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

Lindblom and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 3735 (5 October 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/5787
Re:Leif Lindblom
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member P J Clauson

Date:5 October 2018
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................[SGD].........................................
Senior Member P J Clauson
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – Cancellation – Degenerative Osteoarthritis of the Lumbar Spine – Upper Limb condition – Angina condition – whether impairments are of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables – whether Applicant has a continuing inability to work – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
CASES
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALD 133
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member P J Clauson
5 October 2018
INTRODUCTION

On 11 April 2016, Mr Leif Lindblom (the “Applicant”) applied for the Disability Support Pension (“DSP”).[1]
[1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T6, pp. 80 – 109, Claim for DSP, dated 11 April 2016.
On 29 August 2016, the Department of Human Services (“Centrelink”) advised the Applicant that his application had been rejected.[2] Subsequent to this, an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) conducted a review of Centrelink’s decision and affirmed it.[3]
[2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T11, pp. 122 – 123, Rejection of DSP, dated 29 August 2016.
[3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T17, pp. 136 – 140, Claim for DSP, dated 12 April 2017.
On 31 August 2017, the Applicant sought a first tier review of the decision by the Social Services & Child Support Division (“SSCSD”) of this Tribunal and the original decision was once more affirmed.[4]
[4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pp. 7 – 10, Decision of the SSCSD, dated 31 August 2017.
Following this, the Applicant sought a second tier review of his matter by the General and Other Division of this Tribunal, by way of an application dated 28 September 2017.[5]
[5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pp. 1 – 6, Application for Review, dated 28 September 2017.
The finding from these abovementioned decisions is that the Applicant did not have an Impairment Rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables to qualify for the DSP and did not have an inability to work.
On 27 March 2018, a hearing was held for this application. The Applicant attended the hearing in person.
The issue for this Tribunal to determine is whether the Applicant qualified for DSP at the date of his claim, 11 April 2016, or within 13 weeks thereafter, being up until 10 July 2016 (“Relevant Period”).
BACKGROUND
On the Applicant’s DSP Claim Form, he listed the following disabilities, illnesses or injuries:
“lumbar spondylosis[,] angina [and] have had heart surgery (Prince Charles Hospital)”.[6]
[6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T6, p. 105, DSP Claim Form, dated 11 April 2016.
On 22 August 2016, the Applicant attended a face-to-face assessment with a Job Capacity Assessor (“JCA”) who subsequently produced a report dated 24 August 2016.[7] The JCA assessed the Applicant’s conditions as follows:
(a)Degenerative Osteoarthritis;
(b)Angina; and
(c)Bilateral Shoulder Pain.
[7] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, pp. 115 – 121, JCA Report, dated 24 August 2016.
The total Impairment Rating recommended by the JCA for all reported conditions was 0 points.
Additionally, the Applicant’s Baseline Work Capacity was assessed by the JCA as being 8-14 hours per week with a predicted capacity of 15-22 hours per week within 2 years with intervention.[8]
[8] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, pp. 115 – 121, JCA Report, dated 24 August 2016.
On 31 August 2017, at first review, the SSCSD affirmed the decision under review and agreed with the JCA and ARO as to the assessment of Impairment Points, that being 0 Impairment Points.[9]
[9] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pp. 7 – 10, Decision of the SSCSD, dated 31 August 2017.
ISSUES
The issues for this Tribunal to consider are:
(a)whether during the Relevant Period, the Applicant had a medical impairment which was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised;
(b)whether at the Relevant Period, the Applicant’s conditions caused a functional impairment that attracts an Impairment Rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and if so;
(c)whether the Applicant had a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table, or if not, whether the Applicant completed a Program of Support; and
(d)whether the Applicant has a continuing inability to work.
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The governing legislation unless otherwise quoted, is the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

(“the Act”) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“Administration Act”).
In order for the Applicant to qualify for the DSP, certain relevant criteria set out in section 94 of the Act must be met:
(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.
The Administration Act provides that qualification for DSP and assessment of the relevant Impairment Rating is to be determined as at the date of claim. The exception to this arises where the Applicant has not met the qualifying conditions as at the date of the application for the DSP, but became qualified 13 weeks following the date of claim.[10] There has been consensus by the Tribunal and the Federal Court that there is a requirement to assess the Applicant during this specific period of time, unless material outside of this period can be considered referable to the period.[11]
[10] Administration Act, ss 41, 42; cl 3 and cl 4(1), Schedule 2, Part 2.
[11]Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 at [34]; Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALD 133, 139 at [32]; Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1, at [25]-[28].
Pursuant to section 26 of the Act, the Impairment Ratings are determined under a legislative instrument located in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work–related Impairment for Disability Support Pension)Determination 2011 (Cth)

