Hogg and Department of Family and Community Services - [2000] AATA 811

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 811

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/155

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )
           Re      Barry Hogg
  Applicant
           And    Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr J D Campbell

Date13 September 2000
PlaceCoffs Harbour

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal finds that the Applicant continued to satisfy the qualifications necessary for a disability support pension during the period for which it was cancelled.

[Sgd] J D Campbell
Member
CATCHWORDS
Social Security - disability support pension - cancellation - assessment - chronic back pain - multiple operations - shoulder and neck - continuing inability to work
Social Security Act 1991, Sections 94,100 and Schedule 1B

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr J D Campbell

Mr B Hogg ("the Applicant") in this matter seeks a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") dated 2 December 1999 which affirmed the decision of an authorised delegate of the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services ("the Respondent") dated 15 June 1999 to cancel the Applicant's disability support pension. This latter decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer in a decision dated 15 July 1999.
A hearing was held in Coffs Harbour on 21 August 2000 at which the self-represented Applicant presented oral evidence. The Respondent was represented by Ms Alex, an advocate from the Administrative Law section of Centrelink.
The following material was placed in evidence before the Tribunal:
Documents prepared pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 T1-T25 P1-66
Medical Report of Dr Fiay dated 8 May 2000     Exhibit A1
Medical Report of Dr Fiay dated 27 June 2000 Exhibit A2
Medical Report of Dr Fiay dated 23 February 2000      Exhibit A3
Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 16 August 2000 Exhibit R1
Request for clarification by Respondent to Dr Fiay dated 19 May 2000       Exhibit R2
Request for clarification by Respondent to Dr Hutson dated 16 May 2000   Exhibit R3
Medical Report of Dr Hutson dated 9 June 2000          Exhibit R4
Bundle of documents relating to Applicant's new claim including: Dr Fiay's Treating Doctor's Report dated 27 June 2000. Part of Applicant's new claim dated 29 June 2000. Dr Fiay's Treating Doctor's Report dated 25 July 2000. Health Service Australia Assessment Report dated 27 July 2000. Qualification determination form dated 28 July 2000.   Exhibit R5

issues

The relevant issues before the Tribunal are:
(a)whether the Applicant has an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables; and
(b)whether the Applicant has a continuing inability to work.

legislation

The relevant legislation is the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act") and in particular subsections 94(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5), 100(3) and the tables for assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension ("Schedule 1B Impairment Tables").
background
The Applicant was born in 1952. In 1987 he was granted an invalid pension because of his low back problems. This was replaced in time by the disability support pension. The Applicant's disability support pension was reviewed over a period commencing in March 1999 and concluding with a decision to cancel the disability support pension with last payment to be made on 10 June 1999. This decision was confirmed on 15 July 1999 by the authorised review officer, with a further decision being taken to continue payment of the disability support pension until an appeal to SSAT was finalised (T19, P59). The SSAT affirmed the decision on 2 December 1999 and the Applicant's disability support pension was cancelled from 22 December 1999. In material presented to the Tribunal (Exhibit R5) it was evident that the Applicant, following a further claim, was granted disability support pension from 28 June 2000.
evidence: the applicant
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was born in March 1952 and was educated to third year high school, which he did not complete, leaving school at age 15 to work on the railway for four to five years as a labourer. After a number of labouring jobs, the Applicant was working on a farm in North Richmond when he hurt his back. This injury occurred in the mid to late seventies, and an x-ray at the time did not reveal any damage.
The Applicant stated that he was married in 1984, and remained unemployed for two years at that time. His marriage ran into difficulties and he moved to Brisbane with his three children, where he received a sole parent pension. In 1987 he was placed on an invalid pension, and in the same year had an operation on his back (fusion) because of disabling back pain. After his operation at Princess Alexander Hospital he moved to Grafton to be closer to parents and for a period of eighteen months he underwent a rehabilitation program involving swimming. After a twelve month period in which he was relatively well and pain free, the low back pain with intermittent radiation returned and continued to deteriorate. In 1996, following a period of suppuration and infection, the Harrington rods (internal fixation mechanism) were removed in a further operation. The Applicant had prior to the circumstances leading up to the second operation undertaken work for 20 hours per week for a 12 month period with a home maintenance and modification project. In this activity the Applicant undertook and enjoyed clerical work for four hours a day, which consisted of two hours in the morning, a break at home, and then two hours in the afternoon. The Applicant stated that the only work performed since the second operation was in 1999 when he worked for a pathology company as a courier for ten hours per week. He had to stop after three weeks because of increasing back pain associated with getting in and out of the courier vehicle.
The Applicant indicated that he had purchased his own home in Grafton in 1990, with the assistance of a loan of $15000 from his parents. His other outstanding debt is for $3000, which he borrowed for repairs to his car. His three children aged 24, 18 and 16 have established their own lives, with only the 18 year old living with the Applicant.
In detailing his daily activities the Applicant stated that he rises between 8 am and 9 am, shaves, tidies up and gets his own lunch, followed by a two hours rest prior to watching a little television, being in bed by 10:30 pm. He stated that he sleeps in on the weekends and is not a great reader or watcher of television. He stated that he goes to clubs once or twice a week but does not drink or smoke. He stated that his hobbies included water skiing and power boat racing (both of which he cannot now do) and rugby league (watching). He stated that he does the washing and ironing and is not much of a cook. His son does the mopping, vacuuming, gardening, mows the lawn and cleans the car.
In detailing his various medical conditions to the Tribunal, the Applicant described the following:

