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

[2017] AATA 1590

Moore and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1590 (28 September 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2016/4369

Re:Lara Moore

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:L M Gallagher, Member

Date:28 September 2017

Place:Perth

The decision under review is affirmed.

............[sgd]........................................................

L M Gallagher, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – whether applicant had conditions that were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised – whether applicant had 20 impairment points – brain injury – mental health condition – spine condition – urological condition – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) – ss 4(2), ss 94(1) s 94(2), ss 94(3B),

Social Security Administration Act 1999(Cth) - Sch 2, Cl 4(1)

CASES

Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 – ss 6(4)–(8), s 8(1), Tables 4, 5, 7, 13

REASONS FOR DECISION

L M Gallagher, Member

28 September 2017

1. On 23 October 2015, Ms Moore lodged an application for Disability Support Pension (‘DSP’) with the Department of Human Services (‘the Department’) (T43).  On her claim form, Ms Moore listed her ‘disabilities, illnesses or injuries’ as being ‘AVM Brain Injury’ and ‘sciatic Nerve Damage from nurse’ (T43, page 131).

2. A medical report by Dr Joe Kosterich, General Practitioner, dated 23 October 2015, prepared in support of Ms Moore’s claim for DSP (T42) listed her conditions as ‘Sciatica’ and ‘Brain haemorrhage.’  Dr Kosterich also provided a Centrelink medical certificate dated 9 December 2015 (T47) in relation to Ms Moore’s ‘cystoscopy’ and ‘Sciatic Nerve Damage + TBI.’

3. On 10 December 2015, Ms Moore’s claim for DSP was rejected (T49) on the basis that Ms Moore was “assessed as not having an impairment rating of 20 points or more.”

4. On 21 December 2015, Dr Kosterich provided a further medical report (T52).  In this report, Dr Kosterich states:

   This lady has told me that she underwent cranial surgery in 1993.  She informs me that she has been left with a permanent brain injury.  I am not in possession of the original records as they are in the USA.

   In 2012 she was treated for sciatica at QE2 (see attached) and get [sic] ongoing symptoms in relation to this.

   Currently she is being investigated for bladder issues.

5. On 8 January 2016, Ms Moore requested review of the Department’s decision dated 21 December 2015, stating that “she has new medical information” (T75, page 754). 

6. In an Additional Medical Evidence for Disability Support Pension Record dated 22 January 2016 (T54), Dr Kosterich reported in relation to Ms Moore’s sciatic nerve damage that “the client was referred to a Neurosurgeon in 2012, but she did not attend the scheduled appointments” and “she was referred to a Neurologist in 2012 and diagnosis was Disc L5 SI bulge.”  As to Ms Moore’s traumatic brain injury, Dr Kosterich reported that “there is insufficient information” and that he “would recommend a formal Specialist assessment.”  As to “Past/current/planned treatment,” Dr Kosterich is recorded to have advised of “steroid injection in 2012 for the client’s back condition.”

7. On 21 January 2016, a Job Capacity Assessment (‘JCA’) (file assessment) was undertaken by a Registered Psychologist, with contribution from an Accredited Exercise Physiologist and a report was produced on 27 January 2016 (T55).  The JCA report states that Ms Moore’s conditions of ‘traumatic brain injury, ‘spinal disorder - other,’ ‘sciatica nerve damage’ and ‘cystoscopy’ could not be regarded as fully diagnosed, fully treated or fully stabilised. The JCA also assessed Ms Moore as suffering from a urinary tract condition, which it considered to be a temporary condition.  The JCA found that Ms Moore did not have a continuing inability to work (‘CITW’) on the basis that Ms Moore was assessed as having a future work capacity within two years with intervention on 15 – 22 hours per week (T55, page 234).

8. The report by Dr Luke Tassell, Registered Chiropractor, dated 29 January 2016 (T56) states that Ms Moore suffers from ‘Sciatic nerve injury post-spinal injection’ and ‘prognosis is poor. patient is likely to suffer ongoing sciatic pain due to nerve damage’ (T56, page 238).

9. Dr Kosterich’s further medical certificate dated 24 February 2016 (T57) states that Ms Moore’s ‘Scaitica’ [sic] and ‘Previous CVA’ (her traumatic brain injury) were ‘Permanent (likely to persist for 2 years or more).’

10. On 17 March 2016, an Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’) of the Department affirmed the decision dated 10 December 2015 (T58).  The ARO found that Ms Moore’s conditions were not permanent and therefore they could not be assigned an impairment rating under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (‘the Impairment Tables’). 

