KEVIN CRAWLEY and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
[2009] AATA 523
•15 July 2009
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 523
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/1211
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re KEVIN CRAWLEY Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member Date15 July 2009
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
.............[Sgd].................................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Pensions, benefits and allowances – Whether applicant qualified for newstart allowance or disability support pension – Inability to satisfy activity test – No relief from requirement to satisfy activity test – Applicant not qualified for newstart allowance – Applicant has impairment of 20 points or more – Expert evidence is complementary to that assessment – Disability support pension is the most appropriate payment – Decision under review affirmed.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias – A mere assertion of bias against a Tribunal Member is not enough – Evidence supporting the assertion must be identified – Such evidence not identified – Member not precluded from hearing matter.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 40(1)(b)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), ss 94, 593, 601(1), 601(2A)(b), 603A, 729
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), s 8
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 July 2009 Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member INTRODUCTION
1. The Applicant in this matter, Kevin Crawley, has at various times been in receipt of newstart allowance (“NSA”) and disability support pension (“DSP”). He has been on Social Security benefits over a long period but has had intermittent work during that period as well. He is currently 52 years of age.
2. Relevantly, Mr Crawley was in receipt of DSP as at 4 July 2008 when he applied for NSA. He maintained he did not have a disability and that NSA was more appropriate for his circumstances. His application was denied by Centrelink on 9 July 2008. He sought review of that decision and an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”), after reconsidering the application and the evidence, affirmed the original decision on 31 July 2008.
3. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) reviewed the original decision and, on 3 September 2008, set aside that decision and sent the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that a Job Capacity Assessment be undertaken on Mr Crawley. This assessment was completed on 4 November 2008, following which Centrelink again rejected the application for NSA, on 10 December 2008. An ARO affirmed that decision on 7 January 2009, as did the SSAT on 13 March 2009. Mr Crawley then applied for review to this Tribunal on 23 March 2009.
ISSUES
4. The Respondent submitted that the issues for proper resolution of this application are as follows:
1.Whether NSA is the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley; and, if not,
2.Whether DSP is the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley; and, if not,
3.Whether any other income support payment administered by Centrelink is the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS AT THE HEARING
5. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent submitted that it wished to show a video of Mr Crawley appearing on an episode of the television program “Today Tonight”. I was reluctant to grant this application as the Tribunal and Mr Crawley had no prior notice of this proposal. I was also concerned that it might be to Mr Crawley’s disadvantage. Mr Crawley, however, did not object and I allowed the video to be played based on the Respondent’s statutory declaration that it was a faithful representation of the “Today Tonight” episode.
6. At the conclusion of the video, Mr Crawley took no objection to its content but said there was another television appearance by him that showed him in a better light. I found that the video shown did not provide anything substantially new to the evidence already on record and so declared that I would not take the video evidence into account. Therefore, I place no weight on the content of the “Today Tonight” program.
7. A further procedural matter was initiated after Mr Crawley’s evidence had been given. It was apparent that expert evidence was filed with the papers but no oral evidence was to be called. There was some contention about whether Mr Crawley had raised evidence of an alleged motor vehicle accident in the past with Dr Mitchell – Mr Crawley denied having raised this. It was also apparent that there were two reports of a Forensic Psychologist who saw Mr Crawley on two occasions 10 years apart and that, as indicated in those reports, some substantial testing had been done of Mr Crawley. That evidence had the potential of informing the Tribunal more objectively about the state of Mr Crawley’s conditions. I noted also that Mr Crawley gave evidence at the previous SSAT hearing and was of the view that the Job Capacity Assessor did not conduct any testing and that “the assessment should have been carried out by a government doctor or a professional with expertise in psychology”: T2, folio 6.
8. The matter was then adjourned for over a week for the Respondent to try to have oral evidence available. Mr Crawley indicated he would not be available the following week. Mr Crawley had indicated days he was unavailable and after taking account of his unavailability, the matter was then set down for a resumed hearing at 10am on 9 June 2009. He made no appearance at that hearing. The District Registrar of this Tribunal’s Queensland Registry spoke with Mr Crawley the previous week by telephone and made notes of their conversation. I was provided with a copy of those comments, the text of which shows that Mr Crawley was clearly not intending to attend any further hearing of the Tribunal. The record clearly shows that he was abusive to the District Registrar and then hung-up the telephone.