Chronic Back:
(a)injured during fall at farm in 1975 and has had disc problems since, with low back pain radiating to hips, down both legs to toes prior to his operation in 1987. Confirmed that there was significant improvement for twelve months after the rehabilitation program when chronic low back pain returned with radiation of pain as before associated with some numbness in the legs;
(b)in 1995/1996 he experienced fever associated with abcess formation in the lower back. Open drainage for three months was followed by referral to Brisbane, where a second operation was undertaken to remove the Harrington's rods. This again was followed by a rehabilitation period of six months; and
(c)since then he has had chronic low back pain with a similar pattern of radiation involving a tight and burning feeling in his feet, pain behind the knees and weakness in the legs. It also aches after he has been sleeping.

Other conditions:
(a)shoulder and neck have started to stiffen over the last 12 months;
(b)suffers from headaches 'on and off';
(c)glandular fever May 2000 – aches in bones since, and slowly getting over it.

The Applicant stated that he was able to undertake the following activities:
·     walk for 15 minutes, rest (sit down) and walk again;
·     able to walk up and down stairs slowly and with rest;
·     can swim four to five laps and then gets tired;
·     can drive a car for three quarters of an hour and then gets soreness in the back;
·     can use public transport, where it exists; and
·     is unable to undertake heavy lifting, bending, twisting, running or carrying.

The Applicant stated that he is on the following medication:
·   Voltaren as required (2-3 times a week);
·   Panadeine Forte one tablet a day (approx);
·   sleeping tablets;
·   anti-depression tablets; and
·   Panamax.

medical evidence:

In a treating doctor's report dated 7 April 1999, Dr Hutson stated that the Applicant had the single condition of spondylolisthesis, that he has recurrent back pain, that he had a spinal fusion in 1987 and a removal of fixation rods in 1996; that the condition was long term and stable; that the Applicant was fit to return to his usual job of office work on a full time basis, but that he would only be able to return to his part time work in two years (patent inconsistency); and that the main effect on the Applicant's ability to work would be an inability to lift, carry or move objects (T4).
In a medical assessment report dated 29 April 1999, Dr Greacen stated that the Applicant had a quarter loss of range of movement of his thoraco-lumbo-sacral spine and restricted sitting tolerance, associated with constant low back pain extending to his feet. His assessment was 10 points under Table 5.2 of the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables, with the further opinion that the Applicant was able to manage full time light sedentary or semi-sedentary work (T5).
In a further treating doctor's report dated 4 June 1999 Dr Fiay described the Applicant's conditions as chronic back pain and bilateral sciatic nerve root irritiation/compression with pain and numbness down both lower limbs; that both conditions were long term, fluctuating and deteriorating and that the Applicant was unfit for any full time or part time work for more than two years; that his work ability would be affected by absences from work of four or more days a month, his lack of endurance to work full days, his ability to alternate between tasks, his restricted mobility and inability to lift, carry or move objects (T7).
Dr Meyer, a radiologist, reported on 23 June 1999 on plain x-rays of the thoracolumbosacral spine and hips in the following terms:
"Thoracolumbosacral spine
Slight lower thoracic left and thoracolumbar right scolioses. No signs of degenerative spondylosis apart from disc volume loss at L4-5.
L4/L5/S1 intertransverse surgical osseous fusions. The L4-5 and L5-S1 facet joints on each side are extremely poorly seen and may be synostosed. L5 vertebral body is displaced about 4mm anteriorly on S1, presumably secondary to previous L5 pars interarticularis defects, and associated with some hypoplasia of the posterior part of L5 body.
Both hips
No significant abnormality in the sacro-iliac and hip joints. No signs of joint degeneration." (T11)

