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

Mitchell and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 13 (9 January 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/3473
Re:Stephen Mitchell
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D Mitchell
Date: 9 January 2020
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...........................[SGD]...........................................
Member D Mitchell
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – DSP – whether medical conditions fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised – whether 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the Relevant Period – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (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
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447; (2014) 144 ALD 133
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D Mitchell
9 January 2020
INTRODUCTION

On 2 July 2018, Mr Stephen Mitchell (the Applicant) lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP).[1]
[1]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T18, pages 111-148, DSP claim form.
The claim was rejected on 12 July 2018,[2] on the basis that the Applicant had been assessed as not having an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. The decision was reviewed by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) who affirmed the decision to refuse the application for DSP on 4 February 2019.[3]
[2]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T20, pages 151-152, Letter: Rejection of DSP claim.
[3]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T24, pages 157-161, ARO Decision and Notes.
The Applicant sought a first-tier review of that decision by the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (SSCSD), which affirmed the decision of the ARO on 15 May 2019.[4]
[4]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 5-25, Decision of the SSCSD.
Following this, the Applicant sought a second-tier review of this matter by the General Division of this Tribunal, by way of an application received on 25 June 2019.[5]
[5]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1-4, Application for Review.
On 16 December 2019, a Hearing was held for this application. At the Hearing, the Applicant appeared in person, was self-represented and gave evidence under oath.
The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant is entitled to receive DSP at the date of his claim or within 13 weeks thereafter.
THE LAW
The relevant law in assessing a person’s qualification for DSP is found in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act), the Social Security (Administration) Act1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act) and the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (the Determination).
Section 94 of the Act prescribes the criteria that must be met to qualify for the payment of DSP. In the present case, the predominant qualification questions before the Tribunal are:
1.Does the Applicant have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment;[6]
2.Do the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables;[7] and
3.Does the Applicant have a continuing inability to work?[8]
[6]Section 94(1)(a) of the Act.
[7]Section 94(1)(b) of the Act.
[8]Section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
The Impairment Tables are set out in the Determination, which is made pursuant to section 26 of the Act and came into force on 1 January 2012. Section 5(2) of the Determination sets out that the purpose and general design principles of the Impairment Tables is that the Tables:
(a)unless otherwise authorised by law, are only to be applied to assess whether a person satisfies the qualification requirement in paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act; and
(b)are function based rather than diagnosis based; and
(c)describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations; and
(d)are designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment and not to assess conditions.
Under the Determination, the impairment of a person is limited to being assessed on the basis of what a person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for them.[9] The Impairment Tables 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.[10] Self-reported symptoms in relation to the person’s condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence.[11]
[9]Section 6(1) of the Determination.
[10]Section 6(2) of the Determination.
[11]Section 8(1) of the Determination.
Further, an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if: the person’s condition causing the impairment, is “permanent” and the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of the available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.[12]
[12]Section 6(3) of the Determination.
In order for a person’s condition to be considered permanent the condition must:[13]
(a)have been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and
(b)have been fully treated; and
(c)have been fully stabilised; and
(d)be more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[13]Section 6(4) of the Determination.
To determine whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, and whether it has been fully treated, it must be considered; 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 2 years.[14]
[14]Section 6(5) of the Determination.
A condition is considered to be fully stabilised if:[15]
(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.
[15]Section 6(6) of the Determination.
Reasonable treatment is treatment that: is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; is at a reasonable cost; can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity; is regularly undertaken or performed; has a high success rate; and carries a low risk to the person.[16]
[16]Section 6(7) of the Determination.
