events that had occurred up to the time of its decision….
Section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (Act) sets out the qualification requirements for the DSP. Section 94 of the Act provides, among other things, that:
(1)A person is qualified for disability support pension 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;
(ii)      the Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system; and
…
(2)A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(aa)in a case where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection (3B) or the person is a reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starter who has had an opportunity to participate in a program of support – the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C), and the program of support was wholly or partly funded by the Commonwealth; and
(a)in all cases – the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and
(b)in all cases – either:
(i)     the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years; or
(ii) if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity – such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years.
The Tribunal can only consider an applicant’s qualification for DSP within that qualification period: Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 at [31] as affirmed in Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1 at [27] – [28].
As held in Re Karaman and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 597 at [3], medical reports produced after the relevant date are only relevant to the extent that they are referrable to the person’s condition during the relevant period.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues this Tribunal has to consider as at 20 August 2015 or within 13 weeks of that date, namely 19 November 2015 are as follows:
(a)first, whether Mr Ergun has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment;
(b)secondly, whether the impairments attract a total impairment rating of at least 20 points under the impairment tables. The tables are contained within the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Impairment Determination) and are made pursuant to s 26(1) of the Act; and
(c)thirdly, whether Mr Ergun has a continuing inability to work as defined in s 94(2) of the Act.
In considering this matter, I have had regard to:
(a)the oral submissions of Mr Ergun’s solicitor, Mr Wells;
(b)the oral evidence of Mr Ergun;
(c)the T-documents and supplementary T-documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);[1]
(d)the Secretary’s statement of issues, facts and contentions and oral submissions by the Secretary’s solicitor, Mr de Uray. Mr de Uray also handed up during the hearing an extract from the internet entitled “All About Depression.com”;
(e)additional documents provided to the Tribunal by Mr Wells prior to the hearing, comprising two sets of documents in pdf format, the first of which comprised as the first document a letter from cohealth dated 10 May 2016 and the second of which comprised as the first document a counselling and fee invoice; and
(f)documents handed up during the hearing by Mr Wells, including a letter from clinical psychologist, Melanie Hunter dated 28 July 2016, paragraph 1.3.1 of the Guide to Social Security Law (Beneficial Administration of the Act) and a diagram setting out the purported issues to be considered in relation to a disability support application.
[1] During the course of the hearing, Mr Wells referred the Tribunal to the learned reasoning of Forgie DP in Eid v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 558 (Eid) at [54] – [75] on the evidentiary weight to be given to Job Capacity Assessment Reports.
The Secretary conceded, and I agree, that Mr Ergun satisfied the first requirement under s 94(1)(a) of the Act. In particular, Mr Ergun was suffering from the following conditions:
(a)depression;
(b)osteoarthritis;
(c)obesity;
(d)kidney disorder;
(e)ischaemic heart disease; and
(f)benign positional paroxysmal vertigo.
For completeness, I note during the hearing Mr Ergun said that he suffered from type two diabetes, albeit no further submissions were made with respect to this condition during the course of the hearing. There was no evidence put forward that this condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised in the relevant period.
IMPAIRMENT RATING
Accordingly, the next issue to consider is whether Mr Ergun’s impairments attracted a total impairment rating of at least 20 points under the impairment tables during the relevant period.
Pursuant to s 6(3) of the Impairment Determination, I can only assign an impairment rating if a condition affecting Mr Ergun which causes impairment is permanent and the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of the available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
Pursuant to s 6(4) of the Impairment Determination, a condition is “permanent” if the following is satisfied:
(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.
During the course of the hearing, the Applicant’s solicitor seemed to submit that whilst an impairment may not be fully treated and fully stabilised it could nevertheless be “permanent”. In my view, as a matter of construction of the Impairment Determination it is clear that in order for an impairment to be “permanent”, it must be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised.[2]
[2] In Eid, Forgie DP held at [56] “The word ‘permanent’ is used in both Schedule 1B and in the Impairment Tables to signify that a condition has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and that it is more likely than not, in light of the available evidence, to persist for more than two years.”