In a medical report dated 28 June 1999, Dr Fiay noted his findings at examination and in particular the following range of movements of lumbosacral spine:
"Flexion to 60 degrees and caused pain.
Extension to 10 degrees and caused pain.
Rotation to right and left to forty five degrees and caused pain." (T12)
Dr Meyer, a consultant radiologist reported on 29 July 1999 on a CT scan of the Applicant's lumbosacral spine:
"L2-3,L3-4
Very mild diffuse disc bulging at both levels but no significant stenosis of the central spinal canal and no associated focal disc protrusion.
Mild facet joint hypertrophy at L3-4.
L4-5,L5-S1
L4-S1 is a transverse bony surgical bony fusions and the L4-5 and L5-S1 facet joints are synostosed. Possible healed L5 pars intraarticularis defects. The L4 and L5 laminae are relatively narrow and this is attributed to developmental variation.
No diffuse or focal disc bulging at either level and there is no significant neuroforaminal narrowing." (T20)
In a medical report dated 21 June 2000 Dr Fiay confirmed that his findings of 21 June 2000 were consistent with his findings of 22 June 1999 in relation to his range of spinal movements. Dr Fiay assessed the Applicant's impairment at 20 points under Table 5.2 of the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables – there being a loss of half of normal range of movement as well as back pain and referred pain with most physical activities. Dr Fiay also commented on the presence of Cytomegalic and Epstein-Barr viral antibodies as a result of tests taken on 24 March 2000 (Exhibit A2).
In a further assessment report dated 27 July 2000 Dr Greacen assessed the Applicant as having a loss of half the normal range of movement of thoraco-lumbosacral spine with back pain and pain radiation to both lower limbs with most activities (sitting-30 minutes, standing better than sitting) (Exhibit R5).
submissions
The Applicant contended that he has a chronic entrenched back condition which commenced in 1975 following a fall from a horse and for which he was operated on in 1987 and 1996. Further he contended that he has a post viral syndrome and features of depression. The Applicant, in noting that he was on disability support pension until 22 December 1999, at which time it was cancelled, and that following a further application was again granted the disability support pension on 28 June 2000, submits that his back condition has continued to cause him the same troubles both before his cancellation, during his six month cancellation period and after being granted his disability support pension once again. The Applicant submits that the more detailed clinical findings and assessment of Dr Fiay and his current treating doctor's report should be preferred to those of Dr Hutson in his report of 7 April 1999 and Dr Greacen in his assessment report of 29 April 1999.
In terms of his inability to work, the Applicant, in relying on the opinion of Dr Fiay, submits that the report of Dr Hutson is contradictory as regards his ability to work and the report of Dr Greacen is inconsistent with his previous clerical work experience with home modifications.
The Respondent submits that the medical reports of Drs Hutson and Greacen support an assessment of the Applicant's impairments at less than 20 points under the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables. Further Dr Greacen is clearly of the view that the Applicant has the work ability to sustain full time work for thirty hours per week in light sedentary activities.
consideration and findings
In preliminary comment the Tribunal notes the effect of subsection 100(3) of the Act in limiting consideration to material leading up to the decision to cancel the disability pension and for a period of three months thereafter. Material outside these time frame parameters may be used by the Tribunal where it allows a greater understanding of the medical conditions and their consequences in relation to work ability that exists during the relevant time.
The Tribunal in considering this matter notes the following relevant legislation, namely subsections 94(1) in part, (2), (3), (4) and (5):
"94 Qualification for disability support pension
(1)A person is qualified for disability support pension if:
(a)the person has physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b)the persons 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)…
94(2)    A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work within the next 2 years; and
(b)either:
(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on- the- job training during the next 2 years; or
(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training - such training is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work within the next 2 years.
94(3) In deciding whether or not a person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment, the Secretary is not to have regard to:
(a) the availability to the person of educational or vocational training or      on-the-job training, or
(b) if subsection (4) does not apply to the person – the availability to the   person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.
94(4) For the purpose of subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), if a person has turned 55, the Secretary may, in considering whether educational or vocational training is likely to enable the person to do work, have regard to the likely availability to the person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.
94(5) In this section:
educational or vocational training does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychological impairments.
on-the-job training does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments.
work means work:
(a)that is for at least 30 hours per week at award wages or above, and
(b)that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market."
In turning to the material evidence in this matter, the Tribunal observes the following:
(a)that the Applicant has had a significant history of low back disorder following a fall from a horse in 1975, a slow deterioration between then and 1987 at which time the Applicant underwent an internal fixation and fusion of various segments of his lumbosacral spine. Following a period of rehabilitation (18 months) and a 12 month period of very minimal symptoms, the Applicant's symptoms reappeared and towards the end of a 12 month period of part-time clerical employment (20 hours per week) he developed an abcess in his lower back which was drained over a period of three months as well as being treated with antibiotics. At the end of this period in 1996 he underwent a further operation to remove the Harrington's rods from his lumbosacral spine;
(b)that the Applicant's symptoms have been, apart from the earlier years, post the fall in 1975 and for a period of twelve months after the first operation, constant low back pain with increased incidence of pain radiating to hips and down both legs behind the knees to his feet. Further there has in later years been the presence of tingling and numbness behind the knees and in the feet;
(c)that the symptomology is aggravated by standing, sitting, walking and driving as well as causing difficulty with sleeping. The Applicant states he is unable to do much which involves bending, lifting and carrying; and
(d)the Applicant also complains that he is suffering from neck and shoulder pain over the last twelve months, and increasing headaches. Further it is his understanding that he is taking tablets for depression and to help with sleeping. He also takes Voltaren tablets as necessary, Panadeine Forte (averages one per day) and Panamax.

The Tribunal, in considering its earlier observations and the opinions of Drs Hutson, Fiay and Greacen and the radiological reports of Dr Meyer makes the following findings of fact:
(a)the Applicant has a chronic entrenched condition of his lumbosacral spine; this condition has been symptomatic over many years; there was a period of some relief to symptomology for a period of twelve months after his first operation in 1987; he has had two significant operations to the affected area of his lumbosacral spine, with the second arising as a consequence of infections and the necessity to remove the Harrington's rods;
(b)the Applicant's major symptomology is moderate low back pain with intermittent radiation to both hips and both legs to both feet. There is also associated numbness and tingling behind the knees and in both feet and a burning feeling in his toes;
(c)medications for his low back condition include Voltaren tablets (two to three times a week), Panadeine Forte (one tablet a day approx) and Panamax. Medication is also taken for sleeping and depression;
(d)the Applicant's low back condition affects his ability to walk (15 minutes then rest), to stand or sit for periods in excess of 30 to 45 minutes, to drive a car for more than 45 to 60 minutes without a rest, to undertake heavy lifting, carrying, bending, twisting or running;
(e)the condition of pain in neck and shoulders and increasing frequency of headaches (occipital) has occurred over the last 12 months, and that to date no definitive diagnostic evaluation has been undertaken; and
(f)the condition of post viral syndrome was diagnosed on 10 March 2000 and his symptomology appears to be decreasing (tiredness and lassitude).

