Hope and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
[2006] AATA 575
•30 June 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 575
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/1511
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re ANTHONY HOPE Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member Date30 June 2006
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. ..............................................
Dr J D Campbell Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY - disability support pension – assessment of what impairments Applicant suffers from – assessment and consideration of qualification for disability support pension – assessment of continuing inability to work – the decision under review is affirmed.
Social Security Act 1991 - section 94, Schedule 1B
Social Security Administration Act 1999 - Schedule 2
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 June 2006 Dr J D Campbell, Member introduction
1. Mr Hope (“the Applicant”) was born on 19 August 1945. Having attained his intermediate certificate, Mr Hope commenced work undertaking clerical duties with the Department of Motor Transport (later the “Roads and Traffic Authority”) in 1960. In 1992 Mr Hope was made redundant from that Department.
2. Mr Hope commenced work as a kitchen hand with Qantas in 1993. In 1996 Mr Hope injured his right shoulder at work, with a shoulder reconstruction undertaken late 1996/ early 1997. Around this time Mr Hope complained of and was investigated for bowel symptomatology. Following rehabilitation for his right shoulder injury Mr Hope was redeployed to clerical activities in the finance area at Qantas, where he was later successful in obtaining part-time and subsequently full-time employment.
3. In 2000 Mr Hope was diagnosed with non-insulin dependent diabetes and treatment commenced and continued but varied since. In early 2004 Mr Hope was diagnosed as suffering from a tear in the supraspinatus tendon of his left shoulder which, he believed, arose from an incident at home.
4. By late 2004 Mr Hope was having difficulty getting out of bed. This, Mr Hope believed, was associated with a feeling of exhaustion, soreness in both shoulders and over indulgence in alcohol. In February 2005 Mr Hope attempted to return to work. This was unsuccessful and following the exhaustion of sick leave, annual leave and long service leave entitlements, Mr Hope was terminated by Qantas on 30 September 2005.
5. Mr Hope lodged a claim for disability support pension on 6 July 2005. On 22 August 2005 Centrelink rejected Mr Hope’s claim for disability support pension. This decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer on 2 September 2005 and again affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) on 24 October 2005.
6. In this review, Mr Hope seeks an outcome that recognises both the level of his impairment and his continuing inability to work. In so doing Mr Hope expressed his difficulty in understanding the significant variation in the impairment ratings nominated by his attending general practitioner (Dr Raftos) and those provided by doctors from Health Service Australia, together with the assessments made in the various decisions referred to in paragraph five of this decision.
issues
7. The relevant issues in this matter are:
· From what impairments does Mr Hope suffer?
· What is the assessment of such impairments?
· Does Mr Hope qualify for disability support pension?
· Does Mr Hope have a continuing inability to work?
decision
8. For the reasons stated later in this decision, Mr Hope does suffer from the following impairments:
· Non-insulin dependent diabetes
· Diarrhoea
· Injury right shoulder
· Injury left shoulder
· Alcohol overuse/abuse/dependency
· Visual impairment.
9. The assessment for each impairment is as detailed:
·Non-insulin dependant diabetes – no impairment rating assigned
·Diarrhoea – no impairment rating assigned
·Rotator cuff tear right shoulder – 10 points
·Rotator cuff tear left shoulder – 5 points
·Alcohol overuse/abuse – no impairment rating assigned
·Visual impairment – Nil
10. Mr Hope does not qualify for disability support pension as his total impairments is not of 20 points or more, pursuant to the Impairment Tables.
11. On the evidence before the Tribunal Mr Hope does not have a continuing inability to work, but no finding is made, as issues surrounding alcohol overuse/abuse/dependency and the issue of stabilisation of his diabetic condition either by way of optimal treatment or better compliance with treatment remain.
12. Such issues need to be explored and understood before both a total impairments points rating is established and an assessment of his continuing inability to work taken in the context of such further considerations. Such an assessment is beyond the scope of this review process as a consequence of the material available to the Tribunal.
consideration and findings
13. The particular issue in this matter is whether Mr Hope qualifies for disability support pension. Section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines the necessary qualifications, namely:
·Does Mr Hope have any physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment?; and
·Does the assessment of Mr Hope’s impairments rate 20 or more points pursuant to the Schedule 1B Impairment Tables?; and
·Does Mr Hope have a continuing inability to work?