In determining whether a condition has been “fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner” and whether it has been “fully treated”, the following must be considered under s 6(5) of the Impairment Determination:
(a)whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition;
(b)whether treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and
(c)whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.
A condition is “fully stabilised” under s 6(6) of the Impairment Determination 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.
As to the meaning of “reasonable treatment” in s 6(6), s 6(7) of the Impairment Determination provides that reasonable treatment is treatment that:
(a)is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person;
(b)is at a reasonable cost;
(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity;
(d)is regularly undertaken or performed;
(e)has a high success rate; and
(f)carries a low risk to the person.
Once it is determined that Mr Ergun has a permanent impairment and that the permanent impairment is likely to persist for at least 2 years, I can then apply the impairment tables in the Impairment Determination.
Pursuant to s 8 of the Impairment Determination, symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence.
Section 10(5) of the Impairment Determination provides that “where two or more conditions cause a common or combined impairment, a single rating should be assigned in relation to that common or combined impairment under a single Table.”[3] Section 10(6) of the Impairment Determination then goes on to provide that where a common or combined impairment resulting from two or more conditions is assessed in accordance with s 10(5), it is inappropriate to assign a separate impairment rating for each condition as this would result in the same impairment being assessed more than once.
[3] C.f. the Applicant’s submissions at paragraph 7 where it was stated, “…where there are multiple conditions, a single table should be applied.”
Depression
Evidence was put before the Tribunal that Mr Ergun was admitted on 27 October 2015 to North Western Mental Health. In the transition / discharge summary dated 28 October 2015 from North Western Mental Health it stated that Mr Ergun had been diagnosed with a situational crisis/depression. It also, among other things, stated:
Given his numerous medical investigations he was open to seeing a psychiatrist to see if they have any answers as to his current condition. (emphasis added)
Similarly, his treating GP at the time, Dr Katharine Harrison, in a letter dated 17 November 2015 stated that Mr Ergun:
Has been seeing Psychologist under Better Access program but has finished funded sessions and cannot afford to pay for more.
Seeing Mental Health Nurse at Cohealth (Clara Summers) for further counselling and support.
We are attempting to find a psychiatrist who will bulk bill a session to help us create an assessment and management plan for Ridvan. (emphasis added)
There was also evidence in a transition / discharge summary from North Western Mental Health that Mr Ergun had been admitted on 4 January 2016 and had been diagnosed with dysthymia / situational crisis.
Evidence was put before the Tribunal that Mr Ergun had previously been treated by a psychologist, Dr Cantwell-Bartl, who stated in a letter dated 1 September 2015 that Mr Ergun:
…gets overwhelmed by issues in living and finds it hard to move forward and carve out a life for himself where there is more joy and hope. At this stage of life, I don’t feel he is capable of turning his life around in a significant way, as his potential to mobilize inner resources is so limited.
Letters dated 25 June 2015, 17 July 2015, 11 August 2015 and 1 September 2015 were put before the Tribunal from Dr Cantwell-Bartl.
There was also evidence from psychiatrist, Dr Ashok Kumar Singh, in February 2016 that:
…[Mr Ergun] was diagnosed with dysthymia, secondary depression, and anxiety and personality symptoms.
Today he presented with mild symptoms of depression and anxiety. But he says he has always feelings of self-harm. His last admission was a few weeks ago.
Currently he is on Efexor XR 150 mg daily. His first contact with pysch services was in 1997 when he took an overdose and then second was in year 2000. Since the[n] he is in regular contact with psych services (emphasis added)
During the course of the hearing, the solicitor for Mr Ergun, Mr Wells, submitted that under table 5 of the Impairment Determination it was unnecessary for Mr Ergun’s diagnosis to have been made by a psychiatrist.
