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

[2024] AATA 3358

MRZN and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 3358 (18 September 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2023/5280

Re:MRZN  

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris

Date:18 September 2024

Place:Sydney

Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Services and Child Support division at first review, which in turn affirmed a decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for Disability Support Pension lodged on 28 January 2022.

...............................[sgn].........................................
Senior Member D. J. Morris

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – pensions, benefits and allowances – applicant applied for disability support pension – application refused – authorised review officer confirmed refusal – applicant applied for first review by Tribunal – first review affirmed rejection decision – applicant applied for second review – consideration of statutory provisions – application of impairment tables determination – applicant has not undertaken program of support – threshold of allocation of impairment points not met – a significant suite of conditions of the applicant could not be assigned impairment points because of lack of mandatory diagnosis requirements under the determination – decision under review is affirmed

Legislation

Acts Interpretation Act 1901
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member D. J. Morris

18 September 2024

1. On 3 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order, with the agreement of the parties, under s 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’) prohibiting the publication of the name of the Applicant in these proceedings. She will instead be referred to by the anonym ‘MRZN’.

2. On 28 January 2022, MRZN lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP) with Centrelink, part of the Respondent’s Department. In her application, she cited several conditions: severe peripheral paralysis, severe anxiety, depression and PTSD, asthma, aphasia, neuropathic pain, chronic back pain, resistant urticaria, small fibre peripheral neuropathy with associated pain, type 2 diabetes, chronic anaemia with low platelet count, osteoarthritis, obesity, and umbilical hernia.

3. On 6 February 2022, Centrelink rejected MRZN’s claim for DSP on the basis that she did not satisfy subsections 94(1)(b) and (c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (‘the Act’).

4. MRZN asked for a review of the rejection decision. An Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’), who is an officer of the Department not involved in the original decision, considered the claim and on 21 February 2023 affirmed the rejection.

5. MRZN was unsatisfied with the ARO’s decision, and asked the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal to review it (‘first review’).

6. On 16 May 2023, a Member of that Division, Doctor Lewinsky, at first review, affirmed the ARO’s rejection decision.

7. MRZN, as she is entitled to do, then sought a second review by the General Division of the Tribunal.

   HEARING

8. A hearing was conducted by telephone under s 33A of the AAT Act on 2 September 2024. MRZN was represented by Ms Georgia Dignam, a lay advocate from Disability Advocacy NSW. MRZN gave oral evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Matt Gauci of Hunt & Hunt Lawyers, representing the Respondent. The Applicant’s husband, Mr DP, also gave evidence.

9. The Tribunal took into evidence the following documents:

   (a) Volume of documents lodged under s 37 of the AAT Act (Exhibit R1);

   (b)       Statement of MRZN dated 9 July 2024 (E A1);

   (c)       Statement of Mr DP, dated 19 July 2024 (E A2);

   (d)       Report from psychologist Mr Emin Tezjan, dated 23 January 2024 (E A3);

   (d)       Report from Dr Ebi Kheirandish, general practitioner, dated 17 January 2024 (E A4);

   (e)       Report of Dr Ebi Kheirandish, dated 31 October 2023 (E A5);

   (f)       Report from Dr Anthony Park, general practitioner, dated 7 November 2023 (E A6);

   (g)Report from Mr Sundeep Dadabai, clinical psychologist, dated 27 January 2024

   
   

   (E A7);

   (h)       Report from Mr Sundeep Dadabai, dated 15 October 20234 (E A8);

10. The Tribunal also had regard to a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 7 May 2024, and a list of authorities, both submitted by the Respondent, and the first review decision dated 16 May 2023.

    THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME

    Qualification for DSP under the Act

11. In order to qualify for DSP, a person’s claim must be assessed under s 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (‘the Act’) and the qualification criteria for DSP must be satisfied.  It must be established that:

    (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; and

    (d)…

12. It is important to note that s 94 of the Act is conjunctive: each of the requirements in ss 91(1)(a), (b) and (c) must be met.

13. In terms of the criteria under s 94(1)(c) of the Act, no contention was made that MRZN had participated in the supported wage system. She was therefore required to establish a ‘continuing inability to work’. Relevantly, s 94(2) of the Act provides 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) … 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.

14. Section 94(3B) of the Act provides that:

    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.

