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

[2017] AATA 1316

Jovceska and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1316 (21 July 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2016/6074

Re:Snezana Jovceska

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:William Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member

Date:21 July 2017

Date of written reasons:        18 August 2017

Place:Sydney

The decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division dated 13 October 2016 is set aside and in substitution, the Tribunal decides Snezana Jovceska satisfied subsections 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Social Services Act 1991 (Cth) on 10 December 2015 and the Disability Support Pension should be granted with effect from 10 December 2015.

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

William Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – neck and back condition – upper limb condition – mental health condition – applicant suffered from a physical and psychiatric impairment –medical conditions rated more than 20 points under the Impairment Tables – applicant has a continuing inability to work – decision under review set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

SECONDARY MATERIALS

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

William Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member

18 August 2017

1. This matter relates to an application for Disability Support Pension. The basic facts are on 10 September 2015 the applicant lodged a claim for the Disability Support Pension, hereafter referred to as the DSP. The claim was rejected by Centrelink, both initially on 15 January 2016, and again on review on 6 July 2016. It was rejected on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

2. On 13 October 2016, the Social Services and Child Support Division, the SSCSD (often referred to as the AAT1) found that the applicant did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act, and accordingly she did not qualify for the DSP. On 8 November 2016, the applicant applied to the AAT2 (or the general division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) for a review of the earlier decision by the AAT1. The matter was heard on 12 July 2017 and the applicant attended the hearing in person. She represented herself and was assisted by a Macedonian interpreter. Her husband also gave evidence and Dr Khan, her treating GP, gave evidence by phone.

3. The applicant had previously applied for DSP, unsuccessfully, on several occasions in the past, and recently she has applied again for DSP and is currently being assessed for that.  I understand that application was made a couple of months ago and the matter is progressing.

4. To be granted DSP the applicant must satisfy section 94(1) of the Act which provides that a person qualifies for the DSP if:

   (a)the person has a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment;  and

   (b)the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the impairment tables;  and

   (c)the person has a continuing inability to work, as defined in section 94(2) of the Act.

5. In accordance with the requirements of the Social Security Administration Act 1999 (Cth), to qualify for the DSP the applicant must satisfy these requirements as at the date of her claim, or within 13 weeks of lodging the claim. Therefore, the applicant must satisfy the requirements between 10 September 2015 and 10 December 2015 (the claim period).

6. The Tribunal was assisted in this matter by the T-Docs, JCA reports, medical evidence from Dr Lal (the applicant’s general practitioner until 2016), evidence from Dr Khan (the applicant’s general practitioner up until 2006 and then again from 2016 onwards), reports by Dr Subhas (a consultant psychiatrist) and a report by psychologist Ms Boutros dated August 2015.

7. The respondent conceded that the applicant does suffer medical conditions that cause impairment and therefore she satisfies 94(1)(a) of the Act, at the time of her claim for the DSP.  The respondent also conceded that in terms of the upper limb condition and depression and anxiety, these conditions were fully treated, stabilised and fully diagnosed.  In fact, the documentation indicates the depression was diagnosed as far back as 2005 and that is conceded by the respondent.  The respondent, however, indicates that in terms of the Impairment Tables the applicant should only be awarded 5 points under Table 2, and 10 points under Table 5.

8. So the issues the Tribunal must determine in this matter, fundamentally, are whether during the claim period the applicant had:

   (a)an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and

   (b)a continuing inability to work as defined in section 94(2) of the Act.

   Does the applicant have an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables?

9. The Social Security Tables for the assessment of work-related impairments for DSP require that an impairment rating can only be assigned if the condition causing that impairment is permanent.   As set out in paragraph 6(4) of the Impairment Tables, a condition is permanent if it has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, fully treated and fully stabilised and will more likely than not persist for more than two years.

10. The Impairment Tables describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations.  They are designed ratings to determine the level of the functional impact of impairment.  The introduction to each relevant table requires that the self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient and there must be corroborating evidence of the person’s impairment.

11. Relying on the evidence before me, I consider that the applicant’s medical conditions for the purposes of her claim for the Disability Support Pension are her neck and back pain (and that is referred to by Dr Khan) , her upper limb condition and her chronic anxiety and depression. There are also other issues that she has, such as arthritis of the knees, diabetes, anaemia, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension, but they were not particularly pressed in this application.

