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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mosavi against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to refuse Mr Mosavi a carer payment and carer allowance for his child, Child X. The refusal was based on Child X not meeting the threshold for a "qualifying rating of 'intense'" under the relevant social security legislation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Child X met the criteria for an "intense" designation, which required a score of 85 or more on the Adult Care Load (ACL) questionnaire and a score of zero or above on a professional questionnaire. This designation was a mandatory qualification for receiving carer payment and carer allowance.

The Tribunal considered the scores from both the professional questionnaire, completed by Child X's treating health professional, Dr Haddad, which yielded a score of 1.50, and the ACL questionnaire, completed by Mr Mosavi. While Mr Mosavi's ACL questionnaire scores varied, a score of 75 on one occasion was subsequently altered to 55 by Centrelink under subclause 10(6) of the Determination, as it was not considered an accurate reflection of Child X's functional ability and behaviour. The Tribunal noted that its discretion to amend ACL questionnaire scores was confined to specific circumstances, such as when a question was missed or misinterpreted, or to add points for unaccounted care load not recognised by the questionnaire, as per subclauses 10(5), (6), and (7) of the Determination. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the score of 55 on the ACL questionnaire was less than the mandatory requirement of 85, and therefore, Mr Mosavi did not meet the qualification for the payments.