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

[2020] AATA 6

Hassan and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 6 (6 January 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2018/6789

Re:Mohamad Hassan

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member Richard West

Date:6 January 2020

Place:Melbourne

The decision of the Respondent dated 25 August 2018 to cancel the Applicant’s Disability Support Pension under s.80(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as affirmed by the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal on 9 November 2018,  is set aside.  In substitution, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant was a person qualified for the Disability Support Pension on and from 13 August 2018.

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

Member Richard West

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability support pension – cancellation of benefit – right tennis elbow, right shoulder and neck pain – chronic ongoing severe painful ulceration, cellulitis, osteomyelitis left leg – severe impairment – continuing inability to work – definition of “work” that was in force prior to 1 July 2006 – decision set aside.

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

Cases

Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Re [2012] AATA 922
Covenden and Secretary, Department of Social Services, Re [2018] AATA 353

Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALD 133, [2014] AATA 447

Secondary Materials

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

Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member Richard West

6 January 2020

BACKGROUND

1. This matter concerns the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services (the Respondent) to cancel Mr Hassan’s (the Applicant’s) Disability Support Pension (DSP). That decision was affirmed by the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (the First Tier Review) and this is a Second Tier Review of that decision.

2. The relevant history of the matter is summarised as follows:

   ·The Applicant was granted a DSP from 2 February 2001 in respect of a musculo-skeletal disorder.

   ·On 30 January 2018, a video conference Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) was undertaken on behalf of the Respondent and a report was issued on 2 February 2018 (JCA 1 Report). 

   ·The JCA 1 Report assessed the Applicant as having a functional impairment to his lower limbs which rated 5 on Table 3 of the Impairment Tables.[1]

   ·On 13 August 2018 the Respondent decided to cancel the Applicant’s DSP, under s.80(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act), on the basis that the Applicant no longer satisfied the medical eligibility criteria (Initial Decision).  The Applicant’s DSP payments ceased on 5 October 2018.

   ·On 25 August 2018 an authorised review officer (ARO) of the Respondent affirmed the Initial Decision (Review Decision).

   ·On 31 August 2018 the Applicant sought a review of the Review Decision by this Tribunal, the First Tier Review.

   ·On 9 November 2018 the First Tier Review affirmed the Review Decision.

   ·On 20 November 2018 the Applicant sought the Second Tier Review of the First Tier Review decision.

   [1] Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth).

3. A hearing in relation to the Second Tier Review was held on 23 October 2019.  The Applicant was self-represented.  The Respondent was represented by Ms Anneliese Massey, of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

   RELEVANT DATE

4. In reviewing a decision to cancel DSP the Tribunal must assess whether the Applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria for payment under s.94 of the Social Security Act 1999 (the Act) as at the date of cancellation, in this case 13 August 2018 (the cancellation date).

5. Evidence of deterioration in the claimant’s condition subsequent to the date of cancellation is not relevant, save as to the weight the Tribunal might give to competing prognostications made about the claimant’s condition at the relevant date.[2]

   [2] See Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 992 at [34]; Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447 at [33]; Re Covenden v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 353 at [7].

   DSP QUALIFICATION

6. To qualify for a DSP an applicant must satisfy the requirements set out in s.94(1) of the Act as assessed at the cancellation date.

7. In essence s.94(1) requires that:

   ·the Applicant has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and

   ·the Applicant’s impairment is, or impairments are, fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years; and

   ·the Applicant has a severe impairment (defined as an impairment rating of at least 20 points on a single Impairment Table); or the Applicant’s impairments together rate at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables; and

   ·the Applicant has a continuing inability to work; or the Secretary is satisfied that the Applicant is participating in the supported wage system.

8. Section 94(2) of the Act provides that a person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the person has a severe impairment or has actively participated in a program of support and the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work or undertaking a training activity independently of the program of support within the next two years.

9. Section 7 of the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 provides that a person has actively participated in a program of support if they have participated in a program for at least 18 months in the three years immediately prior to the date of claim.

   CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

10. In conducting the Second Tier Review the Tribunal has had regard to the documents produced by the Respondent pursuant to ss.37 and 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T Documents), and the oral evidence of the Applicant and Dr Diana Lo, General Practitioner.

    Consideration

11. The Applicant’s claim relates to the following conditions:

    ·a lower left leg condition;

    ·diabetes;

    ·a liver condition;

    ·obstructive sleep apnoea;

    ·right tennis elbow, right shoulder and neck pain; and

    ·depression.