9. Also, as I understand it, Mr Crawley complained that I may be biased in the hearing of this matter. I understand that complaint was referred to Deputy President Hack. I received advice that the Deputy President had directed that I continue to hear the matter. I raised this in the open hearing when it resumed on 9 June 2009 and stated that I could not identify any indication of bias. I further referred to the test of a Judge (or Tribunal Member), which was laid down by the High Court of Australia in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 344 [6], where the court said that if “a fair-minded lay observer” would conclude that “the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”, then he or she might be disqualified from hearing the matter. The Court also explained that such a complaint is not decided merely by an Applicant asserting bias. It said that, firstly, the evidence supporting the assertion must be identified. Secondly, there must be shown to be a “logical connection between the matter and the feared deviation from the course of deciding the case on its merits”: Ebner as per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ at 345 [8]. I could not identify any such evidence. Indeed, my preference at the start of the hearing not to show the “Today Tonight” video was, I thought, evidence to the contrary, although I subsequently had to direct Mr Crawley to answer a question in a more direct manner when he was being cross-examined by Mr Flintoft.
10. In the circumstances, relying on s 40(1)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I directed that the hearing would proceed in the absence of Mr Crawley. However, I indicated that Mr Crawley was to receive a copy of the transcript of the resumed hearing, and that he should be given two weeks from the date of receipt of that transcript in the ordinary course of post to provide any further submissions. This would allow the submissions to be taken into account by me in my consideration of the evidence when formulating a decision in this matter.
EVIDENCE
Mr Kevin Crawley
11. Mr Crawley gave evidence that he did not have a disability. He referred to having had a lumbar spinal problem that has been overcome: T30, folio 265. A recorded problem with sciatica and nerve root compression was shown to be of minimal impairment and was allocated a zero point impairment rating: T30, folio 266.
12. Mr Crawley also claimed the assessments made on him were not accurate, as he did not have a cognitive deficit. He said was this manifested in the fact that he had completed a certificate in transportation logistics. In relation to customer contact, he said he had “no problems whatsoever”.
13. In relation to the report referring to a brain injury caused by a car accident, Mr Crawley said the accident had never occurred and that Centrelink had never produced a report of the accident from any police records. In cross-examination later, he asserted that this incident had been “made up” years ago by his parents and a social worker in order to get him on an invalid pension through the Centrelink office at Newcastle.
14. Mr Crawley maintained he was “screwed over very badly” last November and did not accept he could only work 0 to 7 hours per week. He said the evidence of the Neuropsychologist, dated 14 February 2000, was now out of date. He referred to the medical certificate by Dr Peter Roush dated 18 December 2008, which certified that Mr Crawley had suffered sciatic pain three years earlier but that at the date of the report, Mr Crawley was “pain free at present and has a full pain free range of back movement … I feel he is able to work 15 hours a week with respect to his back” (emphasis added).
15. Mr Crawley wishes to be on NSA so that he can get training and employment. He stated that he would like to be trained in “computer skills and upgrade his forklift license”. He wants to provide for his “future wife and kids”. He agreed that he needed some help. He agreed also that he had deliberately tried to annoy Centrelink because of the “lies and innuendos they had said about him”.
16. In cross-examination, Mr Crawley said the following:
1.He had been banned by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations from attending that department’s offices.
2.He had been banned from going into Centrelink offices. He told the Tribunal he had been “foolish” in his younger days, which, he said, was when he was “40ish”. On being asked by the Tribunal to be more specific, he admitted that this was in 2006 (when he was approximately 49 or 50 years of age, that is, 2 or 3 years ago). The incident leading to his being banned was him threatening a staff member of Centrelink. He was subsequently charged with a criminal offence, convicted and placed on probation.