The Determination sets out that, in selecting the applicable Impairment Table, it is necessary to: identify the loss of function; refer to the Table related to the function affected; and then identify the correct impairment rating.[17] In assessing impairments where a single condition causes multiple impairments each impairment should be assessed under the relevant Table. Where more than one Table is used to assess multiple impairments resulting from the single condition, impairment ratings for the same impairment must not be assigned under more than one Table.[18] Where multiple conditions cause a common or combined impairment, a single rating should be assigned in relation to that common or combined impairment under a single Table.[19]
[17]Section 10 of the Determination.
[18]Sections 10(3) and (4) of the Determination.
[19]Sections 10(5) and (6) of the Determination.
An impairment rating can only be assigned in accordance with the rating points in each Impairment Table; cannot be assigned between consecutive impairment ratings; 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.[20]
[20]Section 11(1) of the Determination.
In order to have a continuing inability to work which is required to satisfy section 94(1)(c) of the Act a person must meet the criteria of section 94(2), which requires that a person must:
(a)if they do not have a severe impairment, have actively participated in a program of support; and
(b)be unable to work for at least 15 hours per week independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and
(c)be unable to participate in a training activity during the next 2 years or 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.
A person’s impairment is considered to be 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.[21]
[21]Section 94(3B) of the Act.
The Administration Act sets out that qualification for DSP, and therefore assessment of the relevant impairment ratings, is to be determined at the date of claim or where a person is not qualified on that date but becomes qualified within 13 weeks of lodging the claim, in which case the start date for DSP is the date the person becomes qualified.[22]
[22]Sections 41 and 42; clauses 3 and 4(1) of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Administration Act.
Both the Tribunal and the Federal Court have concluded that there is a requirement to look at the Applicant’s circumstances as they were, and the evidence that was available at the time of the application for DSP and the 13 weeks which followed it. Further, medical and other evidence that is provided outside the Relevant Period may be considered, however, only insofar as it is referrable to an Applicant’s condition during the Relevant Period.[23]
[23]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] AATA 447; (2014) 144 ALD 133, 139 at [32]; Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services[2015] FCA 1123 at [25]-[28].
RELEVANT PERIOD
The Relevant Period in this matter commences on 2 July 2018, being the date the Applicant lodged his claim for DSP, and ending 13 weeks later on 1 October 2018. The Tribunal is therefore limited to considering evidence as far as it relates to the Applicant’s medical conditions and functional impairments as they were during the Relevant Period.
ISSUES
Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, it is clear that the Applicant had impairments during the Relevant Period and therefore has met the requirements of section 94(1)(a) of the Act. This point is not in contention.[24] The Respondent considers the Applicant’s impairments include mental health,[25] neck[26] and hip[27] conditions.
[24]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, page 6, paragraph 30.
[25]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, pages 6-8, paragraphs 32-43.
[26]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, pages 8-9, paragraphs 44-56.
[27]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, pages 9-11, paragraphs 57-70.
The remaining issues for the Tribunal to consider are:
1.Whether, within the Relevant Period, the Applicant’s impairments attracted 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
2.If so, did the Applicant have a continuing inability to work?
CONSIDERATION
Did the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables – section 94(1)(b) of the Act?
At the Hearing, the Applicant gave evidence under oath and openly responded to questions from the Tribunal and cross-examination from the Respondent. It was clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant has lived a very difficult life and has experienced situations that no one should have to experience. The Tribunal acknowledges this and the candour with which the Applicant gave his evidence. As explained at the Hearing only those personal details that are necessary to disclose in this decision will be disclosed.
Mental health condition
The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Applicant’s major depression was fully diagnosed at the Relevant Period.[28] This is not in dispute.[29]
[28]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T6, page 84, Verification of Medical Conditions; T14, page 101, Medical Certificate provided by Dr Stephen Cook; and T22, page 155, Report: Wayne Clarke, clinical psychologist dated 19 April 2017.
[29]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, page 6, paragraph 32.
The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s mental health condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period on the basis that:[30]
·On 19 April 2017, Mr Clarke [clinical psychologist] wrote to Dr Luke Talbot, general practitioner, and reported that he had seen the Applicant for 10+ sessions of psychotherapy in 2013-2014 at Nelson Bay Community Health Centre, and had seen the Applicant again today (T22/155). Mr Clarke recommended consideration of possible sleep apnoea as a root cause, establishing a regular exercise routine to assist in weight reduction and endorphin production, and daily practice of mindfulness. Mr Clarke stated, “we have a lot to work on together” and reported that he would continue to use a combination of psycho-education and cognitive behavioural therapy with the Applicant.
