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

[2022] AATA 377

Mangino and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 377 (4 March 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:2021/1753          

Re:Ms Tina Mangino  

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

Tribunal:Senior Member B. Pola

Date:4 March 2022

Place:Brisbane

DECISION

Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division, dated 1 March 2021, to reject the Applicant’s claim for the Disability Support Pension.

...............[SGD].....................

Senior Member B. Pola

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – DSP – whether condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised – whether 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the Qualification Period – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth)

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

CASES

Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALDA 133
Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541
Harris and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Guide for Social Security Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member B. Pola

4 March 2022

BACKGROUND

1.       On 30 January 2020, the Applicant, Ms Tina Mangino, lodged a claim for the Disability Support Pension (herein referred to as the ‘DSP’) with Services Australia (herein referred to as the ‘Agency’ or ‘Respondent’)[1].

[1]     Exhibit R1, Section 37 T Documents, T10, pages 68 to 103.

2.       On 11 February 2020, the Applicant was advised by the Agency that her claim for the DSP was rejected[2].

[2]     Ibid, T13, pages 107 to 108.

3.       The decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (herein referred to as an ‘ARO’) after an internal review by the Agency on        30 September 2020[3].

[3]     Ibid, T17, pages 113 to 117.

4.       The Applicant applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division (herein referred to as the ‘SSCSD’) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (herein referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), to review the Agency’s decision to reject her claim for the DSP. On 1 March 2021, the SSCSD of the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP[4].

[4]     Ibid, T2, pages 5 to 8.

5.       The Applicant applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for a second review of this decision on 15 March 2021[5].

[5]     Ibid, T1, pages 1 to 4.

JURISDICTION

6.       This is an application to review a decision of the SSCSD of the Tribunal, which affirmed an earlier decision of the Respondent to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP.

7.       The Applicant’s claim of 30 January 2020 has been reviewed in accordance with section 135 of the Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth) (herein referred to as the ‘Administration Act’) by an ARO, as per the decision dated 30 September 2020[6]. The SSCSD of the Tribunal subsequently reviewed the decision of the ARO and published its reasons on 1 March 2021[7].

[6]     Ibid, T17, pages 113 to 117.

[7]     Ibid, T2, pages 5 to 8.

8.       In accordance with section 179(1) of the Administration Act, the Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s DSP claim of 30 January 2020.

ISSUES

9.       The issue before the Tribunal for consideration is whether the Applicant was qualified to receive the DSP in relation to her claim lodged on 30 January 2020 and ending 13 weeks later, on 30 April 2020 (herein referred to as the ‘Qualification Period’)[8].

[8]     The Qualification Period is discussed in later paragraphs of this decision.

10.     The issues for the Tribunal to determine in respect of the Applicant’s claim for the DSP is:

(a)Whether the Applicant had impairments during the Qualification Period in accordance with section 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (herein referred to as ‘the Act’)?

(b)Whether the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, contained within the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (herein referred to as ‘the Determination’) within the Qualification Period for the purpose of section 94(1)(b) of the Act? 

(i)If so, did the Applicant have a continuing inability to work as defined in section 94(2) of the Act, for the purpose of section 94(1)(c) of the Act?

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11.     The medical qualification criteria regarding eligibility for the DSP are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 94(1) of the Act:

94 Qualification 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; and

(c)one of the following applies:

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

(ii)the Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system

12.     To be medically qualified for a DSP, a person must therefore have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment, that has a total rating of 20 points or more under one (or several) Impairment Tables, and a continuing inability to work which, in some circumstances, includes participation in a Program of Support (herein referred to as ‘POS’).

13.     Section 26(1) of the Act provides that, “…the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine tables relating to the assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension”.

14.     It is the Tribunal’s role to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker[9] and determine whether the decision was the correct or preferable one based on the material before it[10].

[9]     Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541 at [27].

[10]    Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; (1979) 46 FLR 409, 419 (per Bowen CJ and Deane J).

15.     Given this, the Tribunal must make its decision in accordance with the Determination which came into effect from 1 January 2012. The following paragraphs outline key sections of the Determination.

16.     Section 6 of the Determination provides that, “the impairment of a person must be assessed on the basis of what the person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for the person”[11]. Further, the Impairment Tables in the Determination may only be applied to a person’s impairment after the person’s medical history, in relation to the condition causing the impairment, has been considered[12].

[11]    Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth), section 6(1).

[12] Ibid, section 6(2).

17.     An Impairment Rating may only be assigned to an impairment if[13]:

(a)the person’s condition causing the impairment is permanent; and

(b)the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of evidence, to persist for more than two years.

[13] Ibid, section 6(3).

18. Further, for a condition to be considered permanent pursuant section 6(3)(a) of the Determination, the condition must also[14]:

(a)be fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and

(b)be fully treated; and

(c)be fully stabilised; and

(d)be more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than two years.

[14] Ibid, section 6(4).

19.     When considering whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether the condition has been fully treated, the following is also to be considered[15]:

(a)whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and

(b)what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and

(c)whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years.

[15] Ibid, section 6(5).

20.     A condition is considered fully stabilised if[16]:

(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 two 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 two 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.

[16] Ibid, section 6(6).

21.     Reasonable treatment is a treatment that[17]:

(a)is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; and

(b)is at a reasonable cost; and

(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional            capacity; and

(d)is regularly undertaken or performed; and

(e)has a high success rate; and

(f)carries a low risk to the person.

[17] Ibid, section 6(7).

22.     Section 6(8) of the Determination provides that, “the presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean that there will be an impairment to which an impairment rating may be assigned”. Section 6(9) of the Determination sets out circumstances to be considered in relation to pain.

23.     Sections 7 to 11 of the Determination provide guidance as to how the Impairment Tables should be used to assess information and evidence and how to assign Impairment Ratings.

24.     In particular, section 8(1) of the Determination provides that, “symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence”.

25.     While section 11(1)(c) of the Determination provides that in assigning an Impairment Rating, “if an impairment is considered as falling between 2 impairment ratings, the lower of the 2 ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied”.

Continuing inability to work

26.     As previously detailed in paragraph 10 of this decision, section 94(1)(c)(i) of the Act states that in order to qualify for the DSP, a person must have a, “continuing inability to work”. Section 94(2) of the Act stipulates that:

(2) A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(aa)in a case where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection (3B) or the person is a reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starter who has had an opportunity to participate in a program of support—the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C), and the program of support was wholly or partly funded by the Commonwealth; and

(a)in all cases—the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and

(b)in all cases—either:

(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years; or

(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity—such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years.

27.     A, “severe impairment” is defined in section 94(3B) of the Act:

A person’s impairment is a severe impairment if the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which 20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table.

28.     Section 94(3C) of the Act states that:

A person has actively participated in a program of support if the person has satisfied the requirements specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.

29.     The Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth) (herein referred to as the ‘Participation Determination’) came into effect on 3 January 2015, and sets out the requirements for ‘active participation’ for those people required to demonstrate they have actively participated in a PoS.

QUALIFICATION PERIOD

30.     Schedule 2, Part 2, section 4(1) of the Administration Act outlines that the Qualification Period for a social security payment occurs within the 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made. Where a person subsequently becomes qualified after the lodging of the claim, the commencement date for the DSP is the date on which the claimant becomes qualified[18].

[18]    Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth), Schedule 2, Part 2, section 4(1)(d).

31.     For the purposes of this decision, the day which the Applicant’s claim for the DSP was lodged with Centrelink was 30 January 2020[19] and concluded 13 weeks after that day. The Tribunal finds the 13-week period ended on 30 April 2020.

19     Exhibit R1, Section 37 T Documents, T10, pages 68 to 103.

32.     This means that for a claim to be successful, the person must be qualified for the DSP during this Qualification Period, noting that changes in medical conditions which occur later are not relevant to this claim, but may be relevant to a separate future claim. Further evidence (medical or other) provided outside the Qualification Period may be considered if it is referable to the Applicant’s condition during the Qualification Period[20].

[20]    Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 at [34]; Harris and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 at [1]; Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALDA 133; [2014] AATA 447 at [31].

