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

[2021] AATA 2629

Hanli and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 2629 (26 July 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2020/8281

Re:Viron Hanli

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Dr L Bygrave, Member

Date:26 July 2021

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Dr L Bygrave, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – carer allowance – private home not shared – whether care receiver assessed and rated under Adult Disability Assessment Tool and given a score of at least 30 – whether professional questionnaire score is at least 12 – requirements not met – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 954A

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Adult Disability Assessment Determination 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr L Bygrave, Member

26 July 2021

1. The applicant, Mr Viron Hanli, made a claim for carer allowance on 12 May 2020. This claim was refused by Services Australia (Centrelink), both initially and on review, on the basis that Mr Hanli did not meet the qualification criteria for carer allowance – caring for a disabled adult in a private home not shared by the adult and carer.

2. Mr Hanli subsequently applied for review to the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) and, on 16 November 2020, the SSCSD affirmed the decision.

3. On 4 December 2020, Mr Hanli applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for review.

4. The application was heard by the Tribunal in Sydney on 20 July 2021. Mr Hanli and the Secretary’s legal representative participated in the hearing by teleconference.

   RELEVANT LEGISLATION

5. The qualification criteria for carer allowance when a person is caring for a disabled adult in a private home that is not shared by the adult and carer is set out in section 954A of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act).

6. Relevantly, this includes at subsection 954A(1) of the Act that:

   (1) A person is qualified for carer allowance for a disabled adult (the care receiver) if: [amongst other matters]

   …

   (c) the care receiver has been assessed and rated under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool and given a score of at least 30, being a score calculated on the basis of a professional questionnaire score of at least 12; and …

7. The Adult Disability Assessment Determination 2018 (the Determination) commenced on 9 August 2018. Part 2 of the Determination describes the Adult Disability Assessment Tool and explains:

   ·Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Determination sets out a questionnaire to be completed by the claimant wishing to claim carer allowance about the disability, emotional state, behaviour and special needs of an adult (the care receiver); and

   ·Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Determination sets out a questionnaire to be completed by a treating health professional about the disability, emotional state, behaviour and special needs of an adult (the care receiver).

   CONSIDERATION

8. The sole issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether Mr Hanli met the requirement for carer allowance set out in paragraph 954A(1)(c) of the Act.

9. The relevant evidence before the Tribunal comprises:

   ·A claim for carer allowance completed by Mr Hanli on 12 May 2020 and in particular, his answers to the Adult Disability Assessment Tool in relation to the day to day care needs, cognitive function and behaviour of the care receiver.

   ·A carer payment and/or carer allowance medical report completed by Dr Saravanan Royan (general practitioner) on 13 May 2020 that stated the disability and medical condition/s of the care receiver were ‘frailty’ and ‘memory impairment’.[1] This medical report also answered questions about the day to day needs, cognitive function and behaviour of the care receiver.

   ·A review of care provided – carer payment and/or carer allowance form completed by Mr Hanli on 4 June 2020, in which he answered questions regarding the day to day care needs, cognitive function and behaviour of the care receiver relevant to the Adult Disability Assessment Tool. In this form, Mr Hanli declared he cared for the care receiver ‘7 days each week’.[2]

   ·A carer payment and/or carer allowance medical report completed by Dr Manilal Daya (general practitioner) on 5 June 2020 that listed the disability and medical condition/s of the care receiver as ‘ischaemic heart disease’, ‘diabetic’, ‘tachycardia’  and ‘?dementia’.[3] This medical report also answered questions about the day to day needs, cognitive function and behaviour of the care receiver.

   [1] Exhibit T-T7, page 64.

   [2] Exhibit T-T9, page 75.

   [3] Exhibit T-T11, page 83.

10. I am satisfied that the forms completed by Mr Hanli on 12 May 2020 and 4 June 2020, and the reports completed by Dr Royan on 13 May 2021 and Dr Daya on 5 June 2020, are consistent with the questionnaires in Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Determination.

11. Based on answers provided by Mr Hanli and the treating health professionals in these questionnaire forms, Centrelink calculated the Adult Disability Assessment Tool score for the care receiver was as follows:

    ·13 May 2020: treating health professional score = 6.50, carer score = 7.25. Total score = 13.75.

    ·5 June 2020: treating health professional score = 3.50, carer score = 17.25. Total score = 20.75.[4]

    [4] Exhibit T-T17, page 120.

12. I am satisfied on the basis of these results that the care receiver was assessed and rated under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool. I am further satisfied that on 13 May 2020 and 5 June 2020, the care receiver was given a total score of less than 30, which included a score of less than 12 in the professional questionnaire.

13. At the Tribunal hearing and in written submissions, Mr Hanli said that he provided care for the care receiver as a close friend and he believed the ‘points system’ is unfair.

14. While I accept that Mr Hanli provided care for the care receiver, I am satisfied that two different general practitioners who treated the care receiver completed medical reports on 13 May 2020 and 5 June 2020, and answered questions about the care receiver’s day to day needs, cognitive function and behaviour as set out in the Adult Disability Assessment Tool. I find the scores from both of these treating health professionals were significantly less than 12, being the requisite professional questionnaire score stated in paragraph 954A(1)(c) of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

15. As the total Adult Disability Assessment Tool score for the care receiver was less than 30 and the treating health professional score was less than 12, I am satisfied that Mr Hanli did not meet the requirement in paragraph 954A(1)(c) of the Act and therefore did not qualify for carer allowance.

    DECISION

16. The decision under view is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 16 (sixteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr L Bygrave, Member

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

Associate

Dated: 26 July 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	20 July 2021
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Lauren Boyd, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers