Lloyd and Department of Family and Community Services

[2002] AATA 555

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 555

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        Nº W2001/422
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION
  Re:         LINDA GLADYS LLOYD

Applicant

And:       SECRETARY TO THE
  DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
  COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       G.D. Friedman, Member
Date:             8 July 2002
Place:            Perth

Decision:For reasons given orally at the hearing, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

……..(sgd G D Friedman)…….

Member

1. SOCIAL SECURITY - disability support pension - required impairment rating

Social Security Act 1991 s94(1)

REASONS FOR DECISION

8 July 2002  G.D. Friedman, Member

1. This is an application by Linda Gladys Lloyd (the applicant) for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) dated 1 November 2001, which affirmed a decision of Centrelink dated 19 June 2001.  In the Centrelink decision an authorised review officer affirmed a decision to cease payment of disability support pension to the applicant because she did not have the required impairment rating.

2. At the hearing of this matter on 8 July 2002 the applicant represented herself and Mr S. Ellis, advocate with Centrelink, represented the respondent.
   BACKGROUND

3. The applicant was granted disability support pension in March 1999.  After a medical assessment in June 2001 Centrelink decided on 19 June 2001 to cancel the pension because her impairment rating was assessed as zero.  The applicant presented further medical evidence and after a re-assessment she was awarded an impairment rating of 5 points.  On 2 October 2001 an authorised review officer affirmed the decision to cancel the pension and on 4 October 2001 the applicant sought review by the SSAT.  Following the decision of the SSAT the applicant on 26 November 2001 lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of the decision by the SSAT.    
   EVIDENCE

4. The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T10).   

5. The applicant gave oral evidence and told the Tribunal she injured her shoulder at work in 1996.  She settled her worker's compensation claim and in 1999 whilst living in Adelaide she qualified for disability support benefits.  She stated that since her injury she had been working as a cleaner for several hours per week, but was forced to discontinue her employment because of the pain.  She said that she suffers from constant pain in her back and left shoulder, and finds movements such as lifting, bending or twisting to be extremely painful.  The applicant explained that she had difficulty in driving, sitting and doing household tasks, and her mother assists wherever possible

6. The applicant said that in late 2000 she began to suffer from psychotic symptoms and consulted a psychiatrist who placed her on medication, and her symptoms abated.  She said that she has continued her medication and has no ongoing psychiatric problems. 

7. A number of medical reports were placed before the Tribunal, including reports dated 19 April 2001 from her general practitioner Dr R. Sukumaran, 22 May 2001 from Ms M. Katz, occupational therapist, 27 August 2001 by Dr L. Redknap of Health Services Australia (HSA) and 25 March 2002 by Dr D. Clifford (HAS).  Dr Redknap assessed the applicant's impairment rating for her upper limb functions at 5 points, and Dr Clifford supported this assessment.
   CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

8. Under s94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act):

   94.(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; and

   (c)       one of the following applies:

   (i)        the person has a continuing inability to work;

   (ii)       the Health Secretary has informed the Secretary that the person is participating in the supported wage system administered by the Health Department, stating the period for which the person is to participate in the system;

Mr Ellis submitted that there is no evidence that the applicant satisfies s94(1)(b) because she does not have 20 points under the Impairment Tables.

1. In reaching its decision the Tribunal takes into account the oral and written evidence and submissions made at the hearing.  The Tribunal accepts the medical evidence that the applicant suffers from a left shoulder injury and schizophrenia.  Therefore the Tribunal finds that she satisfies s94(1)(a).

2. In relation to s94(1)(b), to be given a rating under the Impairment Tables a condition must have been investigated, treated and stabilised and be likely to last for more than the next two years. The Tribunal accepts the medical evidence and finds that the applicant's impairment for the left shoulder at the relevant date was 5 points under the Impairment Tables.

3. In relation to the claim made for schizophrenia, the Tribunal accepts the medical evidence and finds that the applicant's impairment at the relevant date was zero points under the Impairment Tables.

4. For these reasons the Tribunal finds that the applicant's impairment rating is not of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and the applicant is unable to satisfy s94(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore there is no necessity for the Tribunal to make a decision on whether the applicant has a continuing inability to work as set out in s94(1)(c).
   DECISION

5. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the thirteen [13] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of:
G.D.Friedman, Member
(sgd)    Jason Lim
          Associate

Date of hearing:  8 July 2002
Date of decision:  8 July  2002
Advocate for applicant:               Self-represented
Advocate for respondent:            Mr S. Ellis, Centrelink