(“the Impairment Determination”).
The Impairment Determination provides a general set of principles that must be considered when applying the Impairment Tables.[12] Essentially, the Tables are function based, rather than diagnostic based, and describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations. They are designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment and not to assess conditions.[13] The impairment of a person is to be assessed on the basis of what they can, or could do, and not on what they choose to do or what others do for them.[14]
[12]        Impairment Determination, s 5(1) – (2).
[13]        Impairment Determination, s 5(2).
[14]        Impairment Determination, s 6(1).
Section 6(3) of the Impairment Determination provides that an Impairment Rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the person’s condition causing the impairment is “permanent” and the resulting impairment from that condition is more likely than not, on the available evidence, to persist for more than two years.
For a condition to be considered permanent it must be “fully diagnosed”, “fully treated”, “fully stabilised” and, more likely than not, going to persist for more than two years.[15]
[15] Impairment Determination, s 6(4).
When determining whether a condition has been fully diagnosed and fully treated, the Tribunal must consider whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition, what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition and whether treatment is continuing or planned in the next two years.[16]
[16] Impairment Determination, s 6(5).
A condition will be considered fully stabilised if:
(a)either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or
(b)the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(i)significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or
(ii)there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.[17]
[17] Impairment Determination, s 6(6).
“Reasonable treatment” is defined in the Impairment Determination as being treatment that would be considered:
(a)available at a location reasonably accessible to the Applicant;
(b)is at a reasonable cost;
(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity;
(d)is regularly undertaken or performed;
(e)has a high success rate; and
(f)carries a low risk to the Applicant.[18]
[18] Impairment Determination, s 6(7).
An Impairment Rating is only able to be assigned in accordance with the rating requirement for each section of each Table. If an impairment is considered as falling between two impairment ratings, the lower of the two ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied.[19]
[19] Impairment Determination, s 11(1)(a) and (c).
A person's impairment is a severe impairment if it attracts 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table.[20]
[20] The Act, s 94(3B).
In order to assess whether an Applicant has a continuing inability to work, all criteria set out in section 94(2) of the Act must be met.
CONSIDERATION
The Applicant suffers from Spinal, Upper Limb and Angina conditions and it is not in dispute that he has impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a) of the Act during the Relevant Period.[21] The questions to be determined by this Tribunal are, however, whether or not during the Relevant Period those impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables,[22] and if so, whether or not the Applicant has met one of the criteria set out in section 94(1)(c) of the Act to qualify for DSP.
[21]Exhibit 3, Secretary’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, dated 12 February 2018, [23].
[22] The Act, s 94(1)(b).
I will now consider whether the Applicant’s Impairments can attract Impairment Ratings under the Impairment Tables.
Did the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables?
Spinal Condition
The Secretary contends that the Applicant’s Spinal condition was fully diagnosed, but not fully treated or fully stabilised during the Relevant Period. Accordingly, the condition cannot be assigned an Impairment Rating under the Impairment Determination.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant has had a sustained history of severe back pain. The medical evidence discloses that, as a result of a work injury that occurred in 1982, the Applicant injured his back and, as a result, he has experienced moderate to severe back pain since.[23]
[23]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Mental Health Services: Consumer Intake notes, dated 4 January 2015, p. 151; Medical Report from Dr McLeod, dated 12 December 2013, pp. 155 – 156.
On 2 May 2013, the Allied Health Team, from the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Health Service District, wrote a report to the Applicant’s general practitioner (“GP”) about the Applicant’s participation in a “Pain Education Program”.[24] The report notes that the Applicant participated in 1 day out of the 2 day program and that the focus of the program is “improving patients’ knowledge and understanding about pain, providing information on coping strategies and detailing resources available in the community for improved self-management”.[25] The Allied Health Team recommended the following for the Applicant:
“We have recommended that your patient trial the strategies presented during the 2 day Pre-Med CHANGES Pain Education program. Each patient has been encouraged to visit their General Practitioner to discuss the pain management strategies given to the group.”[26]
(Emphasis in original)
[24]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 2 May 2013, p. 154.
[25]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 2 May 2013, p. 154.
[26]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr McLeod - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 12 December 2013, pp. 155 – 156.
On 21 June 2013, Dr Rutha Nerlekar, Pain Medicine Fellow from the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, wrote a medical report after reviewing the Applicant with Dr Julia McLeod, a Rehabilitation Physician from the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre.[27] Dr Nerlekar noted that although the Applicant is in pain, he works 5-6 days per week as a housepainter and a carpenter and is functioning extremely well.[28] When commenting on the Applicant’s Spinal condition, Dr Nerlekar stated that:
“On examination today he had very good flexion and extension of his spine and was able to mobilise unassisted with a normal gait examination and no pain on testing of his facet joints in his back and he had a completely normal neurological examination of his lower limbs…He had a single tender point over the right sacroiliac joint.”[29]
[27]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr Nerlekar - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 21 June 2013, pp. 157 – 158.
[28]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr Nerlekar - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 21 June 2013, pp. 157 – 158.
[29]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr Nerlekar - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 21 June 2013, pp.157 – 158.
Dr Nerlekar reported that the Applicant had expressed that he wanted an operation, but