12. The Secretary accepts that the Applicant had impairments at the cancellation date, and therefore satisfies section 94(1)(a) of the Act. The relevant question for the purposes of this review is whether the Applicant’s impairment(s) attract 20 points or more on the Impairment Tables, as required by section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

13. In this regard there are two conditions of principal concern; the Applicant’s lower left leg condition; and his right tennis elbow, right shoulder and neck pain.  Before turning to consider these conditions it is appropriate to assess the other conditions raised in the Applicant’s claim.

    Other Conditions

14. The Respondent has conceded that both the Applicant’s liver condition and obstructive sleep apnoea were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the cancellation date.  However, the Respondent contends that neither condition resulted in any functional impairment at the relevant time and should attract a rating of 0 on the relevant Impairment Tables.

15. The Applicant gave evidence that he commenced using a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine in about February 2018 and by August 2018 his sleep apnoea was under control and he was waking up refreshed.  Dr Lo, his General Practitioner, had reported on 17 July 2017 that the Applicant’s obstructive sleep apnoea was causing daytime fatigue.[3] However, in her oral testimony Dr Lo confirmed what she had told the Respondent in February 2018, that the Applicant’s sleep apnoea was well controlled by a CPAP machine, and the condition did not have significant impact on the Applicant’s daily functioning. [4]

    [3] T12, T Documents, at p.82.

    [4] T14, T Documents, at p.94.

16. The Applicant gave evidence that he had a fatty liver which caused him pain in his right side which made it difficult to sleep and was generally annoying.  He said that he controlled the condition by managing his diet. Dr Lo gave evidence confirming her earlier advice to the Respondent[5] that by August 2018 the Applicant’s non-alcoholic steatohepatitis required monitoring only and did not cause significant functional impact to the Applicant.

    [5] Ibid.

17. On the basis of this evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s liver condition and obstructive sleep apnoea were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised by the date of cancellation but they should attract a rating of 0 on the relevant Impairment Tables.

18. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant’s depression was not fully diagnosed at the cancellation date because the Applicant had not been referred to an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, namely a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, regarding the condition.

19. The Applicant gave evidence that he thought he had seen a psychiatrist about five times since 2010 about some concerns he had related to the war in Syria and the treatment of his relatives by the terrorist organisation known as ISIS.  However, Dr Lo confirmed in her evidence that, while she had treated the Applicant since 2001 and diagnosed him with major depression and prescribed anti-depression medication, she had not referred him to a psychiatrist or a psychologist.  There was no documentary evidence produced of a diagnosis of depression by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist.

20. The introduction to Table 5 of the Impairment Tables relevantly states that the diagnosis of a mental health condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (this includes a psychiatrist) with evidence from a clinical psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).

21. In the absence of a diagnosis by an appropriately qualified practitioner the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s mental health condition is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and therefore the condition cannot be given a rating under Table 5 of the Impairment Tables.

22. The Secretary accepts that the Applicant’s diabetes was fully diagnosed at the cancellation date. However the Secretary contends that the Applicant’s diabetes was not fully treated or stabilised at the date of cancellation, and the resulting impairment therefore cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.

23. The Applicant confirmed in his evidence that he had been diagnosed with diabetes and prescribed insulin by Dr Lo, who had pushed him to take it a few times.  He stated that he was not happy to take insulin and had opted instead to manage his condition through his diet and had consulted a specialist dietician for that purpose. On 17 July 2017, Dr Lo reported to the Respondent that the Applicant had poorly controlled diabetes mellitus about to commence insulin,[6] and in February 2018 she confirmed that commencing insulin would result in significant improvement in the control of the Applicant’s condition.[7]

    [6] T12, T Documents, at p.82.

    [7] T14, T Documents, at p.94.

24. From this evidence it is clear that the Applicant has not undertaken all reasonable available treatment in relation to his condition.  Accordingly the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant’s diabetes was fully treated or stabilised at the date of cancellation and it cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.

    Right tennis elbow, right shoulder and neck pain

25. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s impairment in the right tennis elbow, shoulder and neck pain was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the cancellation date and contends that it is appropriately rated under Table 2 of the Impairment Tables attracting a rating of 5 impairment points.