This issue was considered in Dawson v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 332 where Webb M held at [76] – [81]:
76. The Secretary’s second proposition is that in a case where a mental health condition is not diagnosed by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist, a rating cannot be assigned to any resulting impairment under Table 5.
77. There are three difficulties with this interpretation. Firstly, the proposition does not appear to be consistent with the language of the rule. The rule does not require diagnosis by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist. Rather it requires diagnosis by an “appropriately qualified medical practitioner”, which includes a psychiatrist, but by definition under s 3 of the Determination, it does not include a clinical psychologist unless the psychologist is also a qualified medical practitioner.
78. Secondly, the rule requires that, where the diagnosis is made by a doctor who is not a psychiatrist, the diagnosis is made ‘with evidence from a clinical psychologist.’
79. Does this mean, as the words convey, that the diagnosis was made by a doctor (other than a psychiatrist) with (in the presence of or having regard to) evidence from a clinical psychologist? Or does it mean, for the purposes of applying the Table, that there is evidence before the decision-maker of diagnosis by a doctor conjunctively with evidence from a clinical psychologist, possibly from a different time? Or does it mean, as the Secretary submits, that it imposes a ‘legislative requirement for a person to be diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist for the purposes of DSP qualification’ – the requirement is for ‘corroborating medical evidence from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist that confirms the diagnosis of a mental health condition?’
80. To my mind the rule does not mean ‘diagnosis’ by a clinical psychologist, as the Secretary contends. The word ‘with’ is open to different meanings in this context, but it is quite clear that the requirement is for evidence from a clinical psychologist that is consistent with or supportive of the diagnosis. For evidence of the requisite kind to support a diagnosis, it must relate, directly or indirectly, to the mental condition of the person at or about the time the diagnosis was made. There may be cases in which the diagnosis by a non-psychiatrist doctor precedes or post-dates evidence from a clinical psychologist, for example where a diagnosis is made prior to treatment by a clinical psychologist. To my mind, the second rule in Table 5 is sufficiently broad to allow for this, so long as the relational element is satisfied
…
84. Thirdly, even though some flexibility is allowed under the Policy Guide in respect of ‘vulnerable people’ and ‘use of specialist assessments’, if the rule is strictly applied, as presently construed by the Secretary, it would not allow flexibility to address the wide variety of circumstances affecting people with mental illness…(emphasis added)
As I understand it, the Secretary does not dispute that Mr Ergun’s depression was fully diagnosed. The remaining issues, however, are whether it was “fully treated” and “fully stabilised” in the period 20 August 2015 to 19 November 2015.
Mr Wells, during the course of the hearing, submitted that Mr Ergun had undertaken “reasonable treatment” within the meaning of s 6(7) of the Impairment Determination given the location of treatment, cost and improvement in functional capacity. The critical issue, however, in my mind is whether Mr Ergun’s condition was “fully treated”.
In Abdulrahman v Secretary of Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 150, Britton SM held at [14]:
….In my opinion the term ‘fully treated’, as used in the Introduction, is intended to convey that the person has received all reasonable available treatment at the relevant point in time, so as to indicated that as far as practicable, the condition has been stabilised…It is a matter of common knowledge that in treating chronic conditions, adjustments to treatment is sometimes necessary, in response to, among other things, the progress of the condition and the patient’s circumstances. … (emphasis added)

The evidence from North Western Mental Health, Dr Harrison and Dr Singh indicates to me that Mr Ergun’s depression was not fully treated in the relevant period, namely between 20 August 2015 and 19 November 2015. On that basis, I am of the view that his condition was not “fully treated” and, accordingly, I am not able to assign an impairment rating to Mr Ergun’s depression.
Osteoarthritis
Mr Ergun suffers pain in his knees and back. During the period 20 August 2015 to 19 November 2015 he had not seen a rheumatologist.