As a consequence of the Tribunal's findings of fact it is evident that as far as this matter is concerned the relevant and only condition for further consideration by theTribunal is the chronic entrenched low back condition. The other conditions are found by the Tribunal to lie outside the ambit of this appeal, in that the neck and shoulder pain and headaches are new conditions not considered during the operative period and lacking in diagnostic work-up and evaluation. Similarly, the post viral syndrome is a condition falling outside the operative period for consideration, as well as seeming to be a temporary condition (Applicant's evidence as to improvements in symptomology).
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does have the condition of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis as characterised by chronic entrenched low back pain with intermittent radiation to both legs and feet and affecting the Applicant's ability to walk, sit, stand, lift, carry, drive, run or twist. As a consequence the Applicant is found to satisfy subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal, in considering the appropriate assessment for the designated conditions, notes that both the Drs Hutson and Greacen in their reports of 7 April 1999 and 29 April 1999 respectively conclude that the appropriate assessment for this condition is 10 points under Table 5.2 of the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables in that the Applicant had in their opinion a loss of one quarter of the normal range of movement of the thoraco lumbarsacral spine, together with back pain or referred pain with many physical activities. The Tribunal further notes that both doctors consider the condition to be permanent and stable and that Dr Greacen in a later report dated 27 July 2000 (outside the operative period) assessed the Applicant as having lost half the normal range of movement of the thoraco lumbarsacral spine. The Tribunal notes that neither Dr Hutson nor Dr Greacen in any of the reports detailed the particular percentage loss of the individual movements of flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion and right and left rotation.
The Tribunal observes that Dr Fiay in his reports of 22 June 1999 and 21 June 2000 concluded that the Applicant had a similar loss of half the normal range of movement on both occasions and detailed the loss of movement for individual components – namely flexion 60 degrees, extension ten degrees, and high and left rotation 45 degrees. The Tribunal further notes that the first two measurements are congruent with his finding of a loss of half the normal range of movement, while the Tribunal is unable to assess the meaningfulness of the right and left lateral rotation measurements. The Tribunal also notes that a similar back pain and radiation distribution was documented by Dr Fiay who considered the Applicant to have a 20 point impairment rating under Table 5.2 of the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables.
The Tribunal in considering the particular assessments is concerned that the table selected may not be the appropriate table, as it is clear to the Tribunal that reference is made under both ten points and 20 points within Table 5.2 that the range of loss of movement is to be considered with back pain or referred pain. The Tribunal is of a view that where both are present the disability is not necessarily being properly assessed under this particular table, for if it were to be so "or" would have been replaced by the word "and" or "and/or". In such circumstances, and indeed as in a matter such as this where in the Tribunal's view the condition is chronic and entrenched, it is more appropriate for the condition and its major symptom (pain) to be assessed under Table 20.
In view of the Tribunal's finding that assessment in this matter is better undertaken using Table 20 and before moving to do so, the Tribunal would also express the opinion that were assessment to be undertaken under Table 5.2, the fairer assessment would be 20 points, which in turn reflects the nature of the condition, its permanency and stability, the existence of pain in the low back and the pain radiation, both associated with many physical activities as earlier nominated and a loss of range of movement of half. In such a finding the Tribunal has preferred the opinion of Dr Fiay in that he did detail the particulars of his assessment of the various movements, while Dr Greacen only did this when he found a similar loss of movement in July 2000. In such a particular analysis the Tribunal must favour the evidence where clinical detail is nominated, unless evidence is led to refute the particulars nominated.