3.T25, folios 208-211 and T26, folios 212-256 refer to 114 records of contact by Mr Crawley of Centrelink. He denied some of the calls were made by him as he did not recall ringing Centrelink on the particular dates shown.
4.He was referred to T25, folios 208-210 specifically. These records show there were nine calls to Centrelink on 16 July 2008, allegedly by Mr Crawley. The records show the call centres that received calls were at Gosford, Newcastle, Illawarra, Adelaide, Nundah and two other locations. The calls were about requesting cancellation of his DSP and requesting that he be placed on NSA. Mr Crawley also rang later that day and was upset when the DSP had been cancelled allegedly without his approval, despite records of telephone calls, and requests in writing to that effect. A common theme in these records was that the caller was always rude and abusive.
5.Despite saying that these calls were not from him, Mr Crawley gave his mobile number into evidence. He told the Tribunal that he would use the public phone at Northgate only minutes from his home. However, he indicated that he sometimes used his mobile but that depended on how much credit he had on his mobile phone.
6.Mr Crawley was referred also to T10, folio 107. That document was a medical report prepared by Dr Mitchell on 7 September 2005, in which references were made to a motor vehicle accident. Mr Crawley said that Centrelink told Dr Mitchell what to report and that he had never mentioned the car accident to Dr Mitchell. He claimed that he had contacted Dr Mitchell about its accuracy but no change was made to the record.
Ms Amanda Spink
17. This witness told the Tribunal she had been employed by Centrelink for 16 years, the past 11 as a manager. She had been at Nundah since 9 February 2009, when she was given a handover by the previous manager.
18. Ms Spink told the Tribunal that the Respondent had determined that Mr Crawley could not come into any Centrelink office. He could telephone the Nundah branch on Wednesday afternoons at 2pm but he was only permitted to speak to the manager. This practice was initiated so that other staff were not distressed by having to deal with Mr Crawley. Ms Spink said there had been many telephone calls by Mr Crawley to staff and he would often yell, scream and swear at them and then terminate his calls. She said she knew his voice and would often know if it was him calling, as the last three digits of his mobile telephone number appeared on her telephone screen. She mentioned that he also sometimes called from a private number.
19. Ms Spink stated that a procedure for proof of identity was always followed. She regularly reported to the area business manager the number of calls made by Mr Crawley. She said that in some weeks she would get 20 to 30 calls from Mr Crawley, each seeking either to cancel the DSP or requesting that it be reinstated. She noted the record in the T Documents showing 114 contacts in four months. She said she had spoken to two previous managers, who informed her that they had experienced up to 30 to 40 calls per day from Mr Crawley.
20. In the cross-examination of Ms Spink by Mr Crawley, he asked about their interpersonal relations over the telephone for the previous three weeks. She indicated that the conversations had been “cordial” over that period although she had sometimes to ask him to lower his voice. She agreed with him also that not all calls were “ranting and raving” or abusive. But she said that if staff were not able to do what he wanted, then there seemed to be aggression.
21. At the resumed hearing, a submission was made showing evidence that since the first day of the hearing (which occurred after the three week period of better behaviour), Mr Crawley had relapsed into the pattern of behaviour previously shown on the record. On 1 June 2009, there were two calls from Mr Crawley and also a call on each of 2 and 3 June 2009. These calls were again requesting that DSP be cancelled. Aggression and abuse were noted on the phone call records over those three days.
Mr Peter Perros
22. Mr Perros gave oral evidence on 9 June 2009. He is a Consultant Psychologist and explained his qualifications. He has a Masters Degree in psychology and is accredited as a Forensic Psychologist and is also accredited by the College of Neuropsychologists.
23. In 1991, Mr Perros practised as a Forensic Psychologist and saw Mr Crawley when he was referred by Legal Aid for a pre-sentence report for criminal charges which involved violence. A detailed description of the behaviour for which he was charged was included in Mr Perros’ 1991 report. The behaviour of Mr Crawley when attending the psychologist appointments was also recorded. He underwent tests of intelligence, memory, attention and concentration, reading, and higher level intellectual processes. He also undertook personality tests.