14. Consideration of the above qualification issues is to be determined within a thirteen week period commencing with the date of lodgement of claim (6 July 2005). Such is the effect of Schedule 2, Part 2, section 4 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Material, particularly medical opinion created subsequent to this period is able to be used in considerations where such material/opinion relates to the period in question and/or assists in improved understanding of the impairments and/or effects thereof during the assessment period.
impairments
15. Mr Hope detailed the following clinical history that is relevant in this matter in relation to each impairment.
Diarrhoea
Mr Hope’s diarrhoea commenced in mid nineties. Was referred to Dr Newstead (Consultant Colorectal Surgeon) in 1996 and 1997. A colonoscopy was performed with no abnormalities detected. Check colonoscopies have been performed in 2000, 2002 and 2005. Mr Hope also saw Dr Yeo (Consultant General Surgeon) in 1996 or 1997 and was treated for haemorrhoids.
16. Mr Hope stated that he experienced diarrhoea three to five times a day that the frequency is less than when first investigated and appears to be associated with some medications taken for his diabetes. Mr Hope also stated that there were periods of constipation followed by episodes of diarrhoea. Mr Hope showed some papers to the Tribunal which indicated the use of colofac and some laxative granules on a particular occasion. Mr Hope stated that apart from the inconvenience, he was always concerned that an attack of diarrhoea may occur and this tended to restrict him to his domicile, with only short journeys being contemplated. Mr Hope also stated that he believed his continuing lethargy and interrupted sleep arose as a consequence.
17. In relation to such a history I note the issue of diarrhoea was not nominated in either Mr Hope’s claim lodged on 6 July 2005, nor in the treating doctor’s report of 6 July 2005 (T9), nor in the employee statement for disability/serious ill-health benefits claim form dated 7 July 2005 (T8), nor in the disability medical report completed by Dr Raftos on 13 July 2005 (T9). A report of intermittent diarrhoea is noted as associated symptoms with his non-insulin dependent diabetes by the Health Services medical adviser on 8 August 2005 (T10, p45). On 23 March 2006 Dr Raftos in a further report (Exhibit A1) details generally but briefly Mr Hope’s problems with his diarrhoea. In his report of 6 April 2006 Health Services Australia Consultant Occupational Physician, Dr Matalani (Exhibit R3) concludes that “no diagnosis has been established in relation to his reported diarrhoea”, which he describes as occurring five to six times a day, five days out of seven, and occurring half an hour after meals and associated with cramping abdominal pain.
18. On the evidence outlined, I note the increasing focus on a diarrhoeal history as the claim has progressed through the various appeal processes. I observe the surgical consultations with Dr Newstead and Dr Yeo in 1996 and 1997 and the follow up colonoscopies. I am satisfied that Mr Hope suffers from lower gastro intestinal symptomatology (intermittent attacks of diarrhoea with associated colicky pain). While the surgical consultations were some nine years ago, I note the absence of any current medical opinion or material which defines a cause for the diarrhoea, and while Mr Hope has noted some increase in episodes with particular diabetic oral medication this remains non-defined. Further on the documentation before me I remain less than satisfied that such documentation details the necessary nature of, chronicity and severity of Mr Hope’s symptomatology.
Non-insulin dependant diabetes
19. Mr Hope stated that this was diagnosed in 2000. He was referred to Dr Kitson (Consultant Endocrinologist), who instituted a regime of diet and exercise and a curtailment of alcohol use. Mr Hope stated that initial progress, as regards blood sugar level control was made, this being during a period of maximum compliance by him with the routine prescribed. Despite the introduction of oral hypoglycaemic agents, which have been varied in type by his General Practitioner, Dr Raftos, over time. Mr Hope described a history of alcohol intake which would indicate alcohol has played a significant role in Mr Hope’s ability to be both a compliant patient and a stable, well controlled diabetic.
20. Mr Hope stated that his serum glucose readings vary between 8 and 17 (norm 4-8), with the latter high readings associated with excessive alcohol intake.
21. Mr Hope stated that he has had a variety of symptoms associated with his diabetes. These include fatigue, lack of energy, lethargy, weight loss, nocturnal leg and toe cramps, increased thirst, nocturia (once a night) and diarrhoea (especially with Metformin).
22. I note that the symptomatology described is consistent with that nominated in the claim lodged on 6 July 2005, in the treating doctor’s report of 6 July 2005 and his report of 9 July 2005, in the HAS medical adviser’s report of 8 August 2005, Dr Raftos’ report of 23 March 2006 and the report of Dr Matalani of 6 April 2006, both of the latter reports again suggesting a relationship between his hypoglycaemic medication and his symptoms, including diarrhoea.
23. I am well satisfied that Mr Hope suffers from non-insulin dependant diabetes. Further I note that despite oral hypoglycaemic medication, Mr Hope’s diabetes is not well controlled and that the oral medication may be associated with some of Mr Hope’s continuing symptomatology. I also observe the inconsistency in Dr Raftos’ report of 23 March 2006 in which he speaks of a ten-year diabetic history and associated loss of weight.
Injury to right shoulder
24. Mr Hope describes injuring the right shoulder at work in mid 1996. A right shoulder rotator cuff repair was undertaken in late 1996/early 1997. Mr Hope describes his right shoulder as having returned to 70 per cent of its former function, but he has some difficulty in raising his arm above his shoulder, and lifting heavy items. He has no difficulty with hand and/or lower arm function of his dominant right arm. Mr Hope also noted some pain symptomatology in his right shoulder, but with movement and occasionally at night. No medication used. This clinical history is consistent with statements as to clinical history made in his claim and accompanying treating doctor’s report of 7 July 2005, in a further treating doctor’s report of 23 March 2006, and in the report of Dr Matalani of 6 April 2006.
25. I am satisfied that Mr Hope has a permanent impairment of his right shoulder arising from an injury and subsequent repair. I am satisfied that his residual symptoms are as he describes them and that his restrictions of movement as described by both him and Dr Matalani, the latter following his examination of the range of demonstrated movements by Mr Hope. I do not understand the comment in Dr Raftos’ report of 23 March 2006 that Mr Hope had major problems with the use of his right arm for some years prior to the surgery to repair the right shoulder. This appears to be inconsistent with the evidence of Mr Hope as to date of injury to right shoulder and subsequent repair to right shoulder.
Injury to left shoulder
26. Mr Hope described an injury to his left shoulder which he believed occurred at home in early 2004. Mr Hope stated that he believed he had a tear in his supraspinatus tendon of his left shoulder. It has been treated with physiotherapy and apart from some limitation of movement (raising arm above his head) causes him few difficulties.
27. Documentation from Dr Harper (Consultant Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon) dated 17 February 2004 confirms both the history and the nature of the injury to the left shoulder (T4), with the exception being the injury occurred some four months prior to consultation (November 2003). This history is confirmed by Dr Raftos in his report of 7 July 2004, and again in the reports of the HAS medical adviser dated 8 August 2005, and Dr Matalani of 6 April 2006. Dr Raftos in his report of 23 March 2006 details a four year history of Mr Hope suffering problems in his left shoulder, a major rotator cuff tear and that Mr Hope is awaiting surgery.
28. I am satisfied that Mr Hope suffers from impairment to his left shoulder, namely a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon, with restrictions in the use of the left shoulder and movement of the left arm. I note Mr Hope’s position that he does not wish to have a surgery. As a consequence I am satisfied that in such circumstances the impairment in his left shoulder is permanent.
29. Further I note that the comments made by Dr Raftos in his report of 23 March 2006 (noted above) are inconsistent with the clinical history given earlier both by him and others, while the issue of surgery is one which Mr Hope does not wish to embark upon.
Alcohol use/abuse
30. Mr Hope was particular in his evidence that a lot of his difficulties arose from his use of alcohol. He described his current consumption pattern as one which increased as the week progressed with major consumption (many beers, many wines) occurring at family related events on weekends. He noted that over the last year on a few occasions he had fallen to the ground during such events.
31. Mr Hope also confirmed that issues surrounding the control of his diabetes had much to do with his alcohol intake, and indeed his alcohol intake had been a problem for a number of years.
32. Mr Hope also wondered whether he was self medicating with alcohol because of some underlying anxiety – an anxiety which seemed evident in his desire to remain at home (stated because of his diarrhoea) and yet inconsistent with his ability to enjoy social occasions at the club on Friday nights and travel to Sydney by train.
33. The history of alcohol usage is evident in the reports of Dr Raftos of 6 July 2005 and 23 March 2006. Dr Matalani in his report of 6 April 2006 records an alcohol history which would appear conservative in the light of the history given by Mr Hope at the hearing.
34. I am satisfied that there is material pointing to Mr Hope experiencing an alcohol problem. What I do not know is the nature and extent of the problem and whether or not it plays a role in Mr Hope’s capacity for work.
Visual difficulties
35. Mr Hope told the Tribunal that he began experiencing visual difficulties when doing a significant amount of computer screen work in 2003. His main complaint at that time was of eye watering. Mr Hope stated that he saw Dr Smith, a Consultant Ophthalmologist, in 2005, who reported that there was no evidence of any diabetic eye complications or damage at that stage.
36. In the light of the absence of further material on visual difficulties, I am satisfied that as far as this application is concerned, Mr Hope does not have a diagnosable eye condition.
37. Following the detailed appreciation of clinical history and examination of Mr Hope’s various conditions I am satisfied that Mr Hope has the following physical and/or psychiatric impairments:
·Diarrhoea
·Non-insulin dependant diabetes
·Repaired rotator cuff injury right shoulder
·Un-repaired rotator cuff injury left shoulder
·Alcohol overuse/abuse/dependence.
38. With such findings I am satisfied that Mr Hope satisfies section 94(1)(a) of the Act.
assessment of the various impairments
39. The introduction to the Schedule 1B Tables for the Assessment of Work Related Impairment for disability support pension detail the following instructions:
“…
4. A rating is only to be assigned after a comprehensive history and examination. For a rating to be assigned the condition must be a fully documented, diagnosed condition which has been investigated, treated and stabilised. The first step is thus to establish a working diagnosis based on the best available evidence. Arrangements should be made for investigation of poorly defined conditions before considering assigning an impairment rating. In particular where the nature or severity of a psychiatric (or intellectual) disorder is unclear appropriate investigation should be arranged.
5. The condition must be considered to be permanent. Once a condition has been diagnosed, treated and stabilised, it is accepted as being permanent if in the light of available evidence it is more likely than not that it will persist for the foreseeable future. This will be taken as lasting for more than two years. A condition may be considered fully stabilised if it is unlikely that there will be any significant functional improvement, with or without reasonable treatment, within the next 2 years.
6. In order to assess whether a condition is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, one must consider:
· what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred;
· whether treatment is still continuing or is planned in the near future;
· whether any further reasonable medical treatment is likely to lead to significant functional improvement within the next 2 years.
In this context, reasonable treatment is taken to be:
· treatment that is feasible and accessible ie, available locally at a reasonable cost;
· where a substantial improvement can reliably be expected and where the treatment or procedure is of a type regularly undertaken or performed with a high success rate and low risk to the patient.”
assessment of the non-insulin dependent diabetes:
40. In relation to this impairment there is no question that the condition has not been fully diagnosed, documented and treated. Nevertheless there is every evidence, as exampled by continuing symptomatology of lethargy, fatigue, weight loss, diarrhoea and continuing symptoms of thirst and polyuria that the condition may either have not been optimally treated, or that Mr Hope’s compliance with the treatment regime is less than desirable.
41. In either event, the consequence is that the condition has not been stabilised, albeit a permanent condition. In the circumstances of the clinical history of Mr Hope, as described, referral to an endocrine consultant, may be beneficial in establishing cause and effect for the continuing symptomatology and reinforce the necessity for adequate compliance by Mr Hope in treatment regimes. I note that Mr Hope is not keen on receiving insulin injections and so be it, but indeed there may be no need for such with an optimised treatment program and compliance to treatment by Mr Hope.