Dr Nerlekar noted that the Applicant had not seen any surgeons or had any CT scans to confirm a significant disease.[30] Dr Nerlekar then outlined a number of recommendations including a CT scan, physiotherapy, steroid injection, referral from his GP to see an orthopaedic surgeon and medication modifications.[31]
[30]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr Nerlekar - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 21 June 2013, pp. 157 – 158.
[31]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr Nerlekar - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 21 June 2013, pp. 157 – 158.
On 12 December 2013, Dr McLeod wrote a medical report for the Applicant to provide to his GP and relevantly reported the following:
“Following his initial assessment we obtained a CT of his lumbosacral spine. This showed multilevel marked degenerative changes at the upper and lower lumbar spine most notably at L2/3 and L4/5. There was mild degenerative change in the anterior aspect of the right sacroiliac joints. There was no fractures identified…Today Leif describes a diffuse chronic pain in the lumbar region and upper buttocks. He is precontemplative regarding self management of his chronic pain condition. Leif again said today that he had been hoping that we would refer him for an operation to fix his pain, and I have explained to him that there is no operation that is likely to achieve this. He again states he does not want to take time off work to attend hydrotherapy or a pain management programme. He sees a Chinese herbalist and acupuncturist which he said helps him a lot…He also continues to take Panafen Plus between 7 to 11 tablets a day…This obviously is in excess of what we would recommend. Despite our discussion at his initial assessment of the dangers of this medication he has not changed this practice.”[32]
[32]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr McLeod - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 12 December 2013, pp. 155 – 156.
Dr McLeod concluded by stating that the Applicant has “degenerative changes in his lumbar spine with chronic back pain as a result” and that he had expressed no interest in exploring other pain management suggestions. Dr McLeod ended her medical report with a number of reasonable treatment recommendations relating to the Applicant’s use of medications and suggested non-pharmacological strategies.[33]
[33]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Medical Report from Dr McLeod - the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, dated 12 December 2013, pp. 155 – 156.
Further, both Doctors Nerlekar and McLeod noted that the Applicant thought that an operation would alleviate his symptoms. Dr Nerlekar ordered a CT scan to confirm any joint problems and recommended that the Applicant be referred to an orthopaedic surgeon to determine whether or not there is a need for surgery. The Tribunal notes that there is no report within the Relevant Period from an orthopaedic surgeon.
Following his assessment at the Tess Cramond Centre the Applicant embarked upon a treatment regime based around acupuncture treatments and herbal remedies. He had only partly completed the recommended pain management program. He continued to receive these treatments from 2013 up until 2015.
The Tribunal has had access to the Applicant’s consultation records from Bowen Hills Medical Centre for the period of 16 July 2014 to 29 December 2014.[34] Each of the visits list back pain as the reason for the visit.
[34] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, Consultation Records for Bowen Hills Medical Centre, p. 148.
On 31 January 2016, Mr Richard Best, Doctor of Acupuncture and Chinese medicine, detailed in a medical report, his history with the Applicant.[35] Mr Best saw the Applicant for lower back pain due to spondylolisthesis and noted the following:
·first saw the Applicant on 6 March 2007;
·undertook 15 treatments with the Applicant during 2007, including acupuncture, massage and herbal ailments and medicines;
·saw the Applicant again in 2011 for 21 treatments;
·saw the Applicant for 12 treatments during 2012 – 2013;
·saw the Applicant for 5 treatments in 2014;
·saw the Applicant for 5 treatments in 2015.
[35]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, Medical Report from Mr Richard Best, dated 31 January 2016, p. 79.
Mr Best concluded his report by noting the following:
“I believe Mr Lindblom’s condition has become increasingly difficult to manage with acupuncture and massage treatments and the ongoing medications may lead to side effects. It is apparent to me that his work has a major impact on his physical condition and I would suggest he requires a significant reduction in his work load or change to his occupation before he can gain satisfactory relief of his ongoing debilitating pain and symptoms.”[36]
[36] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, Medical Report from Mr Best, dated 31 January 2016, p. 79.

