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

[2024] AATA 2007

Gallo and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 2007 (25 June 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2023/5232

Re:Omar Gallo

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

Date:25 June 2024

Place:Melbourne

The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – traumatic brain injury – mental health conditions – whether impairment attracts rating of 20 points or more under impairment tables – applicant does not meet qualifying criteria – decision under review affirmed

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

Secondary Materials

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

25 June 2024

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Gallo applied on 11 July 2023 for the review of a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal (AAT1) dated 23 June 2023 which affirmed prior decisions in the Respondent’s agency that he was not eligible for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

2. The Applicant applied for the DSP on 1 March 2023. While the source of Mr Gallo’s medical conditions is not strictly relevant, it is helpful to state that the background to his health issues lies mainly in him suffering a serious head injury when struck by a car as a pedestrian in mid-2019. He was hospitalised for some time including undergoing cranial surgery and treatment in intensive care.

3. I note that AAT1 in its reasons formally affirmed the decision of a delegate in the Respondent’s agency. However, the Tribunal in fact appears to have agreed with the earlier decision in part, and makes a different assessment of the impairment arising from the consequences of Mr Gallo’s head injury. Otherwise, in all decision-making to date it has been accepted that the Applicant has a traumatic brain injury that is capable of being assessed for the purposes of the DSP. AAT1 also agreed with the earlier decision-maker that Mr Gallo’s mental health conditions could not be assessed as they were not considered permanent. Finally, the earlier decision-maker also considered that various musculoskeletal injuries were not permanent. For this reason, any other conditions Mr Gallo has have not to date been considered as part of his qualification for the DSP.

4. Mr Gallo represented himself at the Tribunal and lodged brief written statements by email dated 19 and 20 March 2024, accompanied by extracts from various documents. He also lodged the following:

   (a)report of Dr Usman Mansoor, consultant psychiatrist, dated 28 September 2023 (Exhibit A1);

   (b)report of Dr Julian Schulberg, gastroenterologist, dated 12 October 2023 (Exhibit A2); and

   (c)report of Dr Nathan Serry, consultant psychiatrist, dated 14 September 2020 (Exhibit A3).

5. The Respondent lodged documents pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T), a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC), dated 18 March 2024. The Respondent also lodged:

   (a)PBS patient summary in respect of the Applicant (Exhibit R1);

   (b)Medicare report in respect of the Applicant (Exhibit R2);

   (c)Health Professional Advisory Unit report, dated 15 December 2023 (Exhibit R3);

   (d)report of Mr Camdon Fary, orthopaedic surgeon, dated 2 February 2023 (Exhibit R4); and

   (e)Program of Support participation report in respect of Mr Gallo (Exhibit R5).

   LEGISLATION

6. Qualification criteria for the DSP are set out in s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the SS Act), relevantly:

   (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;

   …

7. The Impairment Tables (the Tables) referred to are those determined to be in effect by the relevant Minister under s 26 of the SS Act, and they relate to the ‘assessment of work-related impairment’ for the purposes of the DSP. The Tables include rules to be complied with in applying them to an application (s 26(2)).

8. Consideration of whether a person has a continuing inability to work is primarily undertaken by reference to the matters stipulated in s 94(2) of the SS Act. In simplified terms, this involves – in the alternative – the person undertaking what is known as a ‘program of support’, together with an assessment of whether the impairment prevents the person doing any work, or undertaking a training activity. A person is deemed to have a ‘severe impairment’ by way of their impairment having been assessed at 20 points or more under a single Table (s 94(3B) of the SS Act), and in such cases it is not necessary for them to participate in a program of support.

9. The Tables relevant to this matter are those found in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination). Key rules established by the Determination are:

   (a)that an impairment rating may only be assigned where the functional capacity relates to a condition that is permanent (6(3)(a));

   (b)permanency is determined by reference to whether a condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised (6(4)-(6));

   (c)a single condition may give rise to separate impairments (10(3)); and

   (d)where multiple conditions cause a common or combined impairments, only a single impairment rating may be assigned (10(5)-(6)).

10. Under s 42 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and its Schedule 2, qualification for the DSP is to be assessed in respect of information relating to impairment arising within a 13 week period following lodgement of a person’s application (the qualification period). In Mr Gallo’s case the period runs between 1 March 2023 and 30 May 2023.

    ISSUES

11. The issues for determination are identified by reference to the SS Act, above. First, I must give consideration to whether Mr Gallo has permanent conditions to which an impairment rating can be assigned. Second, I must consider what level of impairment his conditions attract by reference to the Tables. Third, I must consider whether he has a continuing inability to work.

    EVIDENCE

12. At the hearing Mr Gallo was asked about his treatment for mental health conditions with reference to his PBS summary (Exhibit R1). He accepted that anti-depressant medication had been prescribed once in each of 2020 and 2021. Mr Gallo gave evidence that the medication affected his bowels and was not good for his state of mind.

13. With reference to his claim for DSP made in relation to acquired brain injury, anxiety and depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (T35), Mr Gallo was asked about new conditions and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) specifically. The Applicant stated he had experienced colorectal problems for 24 years. He described this as ‘difficulty emptying the bowels’ and that this had been linked by treating professionals to his mental health condition.

14. Mr Gallo was asked to describe the impact on his daily life of this condition. He stated that it affected him when in employment (2010-2014) and when later managing a café. Asked whether he could work for two hours he responded that he would go to the toilet ‘often’, being ‘within two hours’. Mr Gallo stated he had a fast metabolism and described unusual stools. He gave evidence that he had been unable to work at times for one-to-two days a week, and that the condition caused physical pain in his lower back and pressure in his chest.

15. With respect to Dr Schulberg’s impression that Mr Gallo has a ‘functional gastrointestinal disorder’ (Exhibit A2), the Applicant stated he has the recommended blood tests and thought he had met with the specialist to discuss. He had not undertaken the recommended gastroscopy. Mr Gallo believed that he had consulted a physiotherapist as also recommended.

16. I asked Mr Gallo about the state of his knee, based on the diagnosis of a lesion in the report of Mr Fary (Exhibit R4). The Applicant stated the Transport Accident Commission accepted the cost of an MRI but not the cost of an operation. He did not chase this up due to emotional challenges. Mr Gallo described the effect as being that he cannot stand for long and reported pain while sitting during the giving of evidence. He agreed that he could stand for periods of 10 minutes.

17. I also asked Mr Gallo about the report of Ms Bronwyn Hall describing his experience of headaches (T22). Mr Gallo stated that they are continuous, not severe, but are energy-draining. He also stated that he had numbness at the site of his surgery. Mr Gallo also noted that he had experienced seizures and anxiety attacks post-surgery which were followed-up.

18. The Applicant added that he recalls a specialist observing that he has difficulty with concentration. Mr Gallo stated that he has difficulty getting things done and manages only when he really needs to do something. I asked him if he was able to read or watch programs and Mr Gallo replied that he does not read but listens to podcasts by motivational speakers daily that last between 20-40 minutes.

19. Mr Gallo confirmed in evidence that for two years he has had sole care of his two children, being twin boys about to turn twelve and a daughter who recently turned nine. The Applicant does not currently engage paid help but stated his hope that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) would assist. Mr Gallo confirmed that he is not presently a participant in the NDIS and made reference to participating in a program, the nature of which was not made clear. The Applicant stated that he lives with his children and also his mother in a rental property. He stated his mother’s health is not good and therefore she does not provide much help.

20. When asked about the daily routine at home, Mr Gallo confirmed that he prepares snacks in the morning for the children and drives them to school. He then visits a bathroom, usually at a mosque, and then drops off lunches for the children. Mr Gallo stated that the children do not have breakfast. He stated that he manages food shopping and prepares evening meals, but that they often eat out as he can only manage to cook pasta with a sauce.