CONSIDERATION

33.     The application was heard in Brisbane on 24 January 2022 with all parties appearing by telephone. The Applicant was self-represented, and the Respondent was represented by Mr Samuel Harvey of Services Australia. The Tribunal considered oral submissions made by the Applicant and Respondent, in addition to submitted written evidence, as outlined in the Exhibit Register (marked as Annexure 1 of these reasons).

Section 94(1)(a) of the Act (physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment)

34. The Tribunal is satisfied, after review of the evidence before it, that the Applicant suffered impairments during the Qualification Period with respect to satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act, a point which was accepted by the Respondent[21].

[21]    Exhibit R4, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, page 6, paragraph 35.

35.     On review of the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds the following impairments relevant to this application:

(a)Spinal condition; 

(b)Migraines; and

(c)       Depression and Anxiety.

36.     The Tribunal observes that the Applicant’s remaining conditions including leg injury, rib pain, right epicondylitis and sinusitis lack further corroborative medical evidence to confirm:

(i)the diagnosis and whether the conditions are permanent;

(ii)whether the conditions have been optimally treated;

(iii)whether the conditions are fully stabilised; and

(iv)the prognosis for each condition.

37.     Given the lack of further corroborative medical evidence, the Tribunal could not assess the above listed conditions as part of this application. 

38.     As part of her submissions to the Tribunal, the Applicant stated that she resides 35 kilometres from the nearest town (being Tara in Queensland), and that she lives 80 kilometres from Dalby in Queensland. The Applicant has contested that these distances have prevented her from accessing treatment options because of her location and her, “reclusive nature”[22].

[22]    Exhibit R1, Section 37 T Documents, T21, page 125.

39.     The Respondent, in submissions before the Tribunal, contended that the hospitals in Tara and Dalby both offer treatment services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy, including the town of Chinchilla in Queensland (some fifty kilometres from the Applicant’s residential address). Further, the Respondent has contended that these treatment options are reasonably accessible to the Applicant through telehealth[23].

[23]    Exhibit R4, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, page 7, paragraph 40.

40.     The Tribunal is not persuaded by the Applicant’s contentions regarding her limited access to treatment services in circumstances where reasonable treatment services can be accessed by the Applicant in nearby towns. During the hearing, under cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that she was not aware that such treatment services were available through the regional hospitals located near her, and that she would seek to utilise such services in the future[24].

Section 94(1)(b) of the Act (Is a person’s impairment 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables)

[24]    Transcript (24 January 2022), page 11, lines 8 to 26.

41.     The Tribunal will now consider each impairment identified with respect to the application of section 94(1)(b) of the Act, and whether they meet the relevant provisions contained within the Determination.

(a)Spinal condition

42.     In relation to the Applicant’s spinal condition, the Tribunal notes the following evidence:

(a)A radiology diagnostic imaging report from Dr Cowdrey, dated 8 October 2015, confirmed the Applicant had past medical history which involved a fractured spine. The report indicated that the Applicant had, “… disk narrowing and marginal osteophyte formation at the C4/5, C5/6 levels. Alignment is normal. No other significant bony abnormality is seen…”[25].

(b)A CT scan from radiologist Dr Rouse, dated 15 November 2019, found that the Applicant had, “… Mild to moderate degenerative disc and facet joint changes are present throughout…”[26].

(c)The Applicant’s patient health summary from the Tara Medical Centre, printed on               30 January 2020, indicates the Applicant suffered a cervical spine fracture in 2008, and osteoarthritis of her lumbar spine since 2014. This summary further states that at the time the report was printed, the Applicant was prescribed analgesics, including Panadeine forte[27].

(d)In a letter, dated 4 April 2020, the Applicant’s treating General Practitioner, Dr Lloyd-Morgan, stated that the Applicant suffered from degenerative arthritis, predominantly affecting her neck and lumbar spine[28].

(e)Medical certificates from Dr Lloyd-Morgan (dated 31 August 2020, 25 November 2020 and 25 February 2021, respectively) all refer to a diagnosis of “Degenerative Lumbar Spine disorder”, noting the date of onset as 31 August 2015[29]. These medical certificates further state the prognosis for the Applicant is that it will affect her capacity to work for thirteen to 24 months, with symptoms of, “pain exacerbated by activity”.  Past treatment is recorded as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesia. The Tribunal notes that whilst these medical certificates post-date the Qualification Period, the date of onset listed on all medical certificates occurred prior to the Qualification Period.

[25]    Exhibit R1, Section 37 T Documents, T4, page 62; repeated at, T7, page 65.

[26]    Ibid, T9, page 67.

[27]    Ibid, T11, page 104.

[28]    Ibid, T14, page 109.

[29]    Ibid, T16, page 112; T19, page 120; T20, page 121.

43.     The Tribunal notes a further x-ray report from Dr Tan relating to the Applicant’s spinal condition was submitted as part of evidence before the Tribunal. However, this document post-dates, and is not referrable to, the Qualification Period, meaning it cannot be considered as part of this application[30].

[30]    Ibid, T21, pages 127 to 128.

44.     The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the corroborative medical evidence with respect to the Applicant’s radiology report, CT scan and submissions from Dr Lloyd-Morgan, that the Applicant’s spinal condition was fully diagnosed prior to the Qualification Period.

45.     With respect to whether the Applicant’s spinal condition could be considered fully treated and stabilised, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant had sought reasonable treatment, such as physiotherapy. During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that she had not sought specialist treatment and had not undertaken physiotherapy since 2010 (for which there is no evidence before the Tribunal that this treatment was undertaken at that time)[31]. The Applicant confirmed her earlier evidence to the SSCSD of the Tribunal that she had been using a, “TENS machine” to assist her spinal condition[32].

[31]    Transcript (24 January 2022), page 8, lines 18 to 26.

[32]    Ibid, page 8, lines 45 and 46.

46.     Within submissions before the Tribunal is a Health Professional Advisory Unit report from Dr Kanagaratnam, dated 11 October 2021[33]. Dr Kanagaratnam was asked to provide an independent clinical opinion as to the Applicant’s medical conditions and work capacity from 30 January 2020 to 30 April 2020 (the Qualification Period). In Dr Kanagaratnam’s report, he noted the Applicant’s treating General Practitioner, Dr Lloyd-Morgan, had confirmed that the Applicant had not sought specialist treatment for her medical conditions, and that in Dr Lloyd-Morgan’s opinion, this was not warranted[34].

[33]    Exhibit R2, Applicant HPAU Report.

[34]    Ibid, page 2.

47.     The Tribunal further notes that Dr Kanagarantnam was of the view that there was insufficient evidence with respect to further treatments undertaken by the Applicant for her spinal condition, and that should the Applicant undertake appropriate further treatment (i.e., physiotherapy, graded activity, and self-management coping strategies, as well as addressing co-morbid and other lifestyle factors), both her pain and function should improve[35].

[35]    Ibid, page 5.

48.     In view of the evidence before it, the Tribunal not persuaded that the Applicant’s spinal condition could be considered fully treated and stabilised at the time of the Qualification Period, given the lack of medical evidence with respect to the Applicant seeking out reasonable treatment for her spinal condition.

49.     As the Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s spinal condition is not considered fully treated or stabilised prior to, or during the Qualification Period, an Impairment Rating could not be assigned.  

(b)      Migraines

50.     With respect to the Applicant’s migraines, the Tribunal notes the following evidence:

(a)The Applicant’s patient health summary from the Tara Medical Centre, printed on          30 January 2020, indicates the Applicant has suffered from migraines since 2008[36].

(b)The Applicant’s treating General Practitioner, Dr Lloyd-Morgan, in a letter dated 4 April 2020, stated that the Applicant suffered from degenerative arthritis predominantly affecting her neck and lumbar spine[37]. Dr Llyod-Morgan further stated the Applicant, “… has associated migraines and tension headaches, these associated conditions in my opinion render her unable to sustain any meaningful work…”.

(c)Medical certificates from Dr Lloyd-Morgan (dated 31 August 2020, 25 November 2020, and 25 February 2021, respectively) refer to the Applicant’s diagnosis of “Cervicogenic headaches”, recording the date of onset as 31 August 2018[38]. These medical certificates further state the prognosis for the Applicant is that it will affect the Applicant’s capacity to work for thirteen to 24 months, with no listed symptoms, or past, current, or planned treatment. The Tribunal notes that whilst these medical certificates post-date the Qualification Period, the date of onset listed on all medical certificates occurred prior to the Qualification Period.

[36]    Exhibit R1, Section 37 T Documents, T11, page 104.

[37]    Ibid, T14, page 109.

[38]    Ibid, T16, page 112; T19, page 120; T20, page 121.

51.     The Tribunal notes the independent opinion from Dr Kanagaratnam in the Health Professional Advisory Unit report, dated 11 October 2021[39]. He was of the view that the Applicant’s migraines were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised as at the Qualification Period for this application, stating that the Applicant’s migraine condition had been treated with, “… triptan, analgesic and anti-nausea medication…”[40]. Dr Kanagaratnam further stated that in his opinion, the Applicant had received reasonable treatment for her migraines, but there was insufficient functional evidence to rate the condition under the relevant Impairment Tables.

[39]    Exhibit R2, Applicant HPAU Report.

[40]    Ibid, page 6.

52.     The Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant’s migraine condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised at the time of Qualification Period, with respect to the evidence of Dr Lloyd-Morgan and the independent opinion of Dr Kanagaratnam.

53.     In submissions before the Tribunal, the Applicant outlined her symptoms with respect to her migraines[41]:

… Whilst I do have a driver’s licence, I rarely drive due to the effects of the medications I have and also because of the nature of conditions ie: not knowing when a severe migraine might strike or the onset of severe pain… The migraines tend to have duration of at least three days and cause nausea…

[41]    Exhibit R1, Section 37 T Documents, T21, page 125.

54.     The Tribunal notes that with respect to the self-reported symptoms by the Applicant above, section 8(1) of the Determination stipulates that, “symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence”. Further, the introduction to all Impairment Tables in the Determination requires there to be corroborating evidence, and that self-reported symptoms alone are insufficient.

55.     The Tribunal is of the view that there is a lack of available corroborative evidence to assess the functional impact of the Applicant’s migraines and therefore it is unable to assign an Impairment Rating under the appropriate Impairment Tables, being Table 1 – Functions requiring Physical Exertion and Stamina, and Table 7- Brain Function[42].

[42]    Refer to Guide for Social Security Law at 3.6.3.07.

(c)       Depression and Anxiety

56.     With respect to the Applicant’s depression and anxiety, the Tribunal observes that there is no corroborative medical evidence in the form of a diagnosis from either a psychiatrist, or clinical psychologist. This point was readily accepted by the Applicant during cross-examination at the hearing[43].

[43]    Transcript (24 January 2022), page 11, lines 39 to 42.

57.     The introduction to Table 5 – Mental Health Function, stipulates that diagnosis of a mental health condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner including a psychiatrist, with evidence from a clinical psychologist (in circumstances where the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).

58.     In the absence of a diagnosis from a psychiatrist, or clinical psychologist referable to the Qualification Period, the Applicant’s depression and anxiety cannot be considered diagnosed. Therefore, the Tribunal is unable to assess the condition or assign an Impairment Rating as part of this application.

Summary

59.     The Tribunal has found that none of the Applicant’s conditions were able to be assigned Impairment Ratings under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

60.     As the Tribunal has found that the Applicant does not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act, there is no need to consider the remaining relevant provisions.

DECISION

61. Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division, dated 1 March 2021, to reject the Applicant’s claim for the Disability Support Pension.

I certify that the preceding 61 (sixty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B. Pola

…………[SGD]……………

Associate

Dated: 4 March 2022

Date of hearing:  24 January 2022

Applicant:  Ms Tina Mangino (Self-represented, via telephone)

Solicitor for Respondent:       Mr Samuel Harvey (Services Australia, via telephone)

Annexure 1 – Exhibit Register

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit	Party	Date of Document	Date of Receipt
R1	Section 37 T Documents (pages 1 to 157)	R	Various dates	22 April 2021
R2	Applicant Health Professional Advisory Unit (HPAU) Report (pages 1 to 7)	R	11 October 2021	14 October 2021
R3	Supplementary Section 37 Supplementary T Documents (pages 1 to 26)	R	Various dates	4 January 2022
R4	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (pages 1 to 13)	R	4 January 2022	4 January 2022