In a letter dated 17 November 2015 from Dr Katherine Harrison, she stated:
Osteo-arthritis in knees and back and spinal canal stenosis (patient has copies of imaging: x-ray Jan 2014 bilateral knee osteoarthritis, CT scan January 1991 showed canal stenosis L3/L4 + facet joint arthritis).
Further investigations occurred in early 2016 as recorded in the letter from rheumatologist, Dr Simon Chatfield, dated 6 April 2016 who stated:
…His main problem is bilateral primary knee osteoarthritis. This is exacerbated significantly by obesity. He has degenerative lumbar spine disease, but I do not think he gives a clinical history of lumbar canal stenosis….I will refer him to the OA Hip & Knee Service. He is undertaking a multidisciplinary approach but they will further assess this and then determine his suitability for assessment by the Orthopaedic Unit. …I will refer him to the Obesity Clinic to see if he can improve his weight. Often, even 5 kg of weight loss can give an appreciable amount of pain benefit (emphasis added)
During the course of the hearing, Mr Ergun gave oral evidence that he was going to have surgery shortly in relation to this condition.
In light of Dr Chatfield’s evidence, coupled with Mr Ergun’s own evidence about forthcoming surgery in the second half of 2016, it is clear that during the period 20 August 2015 and 19 November 2015, Mr Ergun’s osteoarthritis was not fully treated, with further assessments and treatment still pending. On that basis, I am not able to assign an impairment rating to his condition.
Obesity
In a letter from Ms Helen Donovan, Diabetes Coach, dated 10 February 2016 she stated that:
Over the four months I have been working with Mr Ergun, he has consistently worked toward improvements to his health in the domains where [he] is able to implement effective change (such as nutrition) however, the limitations imposed upon him due to the complexity of his health conditions have been very challenging, and his overall health has declined over this time (emphasis added)
Ms Donovan’s evidence indicates that Mr Ergun’s obesity was not “fully treated” in the period 20 August 2015 and 19 November 2015.
Kidney disorder
Dr Boltin in his referral letter dated 5 August 2015 verified that Mr Ergun had previously suffered ureteric calculus and renal colic.
There was no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether this condition was “fully treated” in the period 20 August 2015 to 19 November 2015. On that basis, I am unable to assign an impairment rating.
Ischaemic heart disease
In a letter dated 16 February 2016, Mr David Smallwood a respiratory physician stated that:
I caught up with Ridvan in the General Respiratory Clinic today. We met late last year in the setting of some persistent breathlessness, in the setting of multiple cardiac investigations that had been unremarkable, and known significant depression.
Ridvan’s initial lung function was good, with mild restriction in the setting of his significant obesity. Further imaging has proven to be quite normal, with no evidence of PE. A sleep study did not demonstrate any evidence of significant sleep disordered breathing. A six minute walk was stopped at three minutes, because of exhaustion and some chest pain, but in fact he did not desaturate at that time, and had already walked nearly 300 metres, which is quite normal (emphasis added)
Likewise, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that this condition was “fully treated” in the period 20 August 2015 to 19 November 2015 and I am, therefore, unable to assign an impairment rating.
Benign Positional Paroxysmal Vertigo
Mr Ergun suffered from vertigo as confirmed by a letter from the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, dated 16 July 2009.
Dr Bhagwat in his letter dated 10 May 2016[4] details the treatment for this condition as including physiotherapy, exercise and medication and stated that:
Ridvan has regular attacks of dizziness and has been assessed by the Vestibular Clinic at Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. He is awaiting further assessment (emphasis added)
[4] Dr Bhagwat stated, among other things, in his letter dated 10 May 2016 that, “I have not known Ridvan for long…”
Similarly, Dr Harrison stated in her letter dated 17 November 2015 that:
His treatment consists of physiotherapy, daily exercises and rest and medications when required
Dr Bhagwat’s evidence indicates that Mr Ergun’s benign positional paroxysmal vertigo was not fully “treated” in the period 20 August 2015 to 19 November 2015.