21. Mr Gallo stated that he had not managed to assist the children with extra-curricular activities since assuming sole care due to cost and his mental health. Prior to this, activities included martial arts twice a week and swimming once a week. The children do not have friends out of school and he has sought professional help for his daughter who is having some challenges in this area.

22. Mr Gallo agreed that he was independent in self-care but stated that he bathes only twice a week and, as a Muslim, showers on Friday for attendance at Friday prayers. I then asked the Applicant about his own social engagement, which he described as ‘very limited’. I understood this to be partly due to financial constraints and partly as he looks down on himself. His family circle comprises his mother and younger sister who he is in touch with but does visit. Mr Gallo stated that his social activities including sports and other pastimes ceased after his accident.

    CONSIDERATION

    Permanent conditions

23. Mr Gallo has raised in his written submissions the importance of taking into account the reports of Ms Hall and Dr Serry which he contends substantiate a diagnosis of PTSD. He also contends there is sufficient evidence to assess impairment arising from IBS. It is in these submissions that Mr Gallo also raises the subject of participating in the NDIS.

24. The Respondent submits in its SFIC that Mr Gallo does have impairments and therefore satisfies the requirement of s 94(1)(a) of the SS Act [33]. However, the Respondent contends that only one condition can be considered permanent in the sense required by the Determination, being Mr Gallo’s traumatic brain injury. It is contended that neither conditions of PTSD nor anxiety were diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist in the qualification period [37], [40]. Further, Mr Gallo was prescribed psychotropic medications and therefore PTSD cannot be considered fully treated and stabilised [38].

25. The Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that there are additional conditions that require consideration.

    Traumatic brain injury

26. There are several hospital reports that confirm the nature and extent of the injury suffered by Mr Gallo in his 2019 accident (T6, 7 and 8). The report of Dr Mohammad Awad, neurosurgeon and spinal surgeon, dated 19 July 2022 (T21) notes that the Applicant made a reasonably good recovery from his surgery, going on to undertake rehabilitation. This is described in more detail in the report of Ms Hall (T22). She also describes a neuropsychological assessment, further follow up during 2020, and attendance on a consultant hospital physician during 2022. In short, Ms Hall diagnoses a ‘permanent acquired brain injury resulting in enduring cognitive, behavioural, and emotional impairments’ (155).

27. I am satisfied that this condition should be considered as fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and is therefore permanent.

    PTSD

28. In his report of 14 September 2020 (Exhibit A3), Dr Serry diagnoses (in addition to neurocognitive disorder) moderately severe adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood (p 8). He states clearly there is ‘no psychiatric impairment which has arisen from the accident …’ and recommends Mr Gallo receive appropriate mental health intervention including pharmacotherapy (p 10). Ms Hall in her report notes that Mr Gallo may benefit from review and treatment for symptoms of PTSD (T22, 156).

29. In a report dated 8 May 2023, Mr Jason Telfer, psychologist (T40) states that the Applicant’s symptoms qualify for diagnosis of PTSD, and that his psychological condition has stabilised. He notes that ongoing psychological treatment is required, and reports conducting 16 sessions with Mr Gallo between September 2022 and May 2023.

30. Dr Mansoor in his report of September 2023 (Exhibit A1) states that Mr Gallo reported prior diagnoses of depression, anxiety and PTSD. He records symptoms including hypervigilance, feeling anxious and stressed and flashbacks from his accident. Dr Mansoor also reports on examination finding no thought disorder or evident disturbance and with good insight and judgment. The formal diagnostic impression provided includes PTSD and history of depression and anxiety with panic attacks. The PTSD is described as stabilised and permanent and Dr Mansoor prescribes Valium and an antidepressant, recommending follow up in three months.

31. A medical certificate completed by Dr Jerome Dimaano, general practitioner, dated 24 April 2023, lists Mr Gallo’s conditions as ‘mixed anxiety/depression, possible PTSD’ (T42, 252).

32. Mental Health Function is addressed in Table 5 in the Determination. This Table specifies that the diagnosis of a condition must be made by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and be supported by corroborating evidence, including for example from a treating doctor.