42. In such circumstances the appropriate rating for such impairment is not to make a rating. In this regard I observe and endorse the opinion of Dr Matalani. In so stating I recognise that the condition is not stabilised and that further specialist endocrine opinion and investigation may assist in that process.
43. Such an approach is further reinforced by an analysis of Impairment Table 19 – Endocrine Disorders. On the current information, Mr Hope would be assessed at a Nil rating. Rating of 20 under this table requires the diabetes to be not satisfactorily controlled (evidence thereof), despite vigorous therapy as indicated by , for example frequent hospital admissions (no evidence thereof), recurrent hypoglycaemia or hypotensive episodes (no evidence thereof) and/or progressive end organ damage (no evidence thereof). The Nil rating under this table relates to the existence of the condition while a 10 point rating under this table does not relate to the condition of diabetes mellitus.
44. In final comment I note Dr Raftos’ assessment at 20-30 points for this condition. As assessment must be made pursuant to the Impairment Tables, clearly Dr Raftos’ assessment is not in conformity with Table 19.
assessment of the diarhoea impariment
45. The clinical history of Mr Hope’s bowel symptomatology has been detailed earlier in this decision. While it is evident that Mr Hope is undergoing check colonoscopies every two to three years by Dr Newstead, the only finding available is that such colonoscopies have revealed no abnormality. A symptom of diarrhoea is reported by Mr Hope, which, he states, gets worse with his oral medication (Metformin) for his diabetes. No relevant specialist opinion (either endocrine and/or gastroenterological) has been canvassed as the cause of this continuing condition.
46. In such circumstances the cause of the diarrhoea is yet to be established, and without a fully documented investigation and relevant specialist opinions, optimal treatment for and stabilisation of the condition have not been affected. In such circumstances I again find that it is not appropriate to nominate a rating. I again endorse the approach of Dr Matalani on this issue.
47. I note that Dr Raftos has a different view in his report of 23 March 2006. As noted earlier in this decision Dr Raftos failed to mention the condition of diarrhoea in reports written by and lodged with Mr Hope’s claim in July 2005. Nevertheless I am not satisfied that his report of 23 March 2006 in relation to the condition of diarrhoea represents the totality of the clinical picture, as evidenced by the clinical history described by Mr Hope, and earlier comments in Dr Raftos’ report of 23 March 2006 in relation to his diabetes “unfortunately in his treatment with these medications (sic) Diamicron and Metformin the side effects have been enormous and their effect have probably been his major inability to function normally…. Suffers with constant daily diarrhoea… huge weight loss … problems with eyes and vision … complaints of lack of energy, tiredness etc..” (Exhibit A1, p1).
48. In overview the totality of Dr Raftos’ report of 23 March 2006 I would suggest reinforces the conclusion that the interrelationship between Mr Hope’s diabetes and treatment thereof and his continuing symptomatology, including diarrhoea, is indeed a clinical circumstance awaiting further investigation and specialist opinion before optimal treatment and stabilisation of Mr Hope’s conditions can eventuate.
assessment of alcohol condition
49. As Mr Hope’s details of his clinical history evolved before the Tribunal, it became evident that Mr Hope’s usage of alcohol was an issue, both as a stand alone condition and the effect that it had on his other conditions. The latter was observed both by Dr Raftos, while a consumption history was recorded in Dr Matalani’s opinion of 6 April 2006. The latter consumption history would appear to be conservative in light of Mr Hope’s more detailed alcohol consumption given to the Tribunal. Moreover Mr Hope detailed falling on a few occasions on weekends associated with excessive alcohol intake.
50. The effect of Mr Hope’s use of alcohol has not been explored in any detail, nor is there documentation of such. Similarly while reference has made to limit his intake to assist in controlling the diabetes, no clear understanding is documented as to why he has been a significant user of alcohol over a long period of time. Further investigation of his alcohol usage is required, the reasons for and an understanding of the relationships between excessive usage and his ongoing symptomatology, including awaking at night.