15. Therefore, if a person claiming DSP is assigned 20 points under the Impairment Tables, but does not have a ‘severe impairment’ for the purposes of s 94(3B) of the Act, then the Secretary of the Department must be satisfied that he or she has met the requirements of having ‘actively participated in a program of support’ as provided in the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014.

    What is the relevant period for considering the claim?

16. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (‘Administration Act’) provides, at cl 4(1) of sch 2, as follows:

    (1)If:

    (a)a person (other than a detained person) makes a claim for a relevant social security payment; and

    (c)the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the payment; and

    (d)assuming the person does not sooner die, the person will, because of the passage of time or the occurrence of an event, become qualified for the payment within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made; and

    (e)the person becomes so qualified within that period;

    the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the social security payment.

17. Item 5 in the table of s 36(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (‘AIA’) sets out in a table how a period of time is to be calculated in legislation where there is no express contrary meaning. It provides that if the period of time is expressed to begin from a specified day, it does not include that day.

18. Therefore, there are two questions for the Tribunal to consider. First, the Tribunal must consider whether MRZN was qualified for DSP on the date she lodged her claim, 28 January 2022. If not, the Tribunal must then consider, applying the provisions of cl 4(1) of the Administration Act, and the provisions of the AIA, whether she became qualified on a day in the succeeding 13-week period. The 13-week qualification period therefore started on the day after the claim was lodged, 29 January 2022, and ended on 28 April 2022.

19. On 28 February 2023, the Minister for Social Services made a new determination relating to qualification for DSP, the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023. This Determination must be applied to all claims made for DSP after 1 April 2023. However, for claims lodged before that date, such as MRZN’s claim, the correct determination to apply is the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) 2011 (called in these reasons ‘the Impairment Tables’), because the 2011 determination is preserved in relation to her claim by force of the provisions of s 27(2) of the Act.

    APPLICANT’S OPENING STATEMENT

20. Ms Dignam read a prepared statement of the Applicant. MRZN contended that she should have been granted DSP. She says that she has autism, which has been verified by a clinical psychologist. MRZN said she now has a diagnosis of hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP) which had previously been misdiagnosed as peripheral neuropathy. MRZN said she has a condition of complex PTSD, which manifested in an intense fear of people and places. She said she isolates in her home. She said that her asthma condition makes it difficult to walk and do normal jobs, and she becomes exhausted doing simple household tasks.

21. MRZN also cited sleep apnoea, chronic anaemia with low iron, rheumatoid and osteo-arthritis, damage to the left ankle, both knees and right elbow, type 2 diabetes mellitus (for which she says she takes tablets), a uterine growth which results in heavy menstrual periods, and peripheral neuropathy (notwithstanding the earlier statement about a misdiagnosis). MRZN said the regular medication she takes is Valium, Lyrica and Panadeine forte and that they all have side effects. She said she had been advised by her general practitioner not to drive.

22. MRZN said that her husband, Mr DP, is on carer’s allowance and does the majority of the housework. She said she rarely goes out of the house. When she does, Mr DP helps her to the car and wherever she is visiting. MRZN said she believed she should be allocated 20 points under Table 1 of the Impairment Tables. In regard to the submissions of the Respondent, MRZN said she did not have a job capacity assessment (JCA) in August 2022. She believed the last time she saw a JCA professional was in the early 2000s.

23. MRZN said at the time she lodged her DSP application she was informed that she needed the diagnosis of a clinical psychologist for any mental health condition. She therefore made an arrangement to see Mr Dadabai, but found there was a 12 months wait to see anyone who bulk billed. MRZN said she was not informed that she would not be able to use the evidence provided by Mr Dadabai in support of her claim.

    STATEMENT OF MR DP

24. Mr DP told the Tribunal that he has to aid MRZN when she walks and in dealing with outside places. He said he has to make all medical appointments and has great difficulties in persuading his wife to see a doctor face-to-face, which they insist on for the first consultation. He said telehealth appointments are much less confronting for her.

25. Mr DP said some days MRZN sleeps for long periods. Occasionally she will go outside to tend to their chickens, or undertake some other simple task, but she then returns inside again and is exhausted just from going out.

26. He said she has a lack of stability and uses a walking stick. Mr DP said MRZN does occasionally come to the local shops to buy personal items for herself, and then gets back into the car while he completes the bulk of the grocery shopping. He said the Applicant gets ‘panicky’ being around people in a supermarket or shopping centre.