33. Dr Mansoor is the only specialist to diagnose PTSD and he does so outside the qualification period. The timing of the report alone is not conclusive, as I consider it appropriate to take into account material that might reasonably refer to Mr Gallo’s condition during that period. Ms Hall’s opinion immediately prior to the lodging of the application for DSP is not inconsistent with Dr Mansoor’s view, but Ms Hall does not hold a relevant or comparable qualification. I am not able to give weight to Mr Telfer’s opinion according to the stipulations provided in the Table.

34. On balance, I consider that Dr Mansoor’s diagnosis is new. I accept that some of the symptoms he describes are similar in kind to those recorded previously, for example in the report of Dr Joseph Slesenger occupational physician, dated 16 November 2020 (T12, 81). However, as noted by the Respondent, Dr Mansoor established a new regime of medication, recommends review, and the impairment is not supported by corroborating evidence. There is therefore not enough evidence to demonstrate thoroughly the nature and extent of this condition to determine if it was fully treated and fully stabilised within the qualification period.

35. For these reasons, I consider that PTSD cannot be considered fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the qualification period.

    Anxiety condition

36. I have noted briefly above the opinions of Dr Serry, Ms Hall and Mr Telfer, provided before or during the qualification period. Mr Telfer does not refer to symptoms or a diagnosis of anxiety but does refer to ‘clinically significant emotional and behavioural symptoms’ (T40, 241. I have also noted the opinion of Dr Mansoor which included a history of depression and anxiety, and the medical certificate of Dr Dimaano.

37. A report by Professor Mark Cook, neurologist and epileptologist, dated 12 September 2020 (T10), records that Mr Gallo reported being ‘prescribed treatment for anxiety and depression’ which the Applicant discontinued, albeit feeling that the treatment was effective (T10, 68). I also noted above in the summary of evidence at the hearing that the PBS summary for Mr Gallo (Exhibit R1), confirmed by him, demonstrates some limited use of medication being an anti-anxiety medication on two occasions in 2019, and anti-depressant medication in 2020 and 2021.

38. Dr Slesenger also records a history of anxiety following the accident, and that Mr Gallo reported ‘significant psychological impairment’ (T12, 81). Moreover, Dr Slesenger  records Mr Gallo as reporting the prescription of medication for anxiety and depression and to help with sleep and that he is being managed by his GP and a psychologist. A report of Dr Dimaano dated 21 March 2022 (T16) notes that Mr Gallo ‘has been speaking to a psychologist due to anxiety/depression’.

39. The review of material conducted for the Respondent by, I believe, an occupational physician (Exhibit R3), provides the following opinion (p 14):

    The above medical and related evidence is considered to be consistent with a mild persisting mental health disorder, mainly secondary to post-TBI cognitive deficits. An adjustment disorder as diagnosed by an assessing psychiatrist Dr N Serry in 2020 appears likely to have largely resolved since the resolution of Family Court proceedings in March 2022.

    Mr Gallo may require some ongoing psychotherapy and/or psychotropic medication, however in my opinion a mild persisting anxiety condition can be accepted as FDTS. A provisional diagnosis of PTSD is considered to require further assessment …

40. The concern arising from this body of material is that Mr Gallo was not diagnosed prior to or during the qualification period by an appropriately qualified specialist with a distinct condition. I accept that there is evidence indicative of a mental health condition, however the intermittent use of medication demonstrates to my satisfaction that any substantive condition that might be assumed to exist, was not fully treated and stabilised.

41. While the opinion of the medical reviewer (Exhibit R3) is somewhat persuasive, particularly in the context of Dr Mansoor’s diagnosis, I am not bound to give it significant weight as the opinion writer does not have the relevant qualification. I also find Dr Mansoor’s description of a history of mental health concerns potentially influential. However, given the wider evidence about intermittent treatment and the fact that this opinion was given outside the qualification period, I consider it not sufficient upon which to base a finding that Mr Gallo had a permanent mental health condition of anxiety during the qualification period.