24. Mr Perros saw Mr Crawley four times prior to the preparation of the report in 1991 – three times at his private practice and once at Wolston Park Hospital. He observed Mr Crawley to be stressed and irritable. He lacked social skills, particularly when stressed, but was polite when relaxed and could then relate “in a very warm and sincere manner”. His report gives an account of Mr Crawley describing three motor vehicle accidents one of which, in Sydney, involved him being unconscious and waking up in a hospital.
25. Mr Perros also prepared a report dated 14 February 2000. Mr Crawley had been referred to Health Services Australia for assessment for DSP. By chance, Mr Crawley saw Mr Perros again who was doing assessments for Health Services Australia on the day of Mr Crawley’s appointment. Again, he gave Mr Crawley a number of neuropsychological tests and concluded that Mr Crawley may have cognitively improved a little since the previous tests almost 10 years earlier, but that he had a mild neurocognitive disorder. Mr Perros concluded Mr Crawley had little insight as to how his behaviour affected others. He also thought Mr Crawley may have a mood disorder and/or adjustment disorder to his disability (either by denial or being oblivious to it).
26. During the course of the hearing and an adjournment and resultant discussion between the Respondent’s advocate and Mr Perros, the Tribunal was informed that a report by a Psychologist, Mr Ron McIntyre, was on the departmental file and dated 25 July 1989. Mr Perros was then asked by the Respondent’s advocate whether he knew Mr McIntyre. Mr Perros responded that he recalled him being a Senior Practitioner and very well regarded in the late 1980s when Mr Perros was in the early years of his professional work. He was not aware that Mr McIntyre had ever undertaken this assessment or report on Mr Crawley. However, having seen that report during the adjournment, he noted it was consistent with the report he also had prepared, quite independently, on Mr Crawley.
Dr Carol Toft
27. Dr Toft has provided a medical assessment report dated 24 February 2000. Dr Toft concluded, relying on Mr Perros’ neurocognitive report, that her assessment would preclude Mr Crawley from working for the next two years (from the date of her assessment).
Dr James Wright
28. Dr Wright is a Psychiatrist and provided a report dated 31 May 2007. The purpose of that report was to provide evidence for a court appearance by Mr Crawley. Dr Wright noted that he also had seen Mr Crawley previously, in 1994 (some 13 years earlier). He concluded also that Mr Crawley had a personality disorder but thought that the disorder had predated the motor vehicle accident. He did not observe any gross cognitive impairment but said that Mr Crawley had:
·paranoia;
·a feeling of entitlement; and
·little regard for the feelings of others.
Dr Wright thought that at the time of the report in 2007, Mr Crawley appeared a little more settled than on the previous occasion.
29. I note that the reports of Mr Perros and Dr Toft have been the subject of a Freedom of Information (“FOI”) request by Mr Crawley, with an attempt to have certain information deleted from their reports. This application was based on a report by a Dr Ron Edmonds on 10 August 2005, which indicated that there was no evidence at the date of his examination of Mr Crawley having any cognitive deficits. However, it is noted on each of those three reports that the FOI request was denied.
SUBMISSIONS
30. The Respondent’s advocate submitted that s 8 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 requires that applicants receive the most appropriate payment. He submitted that the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley was DSP, pursuant to s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”). In relation to NSA, he submitted that the Applicant was unable to satisfy the activity test required by s 593 of the Act and that the only other possible form of payment was the special benefit payment under s 729 of the Act.
31. No submissions were received by Mr Crawley between the date of forwarding the transcript of the resumed hearing to Mr Crawley and the date I had set for receipt of any additional submissions from him.
CONSIDERATION
32. I have considered all of the evidence in the documentary exhibits and the oral evidence. I make the following findings of fact:
1.Mr Crawley has a significant history of Social Security benefits.
2. There has been a pattern of aggression and erratic behaviour at times by Mr Crawley.
3. Evidence that he has made numerous telephone calls (sometimes even on the one day) to Centrelink officers is borne out by the records. The likelihood of some collusion to falsify so many records is not supported by the evidence on the basis of probabilities.