26. The evidence established that:

    a.On 17 July 2017, Dr Lo reported that the Applicant had chronic pain & stiffness in his right arm.[8]

    b.The Applicant reported at the JCA 1 Report assessment on 30 January 2018 that his symptoms fluctuate with weather and that at times he can drop things held in his right hand and he has trouble lifting items above head height.[9]

    c.Dr Lo advised the Respondent on 2 February 2018 that the Applicant’s upper limb is not affected, that he is able to handle coins and do up buttons using both hands, and is able to lift a shopping bag or carton of mil [sic] in his left hand as well as reach out with his left hand.[10]

    d.On 24 August 2018 the Applicant reported to the ARO that he gets cramps in his shoulder, is not sleeping well due to pain in his shoulder and his doctor has prescribed painkillers.[11]

    e.The Applicant’s wife reported to the ARO on 24 August 2018 that the Applicant drops things not only from his right hand but also from his left hand due to overuse of his left hand.[12]

    f.On 20 February 2019 Dr Lo reported that the Applicant’s pain caused reduced range of movement of the right arm, and shoulder and muscle weakness. Dr Lo also reported that the Applicant was unable to reach above shoulder level, had poor grip and was unable to hold heavy objects. Dr Lo reported the Applicant’s chronic extensor tendinosis of his right elbow resulted in pain that caused reduced flexion and weakness in lifting objects.[13]

    g.On 21 February 2019 Mr Justin McGrath, physiotherapist, reported that movement in the Applicant’s shoulder was limited to 80% of active range and his strength in the right shoulder [was] measured at less than 70% in all directions.[14]

    h.On 13 March 2019 Dr Lo advised the second Job Capacity Assessor (JCA 2) that the Applicant’s shoulder and upper arm condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and the functional impacts had been occurring  for a couple of years and was long term.[15]

    [8] T12, T Documents, at p.82.

    [9] T13, T Documents, at p.85.

    [10] T14, T Documents, at p.94.

    [11] T16, T Documents, at p.99.

    [12] Ibid.

    [13] ST5, Supplementary T Documents, at pp.177–8.

    [14] ST6, Supplementary T Documents, at p.179.

    [15] ST3, Supplementary T Documents, at p.165.

27. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s right tennis elbow, shoulder and neck pain was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the date of cancellation and that the Applicant has experienced a functional impact from the condition which is likely to persist for more than two years.  On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that a rating of at least 5 impairment points under Table 2 is appropriate but it is not satisfied that a rating of 10 points can be justified because there is no evidence that the Applicant had difficulty with:

    ·picking up a 1 litre carton full of liquid;

    ·picking up a light but bulky object requiring the use of 2 hands together;

    ·using a standard computer keyboard; or

    ·unscrewing a lid on a soft-drink bottle.

    Table 2 states that a moderate functional impact requires that most of the six criteria specified in the Table must be satisfied.

28. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the impairment resulting from the Applicant’s right upper limb conditions at the date of cancellation had a mild functional impact and attracted a rating of 5 points under Table 2.

    Left lower leg condition

29. The Applicant gave evidence that he originally injured his left lower leg in a car accident while overseas in 1977 and that he has been receiving treatment for the injury ever since, primarily for ongoing infection.  He said that the condition had been operated on three times and that he had been treated with antibiotics.  He said that in mid-2018 his condition flared up and he was admitted to hospital on 2 August 2018 suffering from cellulitis and was discharged on 10 August 2018.  He said that he was admitted to hospital for 10 days in January 2019 and again from 21 March 2019 to 6 April 2019 when he had an operation.

30. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s left lower leg condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the cancellation date.

31. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that in the First Tier Review the Tribunal accepted that the Applicant’s left leg condition was fully diagnosed and treated but was not satisfied that it was fully stabilised.[16]  This conclusion appears to be based on a distinction drawn by the Tribunal between an underlying condition, described as a chronic left lower leg condition (injury, pain and deformity), and the 2018 acute deterioration (involving cellulitis and osteomyelitis).  The Tribunal was satisfied that the former was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, but the latter was not fully stabilised.

    [16] The ARO report which affirmed the decision to cancel the Applicant’s DSP failed to assess the functional impact of the Applicant’s lower left leg condition at all: T17, T Documents, at pp.102–3.

32. In an alternative submission, the Respondent sought to draw a different distinction.  The Respondent noted that the Applicant was hospitalised in August 2018 on the basis of a diagnosis of an acute episode of cellulitis and that this should be regarded as a separate condition to the osteomyelitis diagnosed by Dr Lo.  On this basis the Respondent argued that, as the episode of cellulitis was not fully treated and stabilised at the date of cancellation, any impairment resulting from it cannot be assigned a rating under the Impairment Tables. 