·On 10 May 2019, Dr Stephen Cook, general practitioner, completed a GP Mental Health Plan and referred the Applicant to Today’s Psychology at Strathpine.
·There is no corroborating evidence that the Applicant engaged in regular psychological counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy prior to or during the Relevant Period as recommended by Mr Clarke.
·There is no corroborating evidence that the Applicant attended a psychiatrist prior to or during the Relevant Period.
·There is no evidence that these treatments were not expected to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the Applicant to undertake work in the next two years.
[30]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, pages 6-8, paragraphs 34-43.
At the Hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal:
·He had been referred to a psychologist since moving to Queensland in January 2018 but it has been hard to attend as he does not have his own car and it has been hard to get into see someone.
·He has started seeing a new psychologist in 2019. It took 18 months to find someone as he needed someone who bulk billed.
·He has been taking Endep for his depression since 2018.
·He had a difficult childhood and adult life.
·When asked how his mental health conditions affect him he said he tries not to think about what has happened.
·When he first relocated to Queensland he lived in a caravan on his own for 12 months, however now lives with his son.
·He does not have any friends in Queensland.
·He is trying to have a good relationship with his son.
On cross-examination, the Applicant told the Tribunal:
oHe agreed he had seen Mr Clarke for 10 session in 2013/2014 and once in 2016.
oHe had a phone consultation with Mr Clarke on 19 April 2017 and Mr Clarke said he needed to lose weight and practice mindfulness.
oHe had just found a CD that had been in storage that helps with mindfulness but now he does not have a CD player.
oWhen asked about Mr Clarke’s report of 19 April 2017 where Mr Clarke said: “We have a lot to work on together, but he left me feeling motivated” he said did not know how that could happen as Mr Clarke was in Newcastle and he was in Brisbane. He agreed that the plan was for him to have more treatment.
oHe did not see Mr Clarke again after 19 April 2017.
oHis GP had referred him under a Mental Health Care Plan to see a psychologist on 10 May 2019 however he had not yet had an appointment.
oHe has been on Endep since 2008/2009. He had tried a different medication first but it had bad side effects. Since he has been on Endep and it works he has stayed on it, the doctors do not like to chop and change medication.
oHe had been on the same dose of Endep since he commenced it after the initial phase in period.
In considering the medical evidence before the Tribunal, I accept that the Applicant’s mental health condition was fully diagnosed during the Relevant Period and that he has had difficulty in engaging with psychological support since relocating to Queensland.
Based on the medical evidence and that provided by the Applicant at Hearing it is clear that while his medication may have remained stable through the Relevant Period he had not engaged in all reasonable treatment and there is no evidence that such treatment would not result in an improvement in this condition. Consequently, I find that the Applicant’s mental health condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s mental health condition is not considered permanent during the Relevant Period for the purposes of applying the Impairment Tables and I am unable to assign impairment points for this condition.
Neck condition
The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Applicant’s degenerative disc disease in his cervical spine (neck condition) was fully diagnosed at the Relevant Period.[31] This is not in dispute.[32]
[31]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, page 86, X-ray cervical spine report and findings of Dr Ken Thong; T8, page 87, Medical Report: Dr Neil Wearne; T15, page 102, X-ray cervical spine, left and right hip report and findings of Dr Won Kyung Sung; and T17 pages 109-110, CT cervical spine report and findings of Dr David Simpson.
[32]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, page 8, paragraph 44.
The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s neck condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period on the basis that:[33]
oThe Applicant has not been reviewed by an orthopaedic surgeon.
oThere is no evidence that the Applicant has been referred for specialist assessment for consideration of all treatment options or has been referred for secondary rehabilitation program (e.g. physiotherapy/hydrotherapy) or other intervention (e.g. Injections, tens machine, pain management).
oOn 7 November 2018, the Applicant saw Dr Sabaruddin Abdullah, orthopaedic fellow; however, it appears that the appointment was only in respect of the Applicant’s hip condition.
oIt is acknowledged that the Applicant had chiropractic and analgesic treatment in respect of his neck condition prior to the Relevant Period.
oThere is no corroborating evidence that the Applicant attended a pain management course prior to or during the Relevant Period.
oEngagement with a specialist and attendance at a pain management course (in circumstances where pain is the main symptom of the Applicant’s neck condition) is reasonable treatment as defined under section 6(7) of the rules to the Impairment Tables. That is, it is reliably available to the Applicant at a reasonable cost, has a high success rate and can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity if undertaken.
[33]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, pages 8-9, paragraphs 45-56.