Mr Best’s report outlines the progression of the Applicant’s condition and the treatments he was afforded from when he first started treating him in 2007. The report notes at paragraphs six and seven:
“During 2012 and 2013 he received 12 acupuncture treatments in total and another 5 treatments in 2014 with further good improvements. In 2015 the conditions was (sic) to cause more muscle spasm, nerve inflammation and associated neural presentations of muscle twitching in his arms and numbness in his legs. In 2015 he received 5 acupuncture, massage and herbal treatments. I believe Mr. Lindblom’s condition has become increasingly difficult to manage with acupuncture and massage treatments and the ongoing medications may lead to side effects. It is apparent to me that his work has a major impact on his physical condition and I would suggest he requires a change in his work load or change to his occupation before he can gain satisfactory relief of his ongoing debilitating pain and symptoms.”
On 18 April 2016, the Applicant undertook a CT scan of his lumbosacral spine for “Worsening pain for investigation”.[37] The radiologist concluded the following:
“There are marked degenerative changes at L1-2, L2-3 and L4-5 as described. There is minor retrolisthesis of L3 on L4 and L4 on L5. There are degenerative changes in the facet joints. No significant disc protrusion seen. No canal stenosis seen. No bony destruction seen.”[38]
[37]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, Report from CT Lumbosacral Spine, dated 19 April 2016, p. 110.
[38]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, Report from CT Lumbosacral Spine, dated 19 April 2016, p. 110.
On 8 June 2016, Dr Ian Walsh, GP, completed a medical certificate noting that the Applicant had “Degenerative osteoarthritis lumbar spine” and described the condition as a temporary exacerbation of a permanent condition.[39] Dr Walsh stated that the Applicant was currently trialling tramadol and had no further treatment planned.
[39]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T9, Medical Certificate from Dr Walsh, dated 8 June 2016, pp. 113-114.
On 15 March 2017, Dr Ayla Polat-Kaya, GP, provided a full medical summary for the Applicant. Dr Polat-Kaya stated that the Applicant had been a patient of hers since