4. There is a very long history and pattern of numerous telephone calls to Centrelink officers in relation to Mr Crawley’s record, with those calls being abusive and impulsive.
5. Evidence of some recent discussion between Mr Crawley and the manager of the Nundah branch of Centrelink, indicating a normal level of communication, has since been displaced by more recent evidence of abusive behaviour similar to the longstanding pattern shown in the T documents.
6. Mr Crawley’s assertion that he does not have a cognitive deficit is not supported by expert evidence, evidence which I accept.
7. The medical certificate by Dr Roush of 18 December 2008 that Mr Crawley could work 15 hours per week is specific to his back condition only.
8.Evidence of psychologist and psychiatrist reports prepared independently over an 18 year period have a marked degree of consistency.
Legislation
33.The following sections of the Act are relevant:
94Qualification for disability support pension
“(1)A person is qualified for disability support pension 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 …”
593Qualification for newstart allowance
“(1)Subject to sections 596, 596A, 597 and 598, a person is qualified for a newstart allowance in respect of a period if:
(a)the person satisfies the Secretary that:
(i)throughout the period the person is unemployed; or
(ii)the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the period; and…
(b)in the case of a person to whom subparagraph (a)(i) applies—throughout the period, or for each period within the period, the person:
(i)satisfies the activity test; or
(ii)is not required to satisfy the activity test …”
601Activity test
“(2A)Subject to subsections (2AA) and (2AB), for the purposes of subsection (1) and paragraph (1A)(a), particular paid work is unsuitable for a person if and only if, in the Secretary’s opinion:
…
(b)it has been established that there is medical evidence that the person has an illness, disability or injury that would be aggravated by the conditions in which the work would be performed …”
603ARelief from activity test—special circumstances
“(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a person is not required to satisfy the activity test for a period if:
(a)the Secretary is satisfied that special circumstances, beyond the person’s control, exist; and
(b)the Secretary is satisfied that in those circumstances it would be unreasonable to expect the person to comply with the activity test for that period.
(2)The period referred to in subsection (1) is not to exceed 13 weeks.”
729Qualification for special benefit
“(2)The Secretary may, in his or her discretion, determine that a special benefit should be granted to a person for a period if:
…
(b)no other social security benefit is payable to the person for the period …”
Issue 1: Is NSA the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley?
34. Section 593 of the Act delineates the requirements for somebody to receive NSA. In order to qualify for this allowance, a person needs to satisfy the activity test. To be exempt from the activity test under s 603A of the Act, special circumstances must exist that make it unreasonable to comply with the test for a period no longer than 13 weeks. Circumstances like Mr Crawley’s, which are more longstanding, do not fall within that exemption. This exemption is for temporary illnesses only and not for long-term disabilities. I also note s 601(1) of the Act, which provides that a person will satisfy the activity test for NSA where the person is actively seeking paid work and willing to undertake such work in Australia. That work must not be work unsuitable to be undertaken by the person. Section 601(2A)(b) of the Act provides that particular paid work will be unsuitable for a person if and only if the Secretary is of the opinion that the person has a disability that would be aggravated by the work which would be performed.
35. I conclude that Mr Crawley does not satisfy the requirements for NSA as he cannot satisfy the activity test. He is not exempt from the need to satisfy the activity test because he suffers from a longstanding illness, not a temporary one as required by s 603A(2) of the Act.
Issue 2: Is DSP the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley?
Is Mr Crawley Qualified for DSP?
36. The requirements to qualify for DSP are contained in s 94 of the Act and have been set out above.
37. The evidence to assist in assessing the above discussed statutory requirements is contained in a number of reports by medical, mental health and occupational professionals. In particular, Mr Perros undertook extensive testing of Mr Crawley independently in 1991 and 2000. He found Mr Crawley’s ability to adapt to new situations was not of a high order. Mr Crawley’s cognitive ability is not a strong attribute. Mr Perros said that Mr Crawley would not operate well with complex processes and language processes. He said Mr Crawley would function best with repetitive tasks. Mr Perros said that since the 1990s there has been an emphasis in employment on people being able to pass courses, and therefore cognitive ability and memory are important in that context. Mr Crawley was not seen to be strong in those areas.