12. I am now going to consider each of these medical conditions and their relevant rating under the Impairment Tables.

    Neck and back pain

13. The neck and back pain relate to an accident the applicant had at work in 2003. The applicant had until that point in time an excellent work history having worked 8 years in one job and 11 years in another. In 2003 the applicant tripped on some gravel and fell over badly injuring her hands, her arms, her shoulders, smashing her teeth and injuring her knees (which may have potentially led to some arthritis later on).

14. As a result of these conditions she was on worker’s compensation, but unfortunately for her, she told the Tribunal that due to a change in the Act, the company took her off worker’s compensation in 2013 or thereabouts, and from that time onwards she has been on NewStart and has made a number of applications, unsuccessfully, for a Disability Support Pension.

15. Her life very much changed after 2003 and she attests to that, as do the various medical reports and her husband in his evidence to the Tribunal.  As a result of these physical conditions, she also developed anxiety and depression.

16. In terms of her neck and back pain, it appears that it has recently been linked back to the accident in 2003.  At this stage, it cannot be considered due to the lack of evidence that the neck and back pain has been fully treated, stabilised, or indeed even necessarily diagnosed.

    Upper limb condition

17. In terms of the second most obvious problem, extensive pain and damage to her upper limbs (shoulders, elbows, arms and hands) the applicant has been awarded varying points for this condition by different assessors.  In one of the JCA reports she was awarded 10 points, the AAT1 rated it at five points and Dr Khan, in his report dated 5 April 2017, which relates to seeing her on a number of occasions beforehand in early 2017, allocates it 10 points.  However, in Dr Khan’s oral evidence given before the tribunal, he indicated that only three out of the six descriptors were satisfied.

18. To determine the rating that should be given to the applicant’s upper limb condition it is necessary to examine the functional impact of this condition.  The applicant informed the JCA on 14 January 2016, that she could pick up light items off the table, stack the dishwasher and wash up small items such as a cup.  She could turn the pages in a book, cook light meals, hang items on the line, but with pain, had difficulty picking up a bottle that was heavier than one to two kilograms, had difficulty holding a pen, cutting vegetables, and changing the bed sheets.  She was unable to unscrew a bottle, do up buttons and tie her shoelaces.

19. In her oral evidence, the applicant indicated that in a typical day she has problems with her hands.  She can take tablets but will sit on the couch, resting her arm on a cushion.  She said this applies now and it also applied during the claim period back in late 2015.  She said she walks around her small backyard for maybe five or 10 minutes but will sit down when she needs to.   Her left side and her arm and leg get weak so she needs to sit.

20. Additionally, she indicated that her meals were prepared by her husband, daughter or son.  She was able to get a slice of bread and cheese from the fridge, but that is all.  In cross-examination she indicated that is probably all she really wants to eat anyway.  She cannot use her hands to hold a handle and her husband cuts her food for her.  He prepares it for her before she goes out, or she does not eat.

21. Additionally, she indicated that her husband makes the bed and changes the sheets.  She does not clean the house, wash and dry clothes and has not done these chores since the accident.  She tries to pull tops off bottles, but has trouble doing that.   She now only goes out with her husband. He drives and she has not driven since the accident.

22. During the claim period the applicant appears to have been able to walk for 15 minutes with her daughter. However, her hands and knees would get swollen and she would get headaches. At the hearing she indicated she cannot walk around shops anymore.

23. She also indicated in oral evidence that she would dress by using items which did not require buttons or zippers; she would need help with buttons or zippers.  She said it was very hard for her to put a trouser and top on and her husband helped dress her. She also indicated that she had trouble when she went to the toilet as she could not wipe her bottom, and that her husband would help her with this.  When she put her trousers on she said she felt pain.  Her husband combs her hair and her daughter-in-law also helps her with her hair.

24. On cross-examination the applicant gave further evidence of her capabilities. She indicated she cannot unscrew the cap on a bottle of water and her husband has to do it. She further stated that she goes to Coles occasionally with her husband and just gets bread and milk and nothing more, he carries the things, and he actually gets them off the aisle.  She also provided evidence that she is able to sign her name.

25. The applicant’s husband, Mr Jovceski, gave evidence before the Tribunal. He confirmed that he puts on the applicant’s bra, washes her hair, and sometimes has to assist with wiping her bottom.  He chops the food up. He indicated that she would have trouble picking up 2 litres of milk, it was hard for her to use a pen but she can sign her name.   He takes out the butter and she puts it on the bread.  He unscrews the bottle tops and lids and he does all the driving. He stated that it has been like that since the accident.

26. Dr Khan gave evidence by telephone with regard to the applicant’s functional impairment. Dr Khan indicated that the applicant had difficulty with three out of the six descriptors in the 10 point section for Table 2 of the Impairment Tables, but he indicated she could do (a), (b) and (c).

27. Considering all the evidence, I find that the applicant can hold a pen, she cannot do up buttons or tie shoelaces, she certainly cannot unscrew a lid on a soft drink bottle, she does not use a computer so we simply do not know there.  She can pick up a light object using two hands, and she can pick up, it seems, a litre carton of liquid.  Therefore, as she fails to meet the requirements for 10 points and falls between the criteria for awarding 10 points and 5 points, I award 5 points.

    Other conditions

28. The applicant’s other conditions include arthritis, diabetes, anaemia, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension. I agree with the submissions made by the respondent and by the AAT1 in relation to those conditions, that they have not been fully treated and stabilised.

    Depression and anxiety

29. To assess the functional impact of the applicant’s depression and anxiety it is necessary to examine Table 5 of the Impairment Tables.  The Secretary contends that the applicant should be awarded 10 points under Table 5. The Secretary’s contention is that the applicant would only satisfy two out of the six descriptors in the 20 point section of Table 5 and accordingly, 10 points are more appropriate.

30. The Secretary seemed to concede that if Dr Khan’s report of April 2017 (which considers the applicant’s condition now) and the most recent JCA report (which was completed for the new claim) were able to be accepted, then she would now qualify for 20 points (as it seems she would satisfy four out of the six descriptors for 20 points under Table 5). However, the Secretary reiterated that we are looking at the claim period in late 2015, not 2017.

31. In her oral evidence before the tribunal, the applicant said (as at the claim period) she felt unable to be left alone, her husband had to do everything for her and she would not go out without him. Additionally, she had no friends who would visit her only a relative who would and who still visits her.

32. The applicant also indicated that she would go shopping with her husband but she would tell him what to get.  She would walk with her husband or indeed another family member to her daughter’s place (it appears that two of her daughter’s live close by, within a 15 minute walk).  When she woke up in the morning her husband helped her get her coffee and her pills.  Her day was mostly spent watching television, but she was not really able to concentrate on the program, she just watched the screen.  She would see her daughter and her grandchildren, but her contact really was fairly minimal, and when she was with them she would want to be alone and would switch off.

33. She indicated in oral evidence that she would have a strange feeling that there was someone else watching her when there was not. This was corroborated by her husband’s oral evidence and the medical reports (see the report of Dr Subhas from August 2015).

34. She had completely changed from being the very independent, hard-working woman when she had a job to feeling quite useless.  She certainly felt she had difficulty maintaining her relationship with her husband. Her husband was her carer and had been for a long time.  He would take her to all her appointments, she would go everywhere with him.

35. Mr Jovceski gave evidence that he would not leave the applicant by herself for very long. He would only leave her to go to his own essential appointments. There is certainly no indication that he would leave her alone overnight.  He was concerned about her taking her pills and her forgetfulness.

36. Her husband gave further oral evidence on the functional impact of the applicant’s depression and anxiety. He expressed frustration at the fact that she could do so little and effectively he was doing everything and the Tribunal got the clear impression that it was a strain on him.

37. He said, more so now than perhaps two years ago, she would not have much to do with her grandchildren. She would cuddle them and then she would want to go into a room by herself. He stated that since the accident she could not be around lots of people.

38. He also indicated that she cannot work. He would take her to the program of support and they would give her a medical certificate saying that she could not work any hours at all.  She had actually applied for jobs over the last three years when she was completing a program of support (it seems that she has been on NewStart since 2013) and had even gone to a few interviews, but was always unsuccessful. Mr Jovceski said he felt this was due to her mental health condition.

39. The respondent’s representative directed the Tribunal to a number of reports which I will now examine. The first is a medical report for Disability Support Pension completed by

    
    

    Dr Lal who was the applicant’s treating doctor from around 2006 until the end of 2016 when Dr Khan took over again. It is dated 10 February 2015 and appears at T19.   Of relevance is page 168 where Dr Lal considers the applicant’s anxiety and depression and states that it was diagnosed in 2005.  Additionally, in the report Dr Lal indicated that her symptoms were low mood, panic attacks, lack of energy and chronic pain.  He said, at page 170, that prolonged pain led to depression. Additionally, on the same page he states the applicant was:

    Unable to concentrate, poor judgment/decision making, panic attacks… Did not see any improvement for several years.

40. As can be seen, this report by Dr Lal was completed prior to the claim period.

41. The respondent also referred to a Health Professional Report dated 25 August 2015 by psychologist Ms Boutros. The report indicated that the applicant had problems with 13 out of the 16 descriptors used to judge mental health and wellbeing namely that she had self-esteem issues, high anxiety, adjustment and coping difficulties, lost her job and income, high stress levels, depressive symptoms, difficulty concentrating, problems regulating emotions and was confused and forgetful, often frustrated, experiencing difficulty with sleep and has ongoing management difficulties.  Ms Boutros also stated:

    [She] has been treated with a variety of techniques, however due to her issues - in particular anxiety and depressive symptoms, chronic pain, mental functioning and financial difficulties - her prognosis for recovery is minimal.  It is unlikely [the applicant] can ever gain and maintain employment again.

42. Ms Boutros indicated that she had seen the applicant six times in the last 12 months at the time she prepared the report.

43. The respondent also referred to the Health Professional Report dated 26 August 2015, which is found at T24. This report was completed by Dr Lal. Dr Lal rates her as badly affected by nine out of the 16 mental health descriptors.  Dr Lal indicated that she suffered from anxiety, had adjustment and coping difficulties, stress, low mood, concentration difficulties, emotional regulation difficulties, some problem solving difficulties, sleep difficulties, pain management difficulties and other mental health related difficulties. Dr Lal indicated the applicant had been his patient for more than a year.

44. As well, the report of Dr Subhas, a consultant psychiatrist, dated 28 August 2015 and found at T25 considered the applicant’s depression and anxiety.  At page 196 of his report Dr Subhas states:

    In my opinion this lady has been unsettled and non-functional since the accident in Nov 2003.  She suffered fractures of both wrists - which I believe is well documented.  She is physically restricted, she cannot use her upper hands, cannot wipe herself, go to the toilet.  Her husband has been helping her and she feels helpless and she feels crippled.

45. He further stated the applicant needed to stabilise her depression, it is aggravated by her physical problems.  She cries a lot at home, she is still anxious, she is still depressed.  Dr Subhas further indicated that the applicant feels that people were “following her”.

1. Dr Subhas discusses the applicant’s anxiety and depression further and more specifically.  He stated that it is not an easy condition to treat, and also the fact that she is also physically restricted does not help.  He said  at page 197:

   In my opinion [the applicant] will find it extremely difficult to get back into any meaningful employment.  A lady that worked for nearly 20 years until she had the freak accident.  When are you people going to accept that this lady is unemployable.

2. As indicated earlier, Dr Khan prepared a report as well. The report stated, inter alia, that the applicant has been suffering from anxiety and depression since her injury in 2003. He states on pages 2 and 3 of this report dated 5 April 2017:

   After a fall at work she fractured both her wrists and strained her shoulder and neck.  Since then she has had constant chronic pain in both her hands, wrists, and neck.  Since her injury she has been unable to work, feels lonely, physically restricted, and has been feeling symptoms of anxiety and depression.  She has been having recurrent panic attacks, she has symptoms of tightness in her chest, difficulty in breathing, restless sleep, and has developed a fear of dying.  She cannot use her hands and she tends to drop things.  She cannot do her housework like cutting vegetables, cleaning, is dependent on her husband.  She has been living in guilt and has been feeling distressed/sad/teary.  She has very restless broken sleep and feels weak and lethargic.  She sometimes has suicidal thoughts.  She has been on antidepressants for a very long time and has regularly seen a psychiatrist and psychologist.  Currently she is on Lexapro 20 milligrams, two every morning, and Seroquel, 50 milligrams in the evening.  A recent hospital anxiety and depression score was anxiety 21, depression 21.  This puts her in the category of severe anxiety and severe depression.  In addition to that she has panic disorder with frequent panic attacks.  She has now developed paranoia and hallucinatory symptoms.  In my opinion due to her anxiety, depression, panic disorder and recent psychotic symptoms, Snezana Jovceska is totally unfit for any work and she was unfit on 15 September 2015 when she lodged her claim for Disability Support Pension. 

3. Dr Khan then indicates that the applicant’s anxiety and depression should be rated 20 points under the Impairment Tables.  The respondent’s representative conceded that this report certainly indicated that the applicant had gotten a lot worse since the claim period. The applicant herself indicated she had gotten worse since 2015. 

4. Dr Khan also gave oral evidence by telephone on the applicant’s anxiety and depression.    

5. He indicated that he had seen the applicant on about six or seven occasions prior to 2015. He appeared to have recorded the last occasion as being sometime in 2006.  He then saw her again in 2016 on about seven or eight occasions and in 2017 on about 15 plus occasions to date.   

6. The doctor was taken through the Impairment Tables and it was put to him quite properly in cross-examination that he did not see her in 2015 (which he agreed with as it was Dr Lal who saw her then).  It was further put to him that his evidence would be relevant as to the situation after the claim period, but not necessarily during it. 

7. Dr Khan stood his ground in terms of his assessment of the applicant and after going through Table 5, with reference to the applicant’s condition as at the claim period, he said he sees his patient as “a whole”.   He said the Tables are very technical, but he has based his assessment, and his assessment as at the time of the claim period on seeing her, taking her history, treating her in the past and going through the various relevant reports. He also had regard to the relevant reports which would cover those respective times. As a result of that, he felt able to make an assessment of her condition as at the claim period as well as at April 2017.

8. The Tribunal took Dr Khan through Table 5 and related that to the claim period. In relation to Table 5, Dr Khan agreed with the documentary evidence that the applicant had severe difficulties with self-care and independent living (a) as she relies on her family daily (he said “mentally she does not live independently at all”). He agreed that the applicant had severe difficulties with social/recreational activities and travel (b), interpersonal relationships (c), with concentration and task completion (d) and with behaviour, planning, and decision making (e). Concerning the work/training capacity descriptor (f) he said “she cannot function really”. Overall, Dr Khan considered that the applicant’s mental health had a severe functional impact in five of the six descriptors as at the claim period. 

9. The respondent suggested in response to Dr Khan’s evidence that as Dr Khan was not the applicant’s treating doctor during the claim period and I should not prefer his evidence over the other documentary evidence.  I note in all the medical reports that the evidence is of a somewhat more general nature than one might absolutely hope for, but nevertheless, without going into absolute specifics as to how many times she might have had panic attacks and the like, a clear picture does emerge that this woman has had ongoing issues with mental health for a number of years, including during the relevant claim period.

10. As it is clear the applicant suffers from a mental health condition, the key question is whether the condition should be awarded 10 points or 20 points.  Having taken into account all the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant had a severe mental health condition as at the time of the claim period (and indeed as at time of this hearing, it might now even be categorised as extreme).

11. I will now examine each of the descriptors in the “severe” category in Table 5 to demonstrate this. In order for the condition to be classified as having a “severe” functional impact the applicant must have “severe difficulties” with “most” of the descriptors.

12. The first descriptor is “self-care and independent living”.  The example given to explain what this means is:

    The person needs regular support to live independently, that is, needs visits or assistance at least twice a week from a family member, friend, health worker or supporter worker.

13. Considering this, if it was only the physical ailments the applicant had, it would not be necessary for her to actually depend on other members of her family, namely her husband, because she is able to physically do a number of things and apart from going to the toilet, she could manage with help not being there all the time. However, I think there is sufficient evidence to say that because of her mental state, at the time, she would not be able to live independently and she would need visits or assistance at least twice a week from a family member.  In fact, the evidence indicates that due to her mental health problems she needs effectively constant assistance on a daily basis (especially to ensure she takes her daily medication).

14. The second descriptor is “social/recreation activities and travel” and the example given for that descriptor is:

    The person travels alone only in familiar areas such as the local shops or other familiar venues.

15. It is clear to me, the applicant was able to walk 15 minutes, probably about a kilometre, during the claim period.  If she did not have depression and anxiety she would be able to go to the shops, and she would obviously be able to travel alone there, as they are familiar areas but she does not, and she did not during the claim period.  She could physically walk to her daughter’s, or indeed the shops at the relevant time, but only in the company of her husband or another family member, and that again indicates that she has severe difficulty with this descriptor. Clearly even for familiar areas, whilst she might have been physically up to it, mentally she was not.

16. Considering now the third descriptor “interpersonal relationships”.  The respondent’s representative made what I felt was a very valid submission in relation to this.  He submitted that the applicant has very limited social contacts and involvement, unless they are organised for her but even though they were organised for her they should still count as interpersonal relationships.

17. The relevant evidence in relation to this descriptor is that the applicant has a relative who visits her fairly frequently, a couple of times a week.  Additionally, during the claim period the applicant would go to see her daughters, and her daughters would come to visit her. She did not appear to have any friends outside the family. Accordingly, in relation to this descriptor I do not decide that she had severe difficulty.  Perhaps she did, but I feel somewhat neutral in relation to this descriptor. It may well be that nobody organised these visits for her, that they just happened. I would have to say that I’m not sure.

18. It is now necessary to consider the fourth descriptor, namely, the applicant’s concentration and task completion. Dr Khan indicated that she can only concentrate for 10 minutes. However, during the hearing the Tribunal observed that the applicant was able to concentrate for at least 10 minutes and potentially up to 30 minutes.  Accordingly, this descriptor is also not made out.

19. The fifth descriptor is behaviour, planning and decision making. The example given to help explain this descriptor is whether the applicant’s behaviour, thoughts and conversations are significantly and frequently disturbed. The evidence is clear that as at the claim period there were a number of indications that the applicant’s behaviour, thoughts, and conversations were significantly and frequently disturbed. For example, Dr Subhas states at page 196 of the T-Docs that she suffers from concentration difficulties, disordered thought and difficulties with emotional regulation and problem solving. There is also the evidence that she does not watch the TV, just the screen. Dr Subhas also stated that the applicant thinks there are “People following her.  All kinds of negative...thoughts”. This indicates that as at August 2015 she had problems with her thoughts being significantly and frequently disturbed.  I am satisfied that this descriptor is made out.

20. Turning now to the sixth descriptor “work/training capacity”. In relation to this descriptor Dr Khan said “she cannot function.”  The example provided in Table 5 states:

    The person is unable to attend work, education or training on a regular basis over a lengthy period due to ongoing mental illness.

21. The various reports completed by psychiatrists in 2015 actually attest to the fact that the applicant is unable to attend work, education or training on a regular basis.  They list in relation to her mental health and emotional wellbeing anything from nine out of 16 mental health descriptors through to, in one instance, 13 out of the 16 descriptors being present.

22. Her husband gave evidence that she has attended job interviews without success.  Dr Subhas’ comments (see paragraph 45) also corroborate this.

23. Overall, I would have to say that she would be unable to attend work, education or training on a regular basis due to the ongoing mental health issues as at the relevant time.

    CONCLUSION

24. As I have found that four out of the six descriptors for 20 points for Table 5 have been met I find that the applicant’s mental health condition has a severe functional impact.

25. Further, as a result of all the above evidence, in particular the evidence from the various medical professionals and their reports prepared in 2015 as detailed above, I find that the applicant had a continuing inability to work as defined in Section 94(2) of the Act.

26. Accordingly, the tribunal finds that the applicant should be granted DSP with effect from 10 December 2015.

I certify that the preceding 71 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of William Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member

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

Associate

Dated: 18 August 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	21 July 2017
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr J Kim, Department of Human Services