Nevertheless the Tribunal has already nominated that the appropriate table for assessment is Table 20 of the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables. As a consequence of the Tribunal finding that the Applicant has a chronic and entrenched condition with pain in the back and pain radiation as earlier described, the Tribunal finds that the condition, because of pain interference with many of the Applicant's day to day activities such as walking, sitting, standing, driving, running and twisting, limits his ability to carry out every day functions as nominated earlier in this decision. Further the completion of most activities is done with difficulty, and also leads to avoidance of some daily tasks. Further it is evident that the Applicant had difficulties in carrying through his four hours a day work schedule in 1996 and there is no evidence other than that of the Applicant that his limited hours courier duties were curtailed again because of pain symptomology. It is the Tribunal's finding that in view of the issues already nominated the Applicant has a 20 point impairment rating under Table 20. In making such a finding the Tribunal has noted the Applicant's particular personal characteristics and his attitude to both medication (adverse) and to work (positive) and that there is no indication in his presentation to the Tribunal that the Applicant was other than he presented – a person with a long history of labouring activities, with limited education and with a chronic entrenched disability with which he is trying to cope as best he can.
It is the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant satisfies subsection 94(1)(b) in that his condition is assessed at 20 points.
The Tribunal in considering the Applicant's inability to work is aware that the Applicant has been regranted disability support pension in July 2000 and that this in itself for all practical reasons should be sufficient to indicate that the Applicant had an inability to work when the decision was taken to cancel his disability support pension in June 1999 and which was implemented in December 1999, for the clear cut evidence is that he was found not to be able to work within a twelve month time frame.
However it may well be argued that the Tribunal is unable to use such futuristic evidence in its decision, and therefore must deal with the evidence as it stood during the operative period. In examining such evidence the Tribunal notes the following:
(a)the evidence of the Applicant in relation to his work activities as a clerical worker in 1996 – 20 hours a week, with two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon with a significant rest period in between;
(b)the evidence of the Applicant in relation to his courier work for a pathology company, which involved ten hours per week, and which he had to cease after three weeks because of back pain;
(c)the evidence of the Applicant in relation to his day to day limitations and his work limitations;
(d)the opinion of Dr Hutson that (despite the internal inconsistency in his report, which was eventually clarified) the Applicant was not fit for more than 20 hours per week of light work (Exhibit R5);
(e)the opinion of Dr Greacen that the Applicant was fit for full time work in light sedentary or semi-sedentary work. The Tribunal does note that Dr Greacen has revised this opinion in his report of July 2000;
(f)the opinion of Dr Fiay which has been constant and to the effect that the Applicant could be retrained for light sedentary or semi-sedentary work for up to eight hours per week; and
(g)the medical opinions which nominate the particular limitations placed on the Applicant's work ability. These in general relate to his mobility, work attendance and carrying, lifting and bending limitations, as well as his requirements for postural change.
Having examined the above material it is the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant has a continuing inability to work and this arises directly from his disability. It is the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant is unable to work for 30 hours per week for at least two years, and while the Applicant may be able to undertake limited (less than 20 hours per week) vocational or educational or on the job training, such training is unlikely, because of the impairment, to enable the Applicant to do any work within the next two years. In essence the Tribunal finds that the Applicant satisfies subsection 94(1)(c)(i) as defined by subsections 94(2) and (5) of the Act.
In summary it is the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant satisfies the qualifications for a disability support pension, as he satisfies the necessary requirements by subsections 94(1)(a),(b), and (c)(i) of the Act.
determination
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution thereof the Tribunal finds that the Applicant continued to satisfy the qualifications necessary for a disability support pension during the period for which it was cancelled.
I certify that the 41 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr J D Campbell:
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date/s of Hearing  21 August 2000
Date of Decision  13 September 2000
Solicitor for the Applicant         self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent    Adele Alex