    Other conditions

1. The medical review (Exhibit R3) describes several additional health conditions emerging from the material being: IBS; back and neck pain; headaches; knee condition; and mild sleep apnoea. Several of these were raised in evidence at the hearing.

2. The report of Professor Cook (T10) notes a history of colonic polyps, IBS and lactose intolerance (T10, 68), also noted by Ms Hall (T22, 150). Dr Slesenger recorded a history of constipation (T12, 81).

3. Dr Schulberg (Exhibit A2) notes a 23-year history of ‘irritable bowel type symptoms’ and describes signs and symptoms similar to that provided in Mr Gallo’s evidence at the hearing. This report also describes a colonoscopy in August 2022 which showed normal mucosa, normal random biopsies and an inflamed polyp. While Dr Schulberg appears to have had access to a histology report, he did not have access to the formal endoscopy report. He states that Mr Gallo reported regular colonoscopies with several polyps removed.

4. As noted in the summary of evidence, Dr Schulberg considers the Applicant is likely to have a ‘functional gastrointestinal disorder’ which I understand from a search of publicly available online sources suggests a condition that is indicated by chronic symptoms in the absence of demonstrable pathology. It also appears that IBS and constipation can be considered part of such conditions.[1] Dr Schulberg reports that it is important to exclude organic pathology and – as noted – a series of recommendations were made. At the close of the hearing, Mr Gallo was invited to lodge additional material from Dr Schulberg, given the report’s reference to a further review in three months’ time. No additional material was lodged by the Applicant.

   [1] See for example >

   Table 10 in the Determination assesses Digestive and Reproductive Function. I accept that Dr Schulberg is an appropriate specialist to make a diagnosis however the only evidence I have at the moment is his impression that Mr Gallo likely has a gastrointestinal disorder. The Table, in common with other tables, requires corroboration of the impairment and, having thoroughly reviewed the materials lodged in this matter, I have not found such material. The other references to a history of bowel problems are not reported by specialists in this area and are in effect a form of self-reporting.

5. For these reasons, I am unable to find that IBS is a permanent condition in the sense required by the Determination.

6. The report of Ms Hall (T22) is the primary source of references in the medical material to Mr Gallo’s experience of headaches. Table 15 addresses Functions of Consciousness which potentially includes some forms of migraines and therefore may well be responsive to symptoms described in his evidence and in Ms Hall’s report. However, the evidence overall indicates that these symptoms have not been identified by any relevant medical expert as an independent condition. Moreover, to attract an impairment rating under this Table the effect would need to involve either loss of consciousness or altered state of consciousness, which does not arise on the evidence before me.

7. For these reasons I am unable to find that headaches are an assessable condition.

8. There is very limited material before me concerning Mr Gallo’s knee. I noted above the report of Mr Fary (Exhibit R4). I also note the report of an MRI from an examination in November 2022 (T29) which followed from a clinical history of persistent left knee pain. I take from Mr Gallo’s evidence at the hearing that the tear identified appears to remain untreated in any substantive way, despite a discussion being held with Mr Fary about possible surgery. On the basis of the material and evidence I have, I am unable to make any conclusive finding about the state of diagnosis or treatment.

9. Accordingly, I am unable to find that any condition with Mr Gallo’s knee is assessable.

10. There is a reference in the report of Dr Slesenger (T12) to Mr Gallo suffering chronic cervical spine pain with radiating feature into the right upper arm (T12, 87). This report also notes an issue with the Applicant’s left hip and left foot. The symptoms of the latter two are said to have largely resolved and the spine and shoulder pain is described as ‘mild and intermittent’ (T12, 81). The slightly earlier report of Professor Cook describes Mr Gallo as having no discomfort in the cervical spine (T10, 69).

11. Based on this limited material I am unable to make a finding in favour of the existence of other musculoskeletal conditions upon which to base an impairment assessment.

12. There are two brief passing mentions in 2022 by Dr Dimaano of Mr Gallo having ‘mild obstructive sleep apnoea’ (T17, 138; T23, 160). I am unable to find any other evidence or material related to this and, accordingly, am unable to make a finding that this is an assessable condition.