27. Mr DP said he monitors her medications all the time and allows her one extra Valium if she experiences a panic attack, but is otherwise sparing because he knows that this medication can be addictive.

28. Mr DP said it was very tiring and hard to look after a person in MRZN’s condition. He said that he suffers from mild depression, but her symptoms were greater because she finds it hard being in any crowded place.

29. Mr DP said he and MRZN were homeless for more than three years ‘doing the best that we could’, and that it takes months for the Applicant to give her trust to a visiting social worker because she is paranoid of them. Mr DP said they were never told about the Impairment Tables when his wife applied for DSP, and also never told about the 13-week qualification period. He said that he rang the Respondent’s Department and told them there was a 12-month period before MRZN was able to see a clinical psychologist, and the Department officer thanked him. Mr DP said he was under the impression that once they saw a clinical psychologist, any evidence from that person could be taken into account.

30. In response to a direct question from the Tribunal about whether Mr DP was aware of MRZN undertaking a JCA, Mr DP said:

    the only time she’s seen anyone to do with this application was to see someone regarding a job. She only saw them for two minutes. She left and went to the car. I stayed back to talk to them. When I got back to the car, she had locked it and was sitting with her hat pulled down over her eyes. They weren’t connected with Centrelink. They told her they wanted her to fill in forms. She said to me she can’t go back to them. They were in the grounds of a pre-school and that traumatised her because the government took all of our children when we hadn’t done anything wrong. I can’t get her out of the car. She can’t even function at home.

    ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT

31. MRZN confirmed that she saw a clinical psychologist in October 2023. She agreed that although she had seen a clinical psychologist in 2008 on another matter, this was the first time she had seen one in relation to her claim for DSP.

32. Mr Gauci asked MRZN whether she recalled when the autism diagnosis was made, and whether she thought it was in October 2023. MRZN said that Mr Dadabai made the diagnosis, and she did not keep track of time.

33. Mr Gauci asked if MRZN recalled seeing a JCA on 19 August 2022. The Applicant said she did not, but confirmed to him that she did recall a brief telephone conversation about exercise and physiotherapy around that time.

    RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

34. Mr Gauci said that the Secretary accepted that MRZN has impairments, and therefore satisfies the requirements of s 94(1)(a) of the Act. The Respondent enunciated the following conditions in his contentions: asthma, peripheral neuropathy with associated neuropathic pain, aphasia, resistant urticaria, type 2 diabetes, chronic anaemia, obesity, umbilical hernia, chronic back pain, a uterine fibroid, anxiety and depression, migraines, and severe lower back and joint pain.

35. In respect to MRZN’s mental health conditions, Mr Gauci said that there was no evidence from a clinical psychologist in the qualification period to confirm any diagnoses.

36. In respect to MRZN’s pain conditions, the Respondent accepted they were fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised, but that there was a lack of corroborative medical evidence regarding the functional impact of the symptoms, and therefore no points can be assigned.

37. In respect to the other conditions cited by the Applicant, Mr Gauci submitted that none of them were fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised during the qualification period.

38. Mr Gauci noted that if a DSP applicant is assigned 20 or more points, they are taken to have a continuing inability to work, but in MRZN’s case a JCA assessed her as having a work capacity of between 15 and 22 hours per week. Mr Gauci noted that if a person accumulates 20 or more points under more than one Impairment Table, they must have undertaken a program of support in the three years before they applied for DSP, but that MRZN has not completed any days of a program of support.

    CONSIDERATION

39. The Tribunal notes that on 3 February 2022, MRZN’s eligibility for DSP was assessed by an occupational therapist employed by the Respondent’s Department (TD, p 182-184). The assessor was of the view that the Applicant had no medical conditions at that time that were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised.

40. On 3 February 2022 MRZN’s claim for DSP was rejected on the basis that she was not assigned 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables (TD, p 185-186).

41. Subsequently, on 23 May 2022, MRZN’s medical eligibility for DSP was further assessed on the basis of additional material provided by the Applicant to the Respondent. She was assessed by a registered nurse who decided that a JCA was required.

42. On 19 August 2022, the Respondent contended that MRZN underwent a JCA with an accredited exercise physiologist (TD, p 198) which concluded that she should be assigned zero points.