In light of the foregoing, Mr Ergun’s impairment rating is nil. He does not satisfy the requirements of s 94(1)(b).
CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK
Even if Mr Ergun could satisfy the requirements of s 94(1)(b) of the Act, it is necessary for Mr Ergun to meet the requirements of s 94(1)(c) of the Act. In my view, for the reasons set out below, Mr Ergun does not satisfy the requirements of s 94(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 94(1)(c) of the Act provides that Mr Ergun must have had a continuing inability to work.
Section 94(2)(aa) of the Act provides, among other things, that a person has a continuing inability to work because of impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that, in a case where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection 94(3B) of the Act, the person has actively participated in a program of support.
Assuming that Mr Ergun does not have a “severe impairment” (i.e. 20 points under one impairment table), it is necessary for me to consider whether he has actively participated in a program of support.
Section 94(5) of the Act defines a “program of support” as a program that:
(a)is designed to assist persons to prepare for, find or maintain work; and
(b)either:
(i)is funded (wholly or partly) by the Commonwealth; or
(ii)is a type that the Secretary considers is similar to a program that is designed to assist persons to prepare for, find or maintain work and that is funded (wholly or partly) by the Commonwealth.
Under s 94(3C) of the Act, a person has “actively participated” in a program of support if they have “satisfied the requirements set out in the relevant legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection” (i.e. the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014) (POS Determination).
Part 2 of the POS Determination provides, among other things, that a person has actively participated in a program of support if they have complied with the requirements of and participated in a program for at least 18 months in the three years immediately prior to the claim, or if:
(g)the person completed the entire program of support that was less than 18 months duration;
(h)the person’s program of support was terminated prior to the claim because the person was unable solely because of his or her impairment, to improve his or her capacity to prepare for, find or maintain work through continued participation in the program; or
(i)the person was participating in a program of support at the date of claim and they were prevented, solely due to their impairments, from improving their capacity to find, gain or remain in employment through continued participation.
Mr Ergun had not participated in a program of support for 18 months during the three years before he made the claim. Mr Wells submitted to the Tribunal during the hearing that he had taken instructions from Mr Ergun that if Mr Ergun had been encouraged to undertake a program of support, Mr Ergun would have undertaken such a program.
Furthermore, in my view, the impairment is not of itself sufficient to prevent Mr Ergun from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years and from preventing him from undertaking a training activity in the next 2 years.
Section 94(5) of the Act provides that “work” means:
Work:
(a)that is for at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and
(b)that exists in Australia, even if not within the person’s locally accessible labour market.
Section 94(5) of the Act also provides that “training activity” means:
One or more of the following activities, whether or not the activity is designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments:
(a)education;
(b)pre-vocational training;
(c)vocational rehabilitation;
(d)work-related training (including on-the-job training).
The JCA report, dated 23 October 2015, stated that Mr Ergun’s capacity for work is 15 – 22 hours per week for performing light less skilled work, such as a carpark attendant. Whilst Mr Ergun’s mental health would have an impact on his concentration and his osteoarthritis on some physical activities, I agree with the analysis contained with the JCA report that with intervention Mr Ergun would be able to undertake “light less skilled” work.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Ergun’s impairments would prevent him from undertaking a training activity within the next 2 years.
Accordingly, in my view, Mr Ergun does not have a continuing inability to work as required by s 94(1)(c) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Mr Ergun’s claim for DSP cannot succeed and the decision under review must be affirmed.

65.     I certify that the preceding 64 (sixty four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of: Mr Andrew Cameron, Member

[sgd]...........................................................
Associate
Dated 19 January 2017
Hearing   29 July 2016
Date of Reasons        17 January 2017
Representative for the Applicant    Mr Graham Wells
Solicitors for the Applicant            Social Security Rights Victoria
Advocate for the Respondent        Mr Tim de Uray
Solicitors for the Respondent        Department of Social Services