    Impairment assessment

13. It follows from the findings above that I am able to consider an impairment rating for Mr Gallo’s traumatic brain injury. The Respondent submits (RSFIC [35]) that this condition attracts a rating of 10 points under Table 7 – Brain Function. This is on the basis that it had a moderate functional impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina during the qualification period. I note that AAT1 assessed this condition as having only a mild functional impact.

14. Table 7 appears to be an appropriate basis on which to assess Mr Gallo’s impairment as it is described as relating to functional impairment from neurological or cognitive function, and the Applicant has been assessed on a number of occasions by relevant medical experts. The assessment of Dr Elizabeth Mullaly, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 2 August 2020 (T9) came against a background finding from treatment in hospital in 2019 of a range of cognitive deficits. Dr Mullaly’s report is quite comprehensive and a key overall conclusion is that Mr Gallo’s performance on various assessment tasks was variable (T9, 63). This appears to be due to a combination of his brain injury and other psychological factors.

15. Professor Cook, reporting almost contemporaneously with Dr Mullaly, (T10) agreed with her findings and considered Mr Gallo largely clinically stable. Professor Cook was of the opinion, that upon a mental status impairment assessment, Mr Gallo appeared to be able to perform most activities of daily living satisfactorily, although this was not verified (T10, 71).

16. Ms Hall reported much closer to the qualification period (T22). In respect of several formal assessments conducted, she reported Mr Gallo’s performance as variable across a range of tests (T22, 152-154) and assesses his performance overall as average, against a background intelligence of at least this level. I noted above her concluded view that Mr Gallo has a permanent acquired brain injury and she also observes that he ‘is likely to have experienced the vast majority of improvement to his cognition’ (T22, 156).

17. Beyond these technical assessments, Ms Hall recorded Mr Gallo as experiencing a decline in social and leisure activity, but independent with all domestic and personal care tasks (T22, 151). Ms Hall also notes that the Applicant was then the full-time carer for his three children, and was medically cleared to return to driving in October 2019.

18. The medical reviewer (Exhibit R3) considered that a rating of 10 for a moderate level of impairment could be justified but this was dependent upon whether or not Mr Gallo ‘rarely’ or ‘occasionally’ required help with day to day activities.

19. I accept that it appears to be a prerequisite for an impairment assessment that there be evidence that the Applicant receives assistance with day to day activities at some time. I do not consider the evidence overall to support the view that he does receive assistance. However, the additional optional descriptors relate to the degree of difficulty experienced in a range of capacities including memory, attention and concentration and related cognitive functions. There is ample specialist evidence that Mr Gallo experiences reduced functional capacity in a range of areas. Moreover, for an impairment rating of 10 points, the Table requires evidence of moderate difficulties in one such area. I consider his own evidence, for example, about his capacity to focus and complete tasks sufficient, to base a finding that he has the requisite level of impairment under Table 7 for a rating of moderate impairment.

    CONCLUSION

20. I have found that Mr Gallo has one permanent condition that attracts an impairment rating of 10 points under one table in the Determination. For this reason, the Applicant cannot qualify for the DSP as he has not attained an impairment rating of 20 points or more.

21. I note for completeness that the Respondent lodged a report of Mr Gallo’s engagement with a Program of Support (Exhibit R5) which indicates that he has not participated at all with such a program. In the absence of a severe impairment rating (20 points under a single table) this fact would also prevent Mr Gallo succeeding in this application.

22. Despite the variation with respect to an allocation of points between the review decision in the Respondent’s agency and in accordance with my findings above, and that found in the AAT1 decision, I consider the correct or preferable decision remains the same which is that Mr Gallo does not qualify for the DSP as he has failed to attain the requisite 20 points.

    DECISION

23. For the reasons given above the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 65 (sixty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

..............[SGD]..............

Associate

Dated: 25 June 2024

Date of hearing:

3 May 2024

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms Kathryn Lieschke

Services Australia