11 August 2016 and noted that he had a past history of “severe degenerative spinal disease”.[40] Dr Polat-Kaya summarised the Applicant’s past history and noted that the Applicant had seen a chiropractor, Dr Andrew Howden, and a rehabilitation physician for a CT scan and injection in 2013; a CT scan of the Applicant’s lumbar spine was also conducted in 2016.[41]
[40]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, Full medical summary from Dr Polat-Kaya, dated 15 March 2017, pp. 126 – 130.
[41]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, Full medical summary from Dr Polat-Kaya, dated 15 March 2017, p. 126.
On 25 March 2017, Dr Howden, Chiropractor, noted in a medical report that the Applicant had been referred to him for treatment of his lower back.[42] Dr Howden opined that the Applicant’s condition would cause him moderate pain and suffering if he attempted to undertake physical work activities, noting the following:
“Orthopedic (sic) tests indicated a significant reduction in Lumbar spine range of motion in all planes. Motion palpation induced moderate pain to the lumbar spine. Recent CT scans indicate degenerative disc and joint disease throughout the lumbar spine. There is bony encroachment of the spinal canal at L2/3 and L4/5.”[43]
[42]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, Medical Report from Dr Howden, dated 25 March 2017, p. 131.
[43]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, Medical Report from Dr Howden, dated 25 March 2017, p. 131.
There is no corroborating medical evidence, produced in the Relevant Period, before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant has completed the recommended treatment that has been outlined. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s condition was fully diagnosed during the Relevant period however is unable to determine whether the condition was fully treated or fully stabilised during the Relevant Period as the Applicant has not complied with the recommended treatments set out by Doctors Nerlekar and McLeod. Consequently, the Tribunal is unable to assign an Impairment Rating to this condition under the Impairment Determination.
The Applicant presented to the Tribunal copious notes of how his condition affects his daily life and the restrictions placed upon him by his condition (Exhibit 2)[44] and the Tribunal has considered the contents of this material. The Tribunal notes those parts of this material relating to the Applicant’s symptoms, unfortunately however, self-reporting is not proof alone of the functional impact on the Applicant of his conditions unless it is supported by corroborative medical evidence showing that the condition has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised as required by the Impairment Determination (s 6(4) ibid).
[44] Exhibit 2, Handwritten notes of the Applicant.
Upper Limb Condition
On 31 January 2016, Mr Best described in his report that:
“Mr Lindblom also complained of upper back, neck and shoulder pain. His musculo–skeletal structure presented as an elevated left shoulder due to a left trapezius spasm with associated sub occipital contraction and nerve entrapment.”[45]
[45]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, Medical Report from Mr Richard Best, dated 31 January 2016, p. 79.
The Secretary contends that the Applicant’s Upper Limb condition was not full diagnosed, full treated or fully stabilised during the Relevant Period. In the Applicant’s DSP claim form, he made no mention of this condition however the Respondent has accepted the Applicant has been suffering from bilateral shoulder pain since 2007. The condition can therefore, not be assigned an Impairment Rating under the Impairment Determination.
The Applicant described in his handwritten notes the pain and burning he has experienced in his shoulders.[46]
[46] See for Example Exhibit 2, Entry from 22 November 2016.
On 24 August 2016, the JCA reported that the Applicant experiences significant bilateral shoulder pain. However, the JCA found that this condition had not been “formally diagnosed’ and further stated that:
“It is anticipated that subsequent to diagnosis long term combination pharmacotherapy and physical therapy (by an appropriately qualified health professional), with a home exercise program, and an avoidance of aggravating activities will provide functional improvement, within 24 months, therefore this condition was not pursued with the GP.”[47]
[47] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, JCA Report, dated 24 August 2016, p. 117.
Based on the Introduction to Table 2 of the Impairment Determination[48] and the material before the Tribunal, while the Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant suffers from the condition, it is not satisfied that the Applicant’s condition was fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner in the Relevant Period. Further, the Applicant has not provided any medical information in relation to the treatment of this condition at the Relevant Period and as such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this condition is fully treated or fully stabilised. Accordingly, the condition cannot be assigned an Impairment Rating under the Impairment Determination.
[48] Impairment Determination, Introduction to Table 2.
Angina Condition
The Secretary contends that the Applicant’s Angina condition was not fully diagnosed, fully treated or fully stabilised during the Relevant Period. Accordingly, the condition cannot be assigned an Impairment Rating under the Impairment Determination.
On the DSP claim form, the Applicant stated that he had angina and had heart surgery.[49]
[49] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T6, DSP Claim Form, dated 11 April 2016, p. 105.
On 15 March 2017, Dr Polat-Kaya references that the Applicant had a “Coronary angioplasty with stent” in 2006.[50]
[50]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, Full medical summary from Dr Polat-Kaya, dated 15 March 2017, p. 126.
Based on the material before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated or fully stabilised at the Relevant Period. The Tribunal does not have corroborating medical evidence regarding the diagnosis, treatment or functional impact of the Applicant’s Angina condition. Accordingly, the condition cannot be assigned an Impairment Rating under the Impairment Determination.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s impairments were fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period.
Therefore, I am unable to assign the Applicant any Impairment Rating Points under the Impairment Tables and, as a consequence, the Applicant does not satisfy the requirement under section 94(1)(b) of the Act. Given this conclusion, it was not necessary for me to consider whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work.
DECISION
For the reasons I have set out above, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member P J Clauson

............................[SGD].........................................
Associate
Dated: 5 October 2018

Date of hearing: 27 March 2018

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Joined Party: Mr Rick McQuinlan

Solicitors for the Joined Party: Department of Human Services

[2018] AATA 3735

5 October 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Date of hearing:	27 March 2018
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Joined Party:	Mr Rick McQuinlan
Solicitors for the Joined Party:	Department of Human Services