51. In such circumstances I again conclude that it is inappropriate to assign a rating, as the condition has not been fully documented, investigated, stabilised and treated.
assessment of right shoulder
52. The clinical history of the right shoulder impairment has been documented earlier in this decision. Mr Hope has clearly defined the limitations that arise from the impairment. Dr Matalani has detailed again what the clinical limitations are of such an impairment.
53. Impairment Table 3 provides for the following:
“TABLE 3 UPPER LIMB FUNCTION
All upper limb problems are assessed under the upper limb Table (Table 3). Each arm is assessed separately. Determination of upper limb impairments must be based on a demonstrable loss of function.
Rating Criteria
NIL Can use dominant limb effectively and/or
Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation of upper limb which causes mild interference with hand function or manual handling.
FIVE Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation of non-dominant upper limb which causes moderate interference with hand function or manual handling.
TEN Demonstrable evidence of loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation of dominant upper limb which causes moderate interference with hand function or manual handling.
FIFTEEN Demonstrable evidence of major loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation of non-dominant upper limb which causes significant interference with hand function or manual handling.
TWENTY Demonstrable evidence of major loss of strength, mobility, coordination, dexterity and/or sensation of dominant upper limb which causes significant interference with hand function or manual handling or Unable to use non-dominant upper limb at all.
THIRTY Unable to use dominant upper limb at all.”
54. Mr Hope’s detailing of the effects of his impairment to his right shoulder indicated, that his current function of his right upper limb is about 70 per cent of its original function; with difficulties remaining in elevating the arm above his shoulder and other movements involving adduction and abduction of the shoulder. He reports no difficulty in hand function but some limitation in manual handling, but does report a loss of strength. As the right limb is Mr Hope’s dominant limb, I conclude that the appropriate assessment for the right upper limb impairment is 10 points.
55. I note that the assessment made is consistent with that made by Dr Matalani. Further I note the assessment made by Dr Raftos at 20 points. I would consider such an assessment to be not consistent with the evidence given by Mr Hope or by the assessment by Dr Matalani following a detailed history and examination.
assessment of the left shoulder impairment
56. I note the clinical details of this impairment already described in this decision. I note Mr Hope’s listing of what difficulties he experiences from the impairment. I note the opinion of Dr Matalani following his detailed clinical examination. I conclude that Mr Hope has a five point rating arising from his left shoulder impairment pursuant to Table 3, as he has demonstrable loss of strength and mobility in the left upper limb which causes some difficulties in manual handling.
57. I note the opinion of Dr Raftos as regards a 20 point rating in his report of 23 March 2006. Apart from an inaccurate history as detailed earlier, I consider that Dr Raftos’ assessment of this impairment is not consistent with the limitations as expressed by Mr Hope as arising from this impairment and the requirements nominated in the Table as there is neither major loss of strength or mobility and it is not a dominant limb, nor is there evidence to support a finding of significant interference with hard function or manual handling.
overal assessment
58. The summary assessment of Mr Hope’s impairments is a 15 point rating, with conditions non-insulin dependent diabetes, diarrhoea, and alcohol usage not rated, as such conditions remain to be either fully documented or fully investigated or treated or fully stabilised.
59. With an impairment rating of 15 points I find that Mr Hope does not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act and as such does not qualify for disability support pension.
continuing inability to work
60. The following reports on such issue include the work capacity assessment report of 2 February 2006 (Exhibit R2), the specialist medical opinion of Dr Matalani of 6 April 2006 (Exhibit R3) and reports from Dr Raftos of 6 July 2005 and 23 March 2006 (Exhibit A1). An assessment of these reports, when coupled with the evidence of Mr Hope, would in my view be inappropriate at this stage. In so stating I acknowledge that there is no necessity to take the matter further, as Mr Hope has failed to satisfy the 20 point, or more impairment rating criteria. Further I also recognise that there are three conditions for which no rating has been given as such conditions have not been fully documented, investigated, treated or stabilised. In such circumstances I consider any analysis open to difficulty.
determination
61. The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 61 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr J D Campbell, Member
Signed: Associate
Date of Hearing 6 June 2006
Date of Decision 30 June 2006
Representative for the Applicant Mr A Hope, Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent Ms S Mantaring, Centrelink Legal
Services Branch
0
0
0