At the Hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal:
oHis doctor has not mentioned or referred him to a pain management clinic.
oHis doctor will not refer him to a specialist for his neck condition because it would be a waste of money – it is his full neck that has been affected so there is nothing that can be done.
oHe gets pins and needles down his right arm.
oHe wakes up with headaches.
oHe has had chiropractic treatment and it provides some short-term relief from the pins and needles and headaches.
oHe had 5 sessions with a chiropractor a year as part of the Medicare care plan system, he would go as often as he could.
oHe has limited movement of his neck. He has to turn his body around to look in his blind spot when driving.
oHe takes anti-inflammatory medication.
oHe cannot lift above his shoulders.
oTo work he had to take double the prescribed amount of pain killers.
oHis doctor has not talked to him about physiotherapy or injections.
oHe does his own neck roll exercises to help with the pain.
On cross-examination, the Applicant told the Tribunal:
oHe has had chronic neck pain for the last 10 years after having a car accident.
oAfter moving to Queensland in January 2018 for a job, he went to Northside Chiropractors in Aspley. He confirmed that as at 2 July 2018, he had only had one appointment.
oHe always intended to have more chiropractic treatment as he is entitled to 5 sessions a year.
oHe had a number of other car accidents in 2018.
oHe confirmed he had not seen a specialist for his neck.
oHe has not had physiotherapy as he only gets 5 sessions of physio or chiropractic treatment.
oHe takes pain medication.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant says there is nothing further that can be done for his neck condition, however there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal corroborating this contention. Further the Applicant gave evidence that he has not discussed a pain management clinic with or received a referral for such treatment from his general practitioner, however this does not mean that this kind of treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances.
Based on the medical evidence and that provided by the Applicant at Hearing it is clear that during the Relevant Period he had not engaged in all reasonable treatment for his neck condition and there is no evidence that such treatment would not result in an improvement in this condition. Consequently, I find that the Applicant’s neck condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s neck condition is not considered permanent during the Relevant Period for the purposes of applying the Impairment Tables and I am unable to assign impairment points for this condition.
Hip condition
The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Applicant’s bilateral chronic hip pain (hip condition) was fully diagnosed at the Relevant Period.[34] This is not in dispute.[35]
[34]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 82, X-ray chest report and findings of Dr Geraldine Long; T6, page 84, Verification of Medical Conditions; T10, page 93, Medical Certificate provided by Dr Luke Talbot; T12, page 99, Medical Certificate provided by Dr H.B Strydom; T14, page 101, Medical Certificate provided by Dr Stephen Cook; T15, page 102, X-ray cervical spine, left and right hip report and findings of Dr Won Kyung Sung; and T26, page 165, Verification of Medical Conditions.
[35]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, page 9, paragraph 57.
The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s neck condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period on the basis that:[36]
oOn 22 January 2016, Dr Wearne completed a Verification of Medical Conditions form and stated that planned treatment for the Applicant’s osteoarthritis of the left hip included “physio”. Further planned treatment was also noted by Dr Wearne however the treatment noted is illegible.
oOn 5 June 2017 and 30 June 2017, Dr Talbot and Dr Strydom certified that planned treatment for the Applicant’s hip pain included “chiropractor – at some point may need consideration of surgical management”.
oThere is no documentation to indicate that the Applicant has been referred for specialist assessment for consideration of all treatment options or has been referred for secondary rehabilitation program (e.g. physiotherapy/hydrotherapy) or other intervention (e.g. injectors, tens machine, pain management).
oOn 7 November 2018, the Applicant saw Dr Abdullah who advised the Applicant regarding weight reduction and the need for a total hip replacement in the future. Dr Abdullah stated that the Applicant’s progress would be reviewed in 6 months’ time.
oOn 14 May 2019, Dr Cook completed a Verification of Medical Condition form and stated that planned treatment for the Applicant’s degenerative joint disease included “total hip replacement”.
oOn 5 September 2019, Dr Cook completed a Claim for DSP Medical Evidence Checklist and stated that the Applicant suffered from osteoarthritis of both hips and was “awaiting THR left”.
oIt is acknowledged that there is evidence that the Applicant had chiropractic and analgesic treatment in respect to of his hip condition prior to the Relevant Period.
oThe Applicant’s hip condition cannot be regarded as fully treated and fully stabilised in circumstances where hip surgery has been recommended and the Applicant has not had this treatment.
[36]Exhibit 2, Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, pages 9-11, paragraphs 58-70.
At Hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal:
oHe has been put on the waiting list for a left hip replacement however he pulled out as wants to have both of his hips replaced at the same time.
oHe saw the specialists in 2019 and they are hesitant to do both hips at the same time.
oHis chiropractic treatment also assists with his hips. This treatment helps until he sleeps the wrong way.
oHe uses pain killers to manage the pain.
oHe would like stem cell replacement injections as treatment rather than surgery.
oHe exercises when he can, however it is painful as he has bone on bone.
oHe can drive for more than 30 minutes but it hurts when he gets out of the car.
oHe can sit or stand for a couple of hours however it is painful.
oHe has been working for a tug and barge operator checking the engine room for leaks of water and oil. This requires him to go down a ladder, he does this slowly taking one step at a time.
oHe still works when there is work and he is able to do it.
oDuring the Relevant Period, he was working 6 hours a day 1 or 2 days a week.
oHe could work more than what was available however only with pain killers. When required to work a 10 hour shift he would need to take extra painkillers.
oHis work provider would not put him into any study.
On cross-examination, the Applicant told the Tribunal:
oHe has had hip pain since 2006 from a car accident.
oHe agrees the doctor has said he needs hip replacements and that he needs to lose weight.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant has decided that he wants to have both hips replaced at once or would prefer to have alternative treatment, however there is no medical evidence corroborating that he has discussed these options with his specialist or that such an approach is reasonable in the Applicant’s circumstances. Further the Applicant gave evidence that he has not discussed a pain management clinic with or received a referral for such treatment from his general practitioner, however this does not mean that this kind of treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances.
Based on the medical evidence and that provided by the Applicant at Hearing it is clear that during the Relevant Period he had not engaged in all reasonable treatment for his hip condition and there is no evidence that such treatment would not result in an improvement in this condition. Consequently, I find that the Applicant’s hip condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s hip condition is not considered permanent during the Relevant Period for the purposes of applying the Impairment Tables and I am unable to assign impairment points for this condition.
Continuing Inability to Work
As I have found that the Applicant does not have a total of 20 impairment points either on one table or cumulative across multiple tables, there is no need to consider whether the Applicant met the requirements of section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
I find that the Applicant had impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a) of the Act.
I find that the Applicant’s mental health, neck and hip conditions were fully diagnosed but not fully treated and fully stabilised during the Relevant Period and therefore could not be considered permanent for the purposes of applying the Impairment Tables.
I find that the Applicant’s impairments do not attract more than 20 points under the Impairment Tables.
Accordingly, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 51 (fifty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D Mitchell

....................[SGD]......................
Associate
Dated: 9 January 2020

Date of hearing: 16 December 2019

Applicant: In Person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Gillian Gehrke

Solicitors for the Respondent: Department of Human Services

[2020] AATA 13

9 January 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Date of hearing:	16 December 2019
Applicant:	In Person
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Gillian Gehrke
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Department of Human Services