33. This submission draws an unrealistic distinction regarding the nature of the Applicant’s condition.  In her report of 22 October 2018, Dr Lo clarified her diagnosis as chronic ongoing severe painful ulceration, cellulitis, osteomyelitis.[17]  Properly construed, the Applicant’s condition was a chronic ongoing ulceration of the lower left leg marked by episodic infections.  Both cellulitis and osteomyelitis are forms of infection.  The episode of cellulitis for which the Applicant was hospitalised in August 2018 was a continuing manifestation of his overall ulceration condition.  The Tribunal does not accept the distinction between the underlying condition and the cellulitis made in the First Tier  Review.

    [17] T19, T Documents, at p.117.

34. Dr Lo’s evidence was that she had treated the Applicant’s recurrent ulceration with antibiotics.  The report of Dr Coco Hall, dated 13 September 2018, states that the Applicant’s cellulitis was treated with IV antibiotics to good effect with the ulcer being clean and decreasing in size and that going forward there were no surgical options given the quality of the surrounding skin and previous operations.[18]  The administration of intravenous antibiotics to treat the cellulitis flare up in August 2018 is properly to be regarded as a continuation of the established treatment for managing the Applicant’s chronic ongoing severe painful ulceration, cellulitis, osteomyelitis.  In that sense the Applicant’s condition, a feature of which was ongoing infection, was stabilised by the use of antibiotic medication notwithstanding that the condition was prone to infection flaring up from time to time.

    [18] Ibid pp.109–10.

35. On this basis the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s lower left leg condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised at the cancellation date and likely to persist for more than two years, as conceded by the Respondent.  The question then is what rating should be assigned to the Applicant’s condition under Table 3 of the Impairment Tables.

1. The Respondent contends that the impairment resulting from the Applicant’s left lower leg condition should attract a rating of 10 impairment points under Table 3 as at the cancellation date, and should not attract a rating of 20 points under Table 3 because there is no evidence that the Applicant was unable to stand without assistance or walk for a short period without assistance.

2. For an impairment to have a severe functional impact on the lower limbs, Table 3 requires that specific criteria be satisfied. The person must be shown to be unable to do any of the following:

   a.walk around a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance;

   b.walk from the carpark into a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance;

   c.stand up from a sitting position without assistance; and

   d.use public transport without assistance.

3. The evidence of the Applicant’s condition prior to the cancellation date does tend to support the Respondent’s submission that at that time the impairment resulting from the Applicant’s left lower leg condition had caused a moderate functional impact, under Table 3. The first JCA Assessor observed on 30 January 2018 that the Applicant was able to mobilise independently without the use of a walking aid, and Dr Lo confirmed the Assessor’s observations.[19]

   [19] T13, T Documents, at p.87.

4. However, the evidence from both the Applicant and Dr Lo was that the Applicant’s lower left leg condition had flared up in mid-2018 requiring the Applicant to be hospitalised and causing deterioration in his condition. In the Reviewable Decision the Tribunal accepted that there was deterioration in the lower left leg condition from March 2018 culminating in a hospital admission in August 2018.[20]

   [20] T2, T Documents, at p. 9.

5. The Applicant gave evidence that at the time his DSP was cancelled he was unable to walk outside his house and could not go to the supermarket or the shops. He said that he was driven by his sons when he needed to travel and had never used public transport. He said that he had limited mobility at home and required assistance from his wife with showering and toileting. The Applicant was asked to comment on the information he had provided to the first JCA Assessor on 30 January 2018 that he had a standing and walking tolerance of 15 minutes,[21] and to the ARO on 24 August 2018 that he could walk 15 minutes but it tires him.[22]  He was unable to properly explain why he had given this information but insisted that he was unable to walk without assistance and that in August 2018 he was unable to stand up from sitting in a chair because of the chronic pain and dizziness.

   [21] T13, T Documents, at p.87.

   [22] T16, T Documents, at p.98.

6. Dr Lo gave evidence that she had treated the Applicant since 2001.  She diagnosed that the Applicant was suffering from osteomyelitis which was painful and impaired the functioning of his left leg.  She said that the Applicant could walk on the leg but only with pain and discomfort and that he needed to use a walking stick.  She said that he could only walk for a short time and may not be able to do anything more than walking around his home.  Dr Lo was asked to comment on the advice she had given to the Respondent by telephone on 2 February 2018 that the Applicant was able to mobilise independently without the use of a walking aid, move between sitting and standing independently and able to stand for 15 minutes at a time.[23]  She explained that the Applicant’s lower left leg condition had deteriorated subsequent to this advice and that it had flared up in mid-2018 requiring the Applicant to be hospitalised and causing a deterioration in his condition.

   [23] T14, T Documents, at p.94.

7. Dr Lo’s assessment is consistent with her report of 13 February 2019 that the symptoms of the Applicant’s lower leg condition at that time were:

   a.chronic pain left leg and associated deformity stiffness and muscle weakness;

   b.unable to walk more than 15 minutes without rest;

   c.walks with crutch slowly, unable to negotiate steps without assistance from wife; and

   d.needs help from wife with showering, wound dressings, and unable to drive during infectious flare-ups.[24]

   [24] ST4, Supplementary T Documents.

8. The Respondent drew attention to Dr Lo’s report of 10 April 2019 that the Applicant was unable to mobilise independently in the street [or] shopping centres etc without the presence of a caregiver, [25] and contended that this evidence should not be given weight in assessing whether the Applicant met the criteria for DSP at the date of cancellation, as it relates to the Applicant’s functional impairment at the date of the report rather than at the date of cancellation. The Tribunal accepts that the relevant issue is the Applicant’s impairment as at the cancellation date but this does not mean that Dr Lo’s report of 10 April 2019, or her report of 13 February 2019, are of no probative value. They do lend weight to the Applicant’s contention that his impairment deteriorated prior to his hospitalisation in August 2018 and that the medical reports and JCA Assessments prior to the cancellation date may not accurately reflect the extent of the impairment at the cancellation date.

   [25] ST7, Supplementary T Documents, at p.180.

9. Having regard to all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, at the cancellation date, the Applicant’s lower left leg condition had resulted in an impairment rating of 20 points under Table 3 of the Impairment Tables. 

   Did the Applicant have a continuing inability to work – s.94(1)(c)?

10. Having determined that the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables it is necessary to consider whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined in s.94(2) of the Act.

11. As the Applicant’s left lower leg condition attracted a rating of 20 points on the Impairment Tables it follows that the impairment meets the definition of a severe impairment in s.94(3B) of the Act.  Accordingly the Applicant is not required to have participated in a program of support under s.94(2)(aa) of the Act. Similarly, s.94(3A) of the Act provides that a person, such as the Applicant, who was receiving DSP and was given a notice under ss.63(2) or (4) of the Act, does not have to have actively participated in a program of support as set out in s.94(2)(aa) of the Act.  

12. Paragraphs 94(2)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that the continuing inability to work requirement is satisfied if: a person’s impairment was of itself sufficient to prevent a person from doing any work within the next two years; and, either the impairment was of itself sufficient to prevent the person undertaking vocational training or on-the-job training during the next two years, or such training was unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to work within the next two years.

13. As the Applicant’s initial grant of DSP was made on 2 February 2001, the Respondent contends that the Applicant’s qualification for DSP should be assessed against the definition of “work” that was in force prior to 1 July 2006 in determining the Applicant’s continuing inability to work.

14. Subsection 94(5) of the Act, prior to 1 July 2006,[26] defined “work” to mean

    (a)work that is for at least 30 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.

    [26] For the definition of “work” after 1 July 2006: Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005, sch 2, item 9.

15. Having regard to the JCA 1 and JCA 2 Reports,[27] the Respondent accepts that at the date of cancellation the Applicant had a continuing inability to work at least 30 hours per week, and therefore satisfied s.94(1)(c) at the date of cancellation.

    [27] T13, T Documents; ST3, Supplementary T Documents.

    Conclusion

16. For the reasons stated above, namely, that the Applicant’s lower left leg condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and likely to persist for more than two years, the condition attracted 20 points on the Impairment Tables, and the Applicant had a continuing inability to work, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant was a person qualified for the DSP on 13 August 2018 and his DSP should not have been cancelled on that date.

    DECISION

17. The decision of the Respondent dated 25 August 2018 to cancel the Applicant’s DSP under s.80(1) of the Administration Act, as affirmed by the First Tier Review dated 31 August 2018, is set aside. In substitution, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant was a person qualified for the DSP on and from 13 August 2018.

I certify that the preceding 52 (fifty–two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Richard West

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

Associate

Dated: 6 January 2020

Date of hearing:	23 October 2019
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Anneliese Massey, Sparke Helmore Lawyers