38. Mr Perros also told the Tribunal that Mr Crawley showed some deficits in relation to personality or character traits. Mr Perros said that Mr Crawley does not handle change well. Specifically, he said Mr Crawley is explosive; he wants the world to accommodate him. He also found that Mr Crawley may function adequately in the initial stages of a job but if he did not like someone then abuse and anger would follow. Mr Perros concluded that Mr Crawley is an unpredictable person who is consequently not employable.
39. Mr Perros also believes Mr Crawley does not understand the degree of impairment that he has. Mr Crawley is also affronted by the label of having a “disability”.
40. I asked whether, based on his experience, Mr Perros thought that if he conducted similar neuropsychological tests again today (a long time since he last saw Mr Crawley), anything different would be likely to be shown. Mr Perros said “absolutely not”.
41. I also note Dr Wright’s report, which recently described Mr Crawley as paranoid, having a sense of entitlement, and having little regard for others. He thought Mr Crawley had a personality disorder which pre-dated the reported motor vehicle accident in the mid 1980s. It is therefore a disorder of longstanding and is not a special case or recent event.
42. The job capacity assessments undertaken from 2006 to 2008 have a reasonably consistent pattern. These are:
1. Report of November 2006
-personality disorder 10 points
-brain injury: neurological function 10 points
20 points
2. Report of May 2007
-personality disorder 10 points
- brain injury: neurological function 10 points
-musculo-skeletor disorder 10 points
30 points
3. Report of November 2008
-personality disorder 20 points
-brain injury: neurological function 10 points
30 points
43. Even if the 2008 assessment of personality disorder was a little high, the 2006 and 2007 assessments for personality disorder showed 10 points and these would remain extant and are supported by the reports of Mr Perros and Dr Wright.
44. While Mr Crawley does not accept the expert evidence, I am satisfied that the reports of Mr Perros and Dr Wright highlight the neuropsychological deficit from which Mr Crawley suffers. His anger and inability to communicate effectively has been demonstrated over a long time. I accept the evidence of Mr Perros and Dr Wright and accept their conclusion that Mr Crawley does not have insight into the way his behaviour and communication style affects others. His cognitive deficits would also be likely to affect his ability for retraining.
45. It is apparent that Mr Crawley is qualified for DSP based on the number of impairment points alone. The expert evidence is complementary to those assessments. It therefore appears that DSP is the most appropriate payment for Mr Crawley. I also note that Mr Crawley is better off financially receiving DSP rather than NSA.
Issue 3: Is any other income support payment the most appropriate payment?
46. Section 729 of the Act provides for special benefit payment in certain cases. However, there is a disqualifying factor in that section. That allowance is not payable when another payment type is payable. Clearly, the Applicant satisfies the requirements for DSP.
47. In the circumstances, special benefit payment is not payable as the Applicant is more appropriately qualified for DSP. Therefore, Mr Crawley does not satisfy the requirements of s 729 of the Act.
CONCLUSION
48. The requirements to receive NSA are not satisfied. This is because Mr Crawley’s circumstances do not fit with the purpose of that allowance, as his condition is longstanding. It may be that he can still work, and it was submitted by the Respondent’s advocate that even while receiving DSP, Mr Crawley would not be limited about how much work he would be able to do (although if he earned above a particular amount of income, DSP may be affected.)
49. In any case, it is apparent that Mr Crawley is also better off financially on DSP. That is, he would earn $100 more per fortnight with DSP and this would increase by a further $40 per fortnight, with effect 1 July 2009.
50.The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 50 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member.
Signed: .................[Sgd]............................................................
Mátyás Kochárdy, Research AssociateDates of Hearing 28 May and 9 June 2009
Date of Decision 15 July 2009
Applicant was self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent Paul Flintoft, Departmental Advocate
0
1
0