43. The Tribunal notes that the JCA report accepts MRZN has having a chronic pain condition that is permanent. The author summarises different medical investigations of back pain and neuropathy, with a history of hand and feet numbness and paraesthesia with associated burning sensation on the soles of her feet. The JCA noted that there had been nerve condition studies and an MRI which returned ‘unremarkable’ results. The JCA noted that there had been a trial of different pain medications but some difficulty in tolerating side effects. It was noted that she had been commenced on Lyrica 150mg PD which “has kept her pain and paraesthesia under control”. Co-morbidities listed in regard to pain and neuropathy were type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and obesity.

44. In respect of mental health conditions, the JCA author accepted there was a diagnosis by her treating general practitioner Dr Kheirandish of anxiety (in March 2022) and by Dr Park of PTSD (in October 2022), but noted future ‘planned treatment of a psychiatrist’.  The JCA author noted an apparent arrangement of a mental health plan and that MRZN was being treated by Mr Tezjan, a general registered psychologist.

45. The Tribunal notes that Dr Daniel Farbodmanesh, FAFRM, rehabilitative physician, reported in June 2021 (TD, p 138) that MRZN had a past medical history of depression and anxiety, and PTSD following the loss of custody of seven children.

46. The JCA author concluded that there was evidence of chronic symptomology, therefore it would be reasonable to verify the condition (presumably meaning the anxiety condition) as permanent, but there was limited evidence of psychological intervention and no diagnostic confirmation from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.

47. The JCA author also referred to a history of migrainous headache, associated with photophobia and phonophobia. There was commentary on different medications and a medical letter from a physician to her general practitioner suggesting certain medication if the Applicant was wishing to treat her headaches, noting that she was reluctant to take medication. The JCA author therefore concluded that this condition was not yet fully treated or fully stabilised.

1. In respect of migraines, the Tribunal notes that Dr Farbodmanesh reviewed MRZN on 3 June 2021 and in his letter back to Dr Kheirandish, the Applicant’s general practitioner, recommended she not take Panadeine Forte but instead consider trialling Propranolol 20mg BD. Dr Farbodmanesh stated that he would like to review MRZN again in three months’ time, but there is no record before the Tribunal of whether that occurred.

2. In respect of the pain condition, the relevant table is Table 3 – Lower Limb Function. Dr Farbodmanesh, who was a physician to whom MRZN was referred, determined that the Applicant had ‘normal gait with normal velocity and no signs of antalgia’.

3. In respect of Table 2 – Upper Limb Function, Dr Farbodmanesh reported in June 2021 that there was some weakness in the hands to the point that MRZN occasionally drops things, but also reported ‘upper limb neurological examination was unremarkable in terms of tone, power and reflexes. Sensory was normal to touch, temperature and vibration’.

4. The Tribunal notes the following in the JCA report:

   This report was completed as a file assessment as [MRZN] was not contactable on the day of assessment. Attempts were made at 9.35am, 9.50 am (no answer/rang out, unable to connect). She is also not registered for pre-appointment text messages.

5. The Tribunal therefore accepts the evidence of the Applicant that she did not recall a JCA in August 2022. This report was prepared on the basis of material held by the Department. It suffers for that reason, because direct contact (although apparently attempted) was not able to be made with MRZN. This is not ideal, because any assessment of a person’s functionality ‘on the papers’ is, by virtue of that very fact, deficient, without, desirably, a personal examination or at the very least a conversation with the person. However, that is the circumstance here, and I do not criticise the JCA author trying to do the best in the absence of being able to talk to MRZN. The author did have relevant medical correspondence to which to refer.

6. In respect of MRZN’s claimed mental health conditions, the evidence of the Applicant was that the first time she saw Mr Dadabai, clinical psychologist, was in October 2023.

7. Table 5 – Mental Health Function, states in the Introduction:

   The diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (this includes a psychiatrist) with evidence from a clinical psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).

8. Awkwardly worded as this passage is, in MRZN’s case it means that where she has a mental health condition diagnosis from her general practitioner, which the Tribunal accepts that she has, she must also have a corroborating diagnosis from a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist.

9. The Applicant agreed that she saw Mr Dadabai, who is a psychologist with a clinical endorsement, in October 2023. He relevantly wrote, on 15 October 2023:

   [MRZN] presents with a history of complex trauma and based on the results of the PTSD Checklist – Civilian Version (PCL-C), appears to meet the clinical threshold for a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Based on interactions with [MRZN]. Autism Spectrum Disorder was suspected. As such, she was asked to complete the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ), which is a 50 item self-report measure used to assess traits of autism in adults and adolescents aged 16 years and over. [MRZN]’s score on the AQ indicates a high likelihood for the presence of ASD, and warrants further diagnostic testing. [MRZN]’s chronic and complex ailments and presenting issues preclude her from realistically being able to attain and sustain paid employment.

10. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that there is a diagnosis of a mental health condition, anxiety and PTSD. There may be a prospect of a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, in addition, but that on the evidence requires further diagnostic testing. The Tribunal is sympathetic with the submissions made by the Applicant and Mr DP that they had to wait for 12 months before she could see a clinical psychologist who would bulk-bill, but the requirements of the law are that the assignment of points for a mental health condition under the Impairment Tables requires a settled diagnosis in the qualification period (which ended on 28 April 2022), and that was not made until October 2023. Therefore, no impairment points can be assigned for MRZN’s mental health conditions in regard to her claim for DSP.

11. However, in 2023, the Minister made a fresh determination in relation to qualification for DSP. In respect of the assignment of Impairment Tables for a mental health condition, the bar in terms of a corroborating diagnosis has been lowered, as set out in the Introduction to (new) Table 5 – Mental Health Function. It now reads:

    The diagnosis of the condition causing the impairment must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (such as a general practitioner or a psychiatrist) with evidence from a registered psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).

12. Therefore, new claimants for DSP who do not have a diagnosis from a psychiatrist will not have to wait to see a clinical psychologist to obtain a report on a condition that may be assessable in terms of functional impairment. A diagnosis from a registered psychologist will suffice.

13. However, the no doubt disappointing outcome for MRZN is that the Tribunal cannot assess her mental health conditions against the Impairment Tables for DSP in the absence of a qualifying diagnosis at the time she applied or in the 13-week period thereafter.

14. In respect of her other cited conditions, there is insufficient evidence before me to assign impairment points. In saying that, I make the following remarks. I found the statement made to the Tribunal by Mr DP to be frank. I believe it reflected an honest assessment, from his perspective, of his wife’s various medical conditions (both physical and mental). I accept that what appears to be her disinclination to go outside her home unless it is absolutely necessary, has hampered some medical assessments, to her own detriment.

15. The Applicant submitted a detailed statement about her various medical conditions and how she assesses they affect her daily life. MRZN has made a good attempt to link the effects to descriptors in the Impairment Table relevant to the particular condition. Without for a moment questioning the honesty of this statement, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider Rule 8(1) of the Impairment Tables, which states:

    Symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence.

    Each Table includes the sentence in its introduction, ‘Self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient’. Corroborating evidence in in terms of Rule 8 does not mean just evidence from people such as (in this case) the Applicant’s husband, or family members who might be able to make factual observations about the functional impact they see of a person’s medical conditions. It means, in the Tribunal’s view, evidence which echoes a person’s claims from a medical professional with first-hand knowledge of the person’s condition and the effect of that condition on the individual’s functionality. In the absence of this, impairment points cannot be assigned.

    CONCLUSION

16. I particularly acknowledge the role of Ms Dignam, of Disability NSW, who well represented the Applicant at the hearing. Her assistance to the Tribunal is appreciated.

17. Because of the absence of corroborative evidence before me in relation to several of MRZN’s conditions, and the inability to assign impairment points for her mental health conditions under the relevant Table, the Applicant cannot satisfy ss 94(1)(b) or (c) of the Act. Therefore, my decision must be to affirm the first review decision that MRZN was not eligible for DSP on the date she lodged her application on 28 January 2022 or in the 13-week qualification period immediately thereafter, which ended on 28 April 2022.

18. It is my assessment that, on the available evidence, MRZN faces significant mental health challenges, as well as physical debilities. What she needs to do is sit down with a suitable person, perhaps from Disability NSW or a like organisation, to gather the best medical evidence she has on her conditions, and how they affect her daily living and ability to work. That will enable her, if she makes a fresh DSP application, to lodge a more assessable claim. If the Applicant does so, it will be assessed under the determination made by the Minister in 2023.

    DECISION

19. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division dated 16 May 2023 that the Applicant was not eligible for DSP in relation to the claim she made on 28 January 2022.

I certify that the preceding 66 (sixty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris

........................................................................

Associate

Dated: 18 September 2024

Date of hearing:	2 September 2024
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms Georgia Dignam, Disability NSW
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Matt Gauci
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Hunt & Hunt Lawyers