11. The ARO also found that Ms Moore did not have a CITW on the basis that being satisfied that she did not meet the requirement of at least 20 points under one or more of the Impairment Tables, she did not meet the program of support requirements and would be able to work at least 15 hours per week within the next two years with intervention (T58).

12. On 18 April 2016, Ms Moore applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) for a first review of the ARO decision dated 17 March 2016 (T2).

13. On 19 July 2016, the Tribunal’s Social Services and Child Support Division (‘AAT1’) affirmed the ARO decision dated 17 March 2016 (T3) on the basis that Ms Moore’s conditions could not be rated under the relevant Impairment Tables. In particular, the AAT1 found Mr Moore’s conditions were as follows (T3):

    (a)sub arachnoid haemorrhage, secondary to AV malformation (the ‘brain injury’), which was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised however there was no evidence of functional impairment and nil points allocated under Table 7 (Brain Function) as a result;

    (b)mental health condition (organic mood disorder), which was fully diagnosed in 2010, but not fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised on the date of claim;

    (c)spine condition, being sciatic pain secondary to L5/S1 disc bulge was fully diagnosed on the date of claim, but not fully treated or fully stabilised; and

    (d)urological condition, which was not fully diagnosed, fully treated or fully stabilised.

14. Given the AAT1’s findings at paragraph 13 above, it did not go on to consider whether Ms Moore had a CITW.

15. On 20 August 2016, Ms Moore applied to the Tribunal’s General Division for a second review of the AAT1 decision dated 19 July 2016, claiming that the AAT1 decision is wrong because “I am still permanently disabled” (T2, page 4).

    RELEVANT LEGISLATION

16. The statutory provisions relevant to the present matter are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (‘the Act’) and the Social Security Administration Act 1999 (Cth) (‘the Administration Act’). 

17.     Section 94 of the Act sets out the qualification criteria for DSP. For present purposes, the three primary requirements are that a person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment (subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act); that the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables (subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act); and that person has a CITW (subsection 94(1)(c) of the Act).

1. In accordance with subclause 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act, the Tribunal is required to determine Ms Moore’s eligibility for DSP on 23 October 2015, being the date the claim was lodged.

2. The Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (‘the Determination’) contains the Impairment Tables. The Impairment Tables set out the rules about when an impairment rating can be assigned as well as a rating system for impairment. The Impairment Tables are based on function rather than diagnosis (“impairment” is defined to mean a loss of functional capacity affecting a person’s medical condition) and they describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations.

3. To be given a rating under the Impairment Tables, the impairment must be permanent and be more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for two years (subsection 6(3) of the Determination).

4. For the purposes of the Impairment Tables, “permanent” does not have its usual meaning. To be a permanent condition, the condition must be fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, be fully treated, be fully stabilised and be more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than two years (subsection 6(4) of the Determination).

5. In determining whether a condition has been “fully diagnosed and fully treated”, the following facts are to be considered:

   (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 2 years.

   (subsection 6(5) of the Determination).

6. A condition is “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.

   (subsection 6(6) of the Determination).

7. “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 (subsection 6(7) of the Determination).

8. The existence of a diagnosed condition will not necessarily result in a rating being assigned under the Tables. If an impairment has no functional impact, then no rating will be assigned (subsection 6(8) of the Determination).

9. Self-reporting of symptoms in relation to a person’s condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence as defined in each table in the Impairment Tables (subsection 8(1) of the Determination).

10. The Introduction to Impairment Table 5 (Mental Health Function) states that the required diagnosing medical practitioner includes a psychiatrist, with evidence from a clinical psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).

11. The Introductions to Impairment Table 4 (Spinal Function), Impairment Table 7 (Brain Function) and Impairment Table 13 (Continence Function) respectively state that the diagnosis of each condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner.

12. In respect of the requirement that a person have a CITW, unless a person is specifically exempted from this requirement, all the criteria in subsection 94(2) of the Act need to be satisfied, including participation in a recognised program of support and being unable to work for 15 hours or more per week.

    ISSUES

13. The issues which arise in this case are:

    (a)whether Ms Moore suffered from a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment or impairments; and if so,

    (b)whether those impairments receive an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Determination; and if so,

    (c)whether Ms Moore has a CITW, which includes the requirement to have actively participated in a program of support.

14. As the Tribunal has concluded below (refer to paragraph 60) that Ms Moore’s impairments do not receive an impairment rating of 20 points or more, the Tribunal has not addressed in considerable detail the legislation nor the issues relevant to whether Ms Moore has a CITW.  It is not required to do so.

    EVIDENCE

15. The matter was heard in Perth on 7 August 2017.  Ms Moore appeared in person with Ms Rachael Cox (support person, People With Disabilities (WA) Inc) and was self-represented.  The Secretary was represented by Mr Ashley Burgess from Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

16. The Tribunal received the following evidence:

    ·email from Applicant dated 21 March 2017 (A1);

    ·email from Applicant dated 10 July 2017 (A2);

    ·email from Applicant dated 18 July 2017, with annotated article by Peter Roger Breggin entitled ‘Disabling the Brain with Electroshock’ (A3);

    ·Applicant’s medical records from Bentley Health Service (A4);

    ·Applicant’s medical records from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (‘SCGH’) (A5);

    ·documents provided by Applicant on 1 February 2017 (A6);

    ·a 759 page set of T documents (T1 – T75) (R1); and

    ·Applicant’s program of support information (R2).

17. The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it.  The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before the Tribunal and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address it, either orally or in writing.  Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.

18. Ms Moore gave the following affirmed evidence at hearing, including during cross examination by Mr Burgess:

    Brain injury

    (a)After her brain surgery in April 2003, she had to relearn ‘her entire life.’

    (b)While the report by Dr Kosterich states that she was referred to a neurologist in 2012, she was actually never referred to a neurologist until recently when Dr Quarles (General Practitioner) had made the referral.  Dr Quarles has been her GP since October 2016.  She was expecting to be consulting with a neurologist ‘in a couple of weeks.’  Dr Quarles has also referred her for an MRI.

    (c)In 2010 she underwent a number of electro convulsive therapy (‘ECT’) treatments, which caused her permanent brain damage.  It has been concluded that these treatments had caused her to suffer epileptic seizures and she was going to attend a seizure clinic ‘in a couple of weeks.’

    (d)Her brain injury has always been there and in her view has completely stabilised.

    (e)She cannot cope with retraining her brain to her pre-ECT capacity as this would be took much to ask of a person.

    (f)The side effects of her brain injury are still ongoing.  Her right frontal lobe is ‘gone’ and ‘ECT has amplified this.’

    Mental health condition

    (g)From 2010 to 2015, she spent most of her time ‘staring at the wall’ in a catatonic state.

    (h)People tried to get her ‘back into working’, however she couldn’t remember how.

    (i)She lives alone and has no family involvement here in Australia.

    (j)She has attended the mental health unit at SCGH (in September 2016, A5) and in October 2016 was referred to RUAH Community Services (A6).

    (k)She was not on any medication for her mental health until 2010, until she tried “a few drugs” and ECT.

    (l)She attends the Neurological Council of WA ‘once in a while,’ (having first attended in December 2016) where she has been told that there is ‘no need to put her on drugs’ and that medications (for her mental health) would do her more damage due to her brain injury.  She had found out about the Neurological Council of WA when someone at SCGH had let her know that they were there.

    (m)She is not seeing a psychologist or a psychiatrist currently.

    Spine condition

    (n)She believes her spine condition to be permanent because it has been diagnosed as sciatic nerve damage, secondary to her cortisone injection, it has been treated by that cortisone injection and it has stabilised because she maintains a level of comfort without pain from her chiropractic, gym and massage sessions. 

    (o)She has been attending a chiropractor since 2012.  A GP at the same practice at which she attends for chiropractic treatment said she should attend a physiotherapist and referred her accordingly in 2016.

    (p)

    In the past, a specialist had suggested surgery “to remove the nerve”,

    
    

    so she “stopped seeing him.”

    (q)She manages quite well with her current treatment plan.

    Urological condition

    (r)She does not dispute that she was referred to Fiona Stanley Hospital in December 2015 in relation to her urological issues (refer to paragraph 5.30 of the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 23 February 2017).

    (s)The Neurological Council of WA helped her to fill out forms to enable her to receive an incontinence payment from the Australian Government.

    (t)Treatment for her urological condition includes exercises and medication to assist with her incontinence.  She may require bladder surgery later this year to insert a ‘sling’ to lift the bladder and tighten the urethra.

19. In relation to the program of support requirement, Ms Moore said that:

    (a)She was ‘fortunate and blessed’ to have worked between 1993 and 2010 and ‘her body is now saying she needs to stop.’

    (b)She did well professionally until 2010 but she ‘can’t do this anymore.’

    (c)Centrelink was aware that she has gone through a number of recruitment agencies since 2010.  Even if she did relearn a new skill, her ‘cognitive and memory impairments’ would always be a problem for her.

    (d)She is a ‘vulnerable adult with a brain injury,’ who needs someone to attend appointments with her and assist her to carry on with her daily activities.

    (e)In 2010, she was put under guardianship and administration by the State of Western Australia.

    (f)She would love to work but cannot work in the capacity that Centrelink expects her to.

    (g)She believes the current legislation has ‘forced her to be here today’ to prove that her brain injury was permanent in 2015 as it was in 2010.

20. Ms Moore said that generally, she feels unfairly penalised and excluded from the DSP and that ‘nothing has changed for her.’

    CONSIDERATION

    Whether Ms Moore suffered from a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment or impairments

21. It is not in dispute and the Tribunal finds on the evidence that at the date of claim, Ms Moore suffered from a brain injury (being sub arachnoid haemorrhage, secondary to AV malformation), a mental health condition (organic mood disorder), a spine condition (sciatic pain secondary to L5/S1 disc bulge) and a urological condition.

22. As such, the Tribunal finds that Ms Moore satisfies subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act.

    Whether Ms Moore’s impairments receive an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Determination

    Brain injury

23. In relation to Ms Moore’s brain injury, it is not in dispute and the Tribunal finds on the evidence that Ms Moore suffered from sub arachnoid haemorrhage, secondary to AV malformation on the date of claim and that this condition was fully diagnosed on this date.   The Tribunal refers to Ms Moore’s SCGH records (A5), along with a number of CT Head reports (A5, T7, T11 and T27) in this regard.

24. As to whether Ms Moore’s brain injury has been fully treated and has fully stabilised, Ms Moore states that her injury has always been there and indicated to the Tribunal that surgery is not an option she wishes to explore.

25. The Secretary contends however, that Ms Moore’s brain injury was not fully treated and fully stabilised at the date of claim.  In making this contention, the Secretary relies on Dr Kosterich’s advice to the Department on 22 January 2016 that a recommendation for a specialist was required (T54, page 229).  The Secretary further notes that there is an absence of any other medical intervention in assessing Ms Moore’s brain injury since 2010 when Ms Moore underwent a cognitive assessment (T68, page 371). 

1. The Secretary also submits that Ms Moore’s more recent evidence regarding her involvement with the Neurological Council of WA, RUAH Community Services and attendances with Dr Quarles cannot be taken into consideration as there is no evidence in this context pertaining to the relevant period (for example, as discussed by Deputy President Handley in the decision of Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447 at [33]).

2. The Tribunal considers that the Secretary’s contention at paragraph 42 is in fact consistent with Ms Moore’s oral evidence at hearing that while, in her view, her brain injury ‘has always been there,’ she is currently continuing to pursue treatment options and exploring further investigative approaches regarding the epileptic seizures she has suffered and the effects these have had on her brain.

3. As such, the Tribunal finds that that Ms Moore’s brain injury was fully diagnosed, but not fully treated or fully stabilised at the date of claim and hence cannot be considered permanent within the definition of subsection 6(4) of the Determination and cannot be allocated a rating of points under the Impairment Tables.

   Mental health condition

4. In relation to Ms Moore’s mental health condition, it is not in dispute and the Tribunal finds on the evidence that Ms Moore suffered from ‘organic psychotic disorder,’ which was fully diagnosed by Clinical Psychologist staff at the Bentley Health Service in September 2010 (A4).

5. Ms Moore’s evidence in relation to her mental health condition is that she has tried “a few drugs” and ECT and has been more recently advised by the Neurological Council of WA that she does not need to take medication. 

6. The Tribunal notes there is no evidence that Mr Moore’s mental health condition was active on the date of claim that she was under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist at that time, or that she was on medication.  Rather, the available evidence is that:

   (a)Ms Moore was an involuntary patient at Bentley Hospital in the six week period prior to February 2013 for a relapse of mania/organic mood disorder (T30).  Since that time Ms Moore has not attended several appointments and is non-compliant with medication due to lack of insight (T30).

   (b)Ms Moore continues to have nil treatment (T36, page 165; T45, page 214; T72, page 214 and T3 page 9).

7. The Tribunal therefore finds that on the date of claim, Ms Moore’s mental health condition was fully diagnosed, but not fully treated or fully stabilised and her functional impairment cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.

   Spine condition

8. In relation to Ms Moore’s spine condition, it is not in dispute and the Tribunal finds on the evidence that Ms Moore suffered from sciatic pain secondary to L5/S1 disc bulge on the date of claim and that this condition was fully diagnosed on this date.   The Tribunal refers to letters from Dr Narula (T26, T29) SCGH discharge summary (T20), letters from Dr Kosterich (T42, T52, T53) and the additional medical evidence form (T54) in this regard.

9. Ms Moore’s evidence in relation to her spine condition is that she attended a neurosurgeon in 2012 for a cortisone injection, but did not return for review as he had suggested she undergo surgery to remove a nerve.  Ms Moore gave evidence that she has attended for chiropractic treatment since 2012 and physiotherapy since 2016 and maintains a level of comfort with these treatment modalities along with gym and massage sessions.

10. Ms Moore’s evidence at paragraph 51 above accords with:

    (a)Dr Kosterich’s report in the Additional Medical Evidence Form dated 22 January 2016 (T54, page 229) that “the client was referred to a Neurosurgeon in 2012, but she did not attend the scheduled appointments” and “she was referred to a Neurologist in 2012 and diagnosis was Disc L5 SI bulge.” 

    (b)The letter from Dr Narula (Neurosurgeon) dated 4 July 2012 (T26), which relevantly states, “considering her overall situation I have suggested we try a steroid injection and await the response.  Surgery should be considered but not as a first choice in her instance.  She will come back for review following the injection and I will advise further.”

11. The Tribunal notes that while Ms Moore has undergone physiotherapy in recent times, there is no evidence that at the date of claim she was exploring this option, along with other “reasonable treatment” measures such as hydrotherapy and other pain management services or that she had adequately explored surgical options with a neurosurgeon or other medical specialist.

12. As such, the Tribunal finds that on the date of claim, Ms Moore’s spine condition was fully diagnosed, but not fully treated or fully stabilised and her functional impairment cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.

    Urological condition

13. Ms Moore gave oral evidence at hearing that she does not dispute that she was referred to Fiona Stanley Hospital in December 2015 in relation to her urological issues (see subparagraph 35(r) above and T50, page 222).

14. The Tribunal notes the evidence that on 25 August 2014 Ms Moore had been recommended for a urology opinion (T33), these referrals taking place on 21 October 2015 (T41) and 16 November 2015 (T45).

15. The Tribunal also notes that the earliest procedure in relation to Ms Moore’s urological issues is the cystoscopy reported to have taken place on 10 December 2015 (T48), which concluded that Ms Moore suffers from incontinence.  Ms Moore was then referred for a CT Urogram (T50) and as at 21 December 2015 was still in the process of being investigated for her “bladder issues” (T52).

16. While the Tribunal accepts Ms Moore’s evidence that she treats her urological condition with medication and exercise and is still exploring treatment options including bladder surgery, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is sufficient evidence that, at the date of claim, Ms Moore’s urological condition had definitively been diagnosed.

17. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that on the date of claim, Ms Moore’s urological condition was fully not diagnosed and not fully treated or fully stabilised and her functional impairment cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.

    Whether Ms Moore has a continuing inability to work

18. Based on paragraphs 38 to 59 above, the Tribunal finds that none of Ms Moore’s claimed conditions are fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and hence she fails to satisfy subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act. Given this finding, the Tribunal is not strictly required to proceed to consider whether Ms Moore had, at the date of a claim, a CITW in satisfaction of subsection 94(1)(c) of the Act.

19. If the Tribunal had been able to find that Ms Moore’s impairments ought to be assigned a total of 20 impairment points across the various applicable Impairment Tables (given Ms Moore’s impairments are not “severe”, meaning no single impairment attracts 20 impairment points under a single impairment table, in accordance with subsection 94(3B) of the Act), the Tribunal would have been required to consider Ms Moore’s work capacity and her participation in a recognised program of support.

20. In this regard, and for completeness only, the Tribunal notes that the evidence showed Ms Moore had not, as at 23 October 2015, met the requirements for participation in a program of support.  Further, Ms Moore was assessed by the JCA on 21 January 2016 as having a future work capacity of 15 – 22 hours per week within two years with intervention (T55, page 234).  Therefore, on the available evidence Ms Moore’s application is likely to have failed regardless of whether 20 impairment points, accumulatively, were assigned.

    DECISION

21. Ms Moore does not qualify for DSP as the Tribunal has found that none of her claimed conditions were fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised at the date of claim and therefore cannot be considered permanent or be allocated points under the Impairment Tables.

22. The decision of the AAT1 dated 19 July 2016, which affirmed a decision of the Department dated 17 March 2016 to reject Ms Moore’s application for DSP lodged on 23 October 2015, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 64 (sixty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of L M Gallagher, Member

................[sgd]......................................................

Administrative Assistant - Legal

Dated: 28 September 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	7 August 2017
Advocate for the Applicant:	R Cox (People With Disabilities (WA) Inc)
Counsel for the Respondent:	A Burgess
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers