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

Osborne and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 988 (5 December 2016)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s)

2016/3651

Re

Mrs Ursula Osborne

APPLICANT

And

Secretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Mr Conrad Ermert, Member

Date 5 December 2016

Place Melbourne
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that, at the relevant period, Ms Osborne was qualified for Disability Support Pension.
[sgd]...........................................................
Mr Conrad Ermert, Member
SOCIAL SECURITY - Disability Support Pension - relevant period - mental health condition - whether fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised - relevance of medical report outside relevant period - whether Applicant has a continuing inability to work - severe impairment - exemption from Program of Support - work capacity assessment - inability to work - inability to undertake training - decision set aside and substituted.
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Conrad Ermert, Member
5 December 2016
INTRODUCTION

On 30 July 2015 Ms Ursula Osborne, the Applicant, lodged with Centrelink a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP). Centrelink is the service provider for the Secretary, Department of Social Services (the Respondent). In her claim Ms Osborne listed as her disabilities and illnesses: Mental disabilities, Severe depression, Suicidal thoughts / Anxiousness, Panic attacks/no future.
On 9 October 2015 an officer of Centrelink rejected the claim on the basis that Ms Osborne’s impairments did not attract 20 or more impairment points. Ms Osborne sought a review of the decision. On 24 February 2016 an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) of Centrelink affirmed the original decision. The ARO found that, although Ms Osborne’s mental health condition was fully diagnosed, it was not fully treated and fully stabilised. Accordingly, the condition could not be assigned impairment points.
Ms Osborne sought a review of the ARO decision. On 3 June 2016 the Child Support and Social Services Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) affirmed the ARO decision.
This matter is an application for review of the AAT1 decision.
HEARING
Ms Osborne represented herself at the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. Mr Pietro Nacion of Sparke Helmore represented the Respondent.
I had before me the documents provided by the Respondent in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T-Documents).
For Ms Osborne I took in as evidence:
·Exhibit A1 - report of Mr Tim McCorriston, Clinical Psychologist, dated 6 September 2016; and
·Exhibit A2 – report of Mr Tim McCorriston dated 12 October 2016.
For the Respondent I took in for consideration the Secretary’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 17 October 2016. I took in as evidence: Exhibit R1 - Referral Placement List of Ms Osborne.
LEGISLATION
The relevant legislation is contained in the:
·Social Security Act 1991 (the Act),
·Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act),
·Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables), and
·Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (the Program of Support Determination).
Section 94(1) of the Act details the requirements for qualification for DSP as follows:
(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…
Relevant Period
Schedule 2, section 4(1) of the Administration Act requires Ms Osborne’s qualification for DSP to be determined from the date of her claim to a date 13 weeks thereafter. In this case the relevant period is 30 July 2015, the date of the claim, to 29 October 2015, that being a period of 13 weeks.
ISSUES
The issues I must determine are whether, at the relevant period:
·Ms Osborne has physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments; and if so
·the impairments attract a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables; and if so
·Ms Osborne has a continuing inability to work.
EVIDENCE
Ms Osborne
In opening her evidence, Ms Osborne said she did not understand the relevance of the cases cited in the Secretary’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions. She said she felt as though Centrelink was not interested in helping her as an individual and that she was treated as just a number.
In response to questions from Mr Nacion, Ms Osborne said that she started seeing Dr Xenia Prodromou, psychiatrist, in March 2015. She was referred by her General Practitioner (GP), Dr Rose Thanenthiran. When asked why Dr Prodromou indicated in her report dated 26 March 2015 that the condition of major depressive disorder was temporary, Ms Osborne said it was possibly because she and her husband were going through a bad time which was not getting better. Ms Osborne agreed that at that consultation Dr Prodromou prescribed an increased dosage of Lexapro and the commencement of Temazepam.
Ms Osborne said that she went to Dr Prodromou because of the relationship problems with her husband. She said that her condition had deteriorated from late 2014 when she fell and broke her arm. At the time of seeing Dr Prodromou she was helping her brother care for their mother. Ms Osborne attended subsequent consultations with Dr Prodromou who, a few months ago, suggested increased dosages of anti-depressant medication as more issues were entering Ms Osborne’s life.
Ms Osborne said she also started seeing Mr McCorriston, clinical psychologist, in March 2015. She has since had further consultations with Mr McCorriston.
When asked about the stressors in her life at that time, Ms Osborne said that her husband’s business went into liquidation and she ended up with nothing. Her son moved back into the home temporarily to help with the rent and is still there. She separated from her husband in July 2015. She was made homeless. She also had disagreements with her brother over the care of their mother and he has prevented her from seeing her mother.
Ms Osborne said that her condition deteriorated after she first saw Dr Prodromou and Mr McCorriston, however her medications were not changed. Ms Osborne agreed that, at the time of submitting her claim for DSP, she was under treatment. She said that she could never say how she would be week by week. Ms Osborne agreed that she had seen Mr McCorriston 10 times between March and August 2015.
Mr Nacion referred to the report of Mr McCorriston dated 5 August 2015 which reported that she has made some gains. Ms Osborne said that she can slip back at any time from tiredness or other things. She said she thinks overall there has been a slight improvement but it goes up and down. Her worst time was about 12 months ago. She said that she hopes she can go back to work but nobody can predict her future condition.
Mr Nacion referred to the report of Ms Jenny Fong, a community support worker, dated 8 December 2015 which reported a deteriorating mental state which would require ongoing treatment for another year. Ms Osborne agreed with the assessment made on the day but noted that she just has to take each day as it comes.
Ms Osborne agreed with the Job Capacity Assessment Report dated 28 January 2016 which recorded that she manages her self-care needs and activities of daily life independently.
Ms Osborne agreed with the report of Ms Kayanne Breinstampf, a credentialed mental health nurse, dated 14 December 2015 which recorded four-weekly consultations. Ms Osborne said she saw Ms Breinstampf more frequently at first.
In regard to the condition of the tingling of her right hand, Ms Osborne agreed that, at the time of her claim, the condition was still being investigated. She said she had to wait for an appointment.
When referred to her Program of Support record, Ms Osborne said she had exemptions for when she was unable to attend, such as when she had a broken arm.
Mr McCorriston
In response to Mr Nacion’s questions, Mr McCorriston agreed with the diagnosis of major depressive disorder. He said Ms Osborne suffered a very severe array of depressive symptoms. He considered the psychological treatment being undertaken by Ms Osborne to be appropriate.
Mr McCorriston agreed that stressful events could cause further deterioration of her condition. He said he was aware of the stressors related to Ms Osborne’s husband and mother. When asked whether Ms Osborne’s condition had deteriorated since he first saw her in March 2015, Mr McCorriston said that he has seen little change and that it had been stable for a long time at a very depressed level. Mr Nacion referred Mr McCorriston to his report dated 5 August 2015 where he had recorded that Ms Osborne had made some gains. Mr McCorriston said he was referring to gains she had made in her own strategies. He said that her symptoms had not responded favourably.
Mr McCorriston said he supported the continuation of her current treatment of supportive counselling, including mindfulness and cognitive therapies. He said Ms Osborne tries really hard to manage her condition, she takes her medications and sees a mental health nurse. Ms Osborne has also participated in a clinical trial conducted by Melbourne University. He said she has been fully treated.
When asked if Ms Osborne was better, worse or about the same as 12 months ago, Mr McCorriston said that she was stable. He said some days were worse than others. He could see no significant improvement in the foreseeable future.
Dr Prodromou
Dr Prodromou agreed that she provided the first diagnosis of major depressive disorder and that she prescribed an increase in anti-depressant medication and the commencement of anti-anxiety medication. Dr Prodromou said that Ms Osborne’s homelessness and separation from her husband caused a further deterioration in her condition. Ms Osborne was already quite depressed and the stressors exacerbated her condition. Dr Prodromou said that negative stressors prolong recovery.
When asked if Ms Osborne’s condition deteriorated between March and July 2015, Dr Prodromou said that she would have liked to have seen an overall improvement but other negative issues mitigated against recovery. She said Ms Osborne was undertaking all the appropriate treatments around the time of July and August 2015. Dr Prodromou opined that Ms Osborne was probably a little worse now than she was 12 months ago. She said that nothing has been resolved. Dr Prodromou provided a prognosis that Ms Osborne was still symptomatic and anxious and that she needs to feel stability in her life.
TRIBUNAL CONSIDERATIONS
Impairments (section 94(1)(a) of the Act)
The Respondent accepts that Ms Osborne suffers impairments arising from her mental health condition and that she satisfies the provisions of section 94(1)(a) of the Act. I am satisfied that the medical evidence supports this concession and I find accordingly.
Impairment Rating (section 94(1)(b) of the Act)
I will now consider whether Ms Osborne’s impairments attract an impairment rating of 20 or more points in order to satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Section 6(3)(a) of the Impairment Tables states that an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the impairment is permanent. Section 6(4) provides that a condition is permanent if the condition:
(a)has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and
(b)has been fully treated; and
(c)has been fully stabilised.
Mental Health Condition
The Introduction to Table 5: Mental Health Function of the Impairment Tables requires that the diagnosis must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, which includes a psychiatrist. The Respondent accepts that, in the relevant period, Ms Osborne’s mental health condition was fully diagnosed, noting that the diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Prodromou, on 26 March 2015. I accept the concession and find that Ms Osborne’s mental health condition was fully diagnosed in the relevant period.
In determining whether the condition was fully treated and fully stabilised, I consider the following reports to be relevant:
·Employment Services Assessment dated 30 April 2015 which records: “ Ms Osborne has recently become homeless and she is dealing with personal stressors which may have exacerbated her mental health conditions”;
·Mr McCorriston, clinical psychologist, dated 5 August 2015 which records: “Over the period that I have worked with Ms. Osborne, we have utilised a variety of strategies, including Cognitive Therapy and Mindfulness based strategies. While she has made some gains, her symptoms of anxiety and depression have persisted” ;
·Job Capacity Assessment Reports dated 8 October 2015 and 28 January 2016 both of which record: “Conditions were recently diagnosed by a clinical psychologist and client has recently been treated with evidence based interventions since 2015 and with optimal evidence based treatment, client’s functional ability is expected to improve. Accordingly, conditions are fully diagnosed but not treated and stabilised for the purpose of this assessment” ;
·Ms Breinstampf, credentialed mental health nurse, dated 14 December 2015 which records: “I have continued to see Ursula on a regular basis – now four weekly, to provide supportive counselling, risk assessment, and monitoring of mood and medications. She has engaged well with all services, made appropriate use of supports and is now relatively stable”;
·Mr McCorriston dated 1 June 2016 which records: “Since the time of my last letter, we have continued to apply a variety of strategies, including Cognitive Therapy and Mindfulness based strategies. Despite this, her symptoms of anxiety and depression have persisted”; and
·Mr McCorriston dated 6 September 2016 which records:
“Fully Treated
I am aware that Ms. Osborne has sought a wide variety of treatment for her depression and anxiety. In summary, she has received the following broad array of treatment:
·Clinical Psychology (since March 2015)
·Psychiatry for approximately two years (Dr. Xenia Prodromou)
·Psychopharmacology: Ms Osborne has tried multiple anti-depressants over the past two year
·Mental Health Nurse via her GP clinic
·Support through the ‘Partners in Recovery’ Program (run by ‘My Fellowship)
·Mental health support thorough (sic) Eastern Access Community Health (EACH)
·Ms Osborne has also sought treatment under a depression treatment trial run by Melbourne University, utilising dietary supplements. This was endorsed and supported by her psychiatrist, Dr. Prodromou.
In my opinion, it is clear that Ms. Osborne has been fully treated. She has indeed sought a very wide array of treatments in her attempts to address her depression and anxiety.
Fully Stabilised
In my view, Ms Osborne’s symptoms appear stable. She continues to experience significant levels of depression and anxiety and has not achieved meaningful remittance”.
I take particular notice of the reports of Mr McCorriston, the treating psychologist, who reviewed Ms Osborne’s condition on 5 August 2015, 1 June 2016 and 6 September 2016. These dates include the relevant period and proximate time frame. I consider them to be descriptive of the condition during the relevant period. The first report records the treatments undertaken by Ms Osborne prior to the relevant period. The latter reports record the full array of her treatments. I note the continuation of her treatments but I see none that were commenced or changed during the relevant period.
In considering whether the condition is fully stabilised, I note the 14 December 2015 report of Ms Breinstampf, a mental health nurse, who records her opinion that Ms Osborne is now relatively stable. I note this opinion is supported by Mr McCorriston in his written reports. In his oral evidence, Mr McCorriston said that he has seen little change and that it had been stable for a long time at a very depressed level.
For a condition to be fully stabilised, section 6(6)(a) of the Impairment Tables requires that any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvements to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years. I have no medical opinion in evidence that any further reasonable treatment is likely to result in significant functional improvements in the next two years.
I note the opinions expressed in the Job Capacity Assessment Reports dated 8 October 2015 that “with optimal evidence based treatment, client’s functional ability is expected to improve. Accordingly, conditions are fully diagnosed but not treated and stabilised for the purpose of this assessment”. However, this opinion is not supported by other medical reports and appears to be the assessor’s personal assessment. I accept that the assessor is a Registered Psychologist, however the assessment was made as a result of a single assessment session. I prefer the opinions of the treating psychologist who has seen Ms Osborne as a patient on more than 10 occasions.
I accept Mr McCorriston’s stated opinions that Ms Osborne’s condition has been fully treated and fully stabilised. I accept further that the opinions relate to the relevant period.
As I have found the mental health condition to be fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised I am able to assess the level of impairment using the Impairment Tables. The appropriate table for this assessment is Table 5.
For an impairment rating of 10 points, Table 5 requires that the person has moderate difficulties with most of the following:
(a)Self care and independent living;
(b)Social/recreational activities and travel;
(c)Interpersonal relationships;
(d)Concentration and task completion;
(e)Behaviour, planning and decision-making; and
(f)Work/training capacity.
For an impairment rating of 20 points, Table 5 requires that the person has severe difficulties with most of the same issues.
The Introduction to Table 5 states in part that self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient and there must be corroborating evidence of the person’s impairment. Corroborating evidence includes reports and assessments from treating doctors and those providing care and support to the person.
I note the following contemporaneous corroborating evidence:
·Dr Prodromou dated 26 March 2015 which records: “poor concentration, agitation, depressed mood”;
·Mr McCorriston dated 5 August 2015 which records: “In my view Ms. Osborne has experienced significant symptoms of anxiety and depression. These symptoms have been notably debilitating and have undermined many aspects of her day to day functioning”;
·Ms Fong, community support worker, dated 8 December 2015 which records: “… Ursula is also currently experiencing family conflict …. Ursula reports an inability to make decisions relating to a stressful family situation that she is currently facing, which is symptomatic of her anxiety and depression”;
·Ms Breinstampf dated 14 December 2015 which records: “She continues however to experience ongoing low mood, panic symptoms, and generalized anxiety. She has impaired concentration and at time judgement. I do not envisage her returning to full or permanent part time employment”;
·Ms Jasmine Corbo, social worker, dated 15 December 2015 which records: “We also linked Ursula into a MHCSS support worker who continues to work with Ursula in maintaining daily living skills; establishing links within the community and working towards long term goals, especially housing … However I believe that due to her age and current, long-term mental health concerns, she is unfit to re-enter the workforce”; and
·Job Capacity Assessment Report dated 28 January 2016 which records: “GP noted low mood, not able to cope with day to day activities and currently impact on client’s endurance … (Client reported tearfulness, concentration difficulties, reduced endurance and motivation, and feelings of helplessness in context of financial difficulties … Client stated that she manages her self-care needs and activities of daily life independently)”.

Mr McCorriston’s report dated 12 October 2016 provides his opinions on each of the issues listed in Table 5. Mr Nacion contends that the report should be given little weight as it was compiled 12 months after the relevant period. He contends that the report relates to Ms Osborne’s current functional impairments, not necessarily her impairments at the relevant period. He submits that Ms Osborne’s condition has deteriorated since the relevant period.
I accept Mr Nacion’s point that the report was compiled long after the relevant period, however, I am already satisfied that, and have found that, at the relevant period, the condition was fully stabilised. Mr McCorriston’s oral evidence confirmed his earlier opinions that the condition has been stable for a long time. In accepting this evidence, I also accept that the impairments resulting from the condition are essentially unchanged from the relevant period to the present. For that reason I accept that Mr McCorriston’s report of 12 October 2016 is relevant to the assessment of Ms Osborne’s impairment at the relevant period, and I accept it as corroborating evidence.
From the corroborated evidence, in relation to Table 5, I am satisfied that Ms Osborne:
(b) feels overwhelmed at the prospect of going places and she finds it extremely difficult if she is required to venture beyond local and familiar surrounds;
(c) has been unable to maintain her old relationships, is disconnected from her social contacts and involvements, and her interactions with others are marked with anxiety;
(d) has impaired concentration and time judgement, feels overwhelmed by and is unable to complete tasks, feels fear, confusion and an inability to focus;
(e) feels a sense of threat, a loss of hope, and a sense of being trapped and overwhelmed which impacts severely on her behaviour, planning and decision making; and
(f) does not have the capacity to engage in work or training activities on a regular basis over a lengthy period.
I am not satisfied from Ms Osborne’s own evidence that she has severe difficulty with self care and independent living (a).
I am satisfied from the evidence that Ms Osborne has severe difficulties with most of the descriptors and her impairment attracts a rating of 20 impairment points.
I assign an impairment rating of 20 points to Ms Osborne’s mental health condition.
Right Hand
In her report dated 27 May 2016 Dr Rose Thanenthiran, Ms Osborne’s treating General Practitioner, reported that Ms Osborne suffers from tingling and numbness in her right hand for which she is being investigated by a Neurologist. An appointment was made to see Dr P Choi on 16 June 2016.
There is no evidence that this condition was diagnosed or treated in the relevant period. Accordingly, I am unable to consider it for an impairment rating.
Total Impairment Rating
I have found that in the relevant period Ms Osborne suffered a mental health condition which was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised. The condition attracts an impairment rating of 20 points.
Ms Osborne has no other condition in the relevant period that attracts an impairment rating.
The total impairment rating in the relevant period is 20 points. This is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Continuing Inability to Work (section 94(1)(c)(i) of the Act)
Section 94(2) of the Act provides, relevantly, that a person has a continuing inability to work if:
(a)In cases where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment, the person has actively participated in a program of support;
(b)The impairment is sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next two years; and
(c)The impairment is sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next two years.
I have found that Ms Osborne’s mental health condition is severe in the terms of the Act. Accordingly, she is exempt from the requirement to have participated in a program of support (section 94).
In considering Ms Osborne’s ability to undertake work or training activities at the time of the relevant period, I take note of the following reports:
·Dr Thanenthiran dated 15 January 2015 which recorded that Ms Osborne is “temporarily unfit for work or study from 15/1/15 to 31/12/15”;
·Dr Prodromou dated 26 March 2015 which recorded that Ms Osborne is “unfit for work/study from 26/3/15 to 25/6/15”;
·Employment Services Assessment Report dated 30 April 2015 which records a baseline work capacity of 23 to 29 hours per week, and a capacity for work within two years with intervention of 23 to 29 hours per week;
·Job Capacity Assessment Report dated 8 October 2015 which records a baseline work capacity of 15 to 22 hours per week and a capacity for work within two years with intervention of 23 to 29 hours per week;
·Ms Fong, community support worker, dated 8 December 2015 which records: “Ursula’s treating team (including myself) unanimously agree that Ursula is not at a stage where she is ready and able to undertake paid employment”;
·Ms Breinstampf dated 14 December 2015 which records: “I do not envisage her returning to full or permanent part time employment. She has indicated a wish to do so … “;
·Ms Corbo, social worker, dated 15 December 2015 which records: “However I believe that due to her age and current, long-term mental health concerns, she is unfit to re-enter the workforce”;
·Job Capacity Assessment Report dated 28 January 2016 which records a baseline work capacity of 15 to 22 hours per week and a capacity for work within two years with intervention of 23 to 29 hours per week; and
·Mr McCorriston dated 12 October 2016 which records: “In my opinion, Ms. Osborne does not have the capacity to engage in work or training activities”.
The reports of Dr Thanenthiran and Dr Prodromou report only a temporary incapacity for work that does not include the two years following the relevant period.
Ms Fong, Ms Breinstampf and Ms Corbo are not qualified psychologists. They provide support functions to Ms Osborne but they do not appear to have specialist knowledge or experience in employment capacities, interventions and suitable occupations. Accordingly, I give less weight to their reports.
Mr Nacion contends that Mr McCorriston’s report of 12 October 2016 should not be taken into account as it was prepared after the relevant period. However, I have already found that the condition was stable at the time of the relevant period and that the opinions expressed in the report are relevant to the impairment suffered at the time of the qualifying period.
In the Secretary’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, the Respondent urges me to accept the opinions of the Job Capacity Assessors who have “specialist knowledge and experience in identifying barriers to employment, interventions available programmes, and suitable occupations to determine a person’s work capacity”. While I accept the assessor’s specialist knowledge and experience, I note that the report dated 8 October 2015 contains the assessor’s opinion that Ms Osborne’s functional ability is expected to improve. I have no evidence that supports this opinion. Mr McCorriston’s evidence is that Ms Osborne’s condition and her symptoms have not improved and have remained stable for a long time. Dr Prodromou’s evidence was that Ms Osborne’s did not improve during the period from March to July 2015, saying that “she would have liked to see an overall improvement …”.
I am of the opinion that the Job Capacity Assessor’s unsupported expectation of an improvement in Ms Osborne’s functional ability influenced the assessment of Ms Osborne’s work capacity. Accordingly, in this case, I place less weight on the assessments of the Job Capacity Assessor and prefer the opinion of the treating Clinical Psychologist.
I am satisfied that at the relevant period Ms Osborne did not have a continuing ability to work for 15 hours or more per week. Accordingly, I find that at the relevant period Ms Osborne’s mental health condition was sufficient of itself to prevent Ms Osborne from doing any work independently of a program of support and from undertaking a training activity within two years. This means that, at the relevant period, Ms Osborne had a continuing inability to work in the terms of section 94(2) of the Act.
I find that at the relevant period Ms Osborne satisfied the requirements of section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
SUMMARY
I have found that, at the relevant period:
·Ms Osborne had a psychiatric impairment and satisfied section 94(1)(a) of the Act,
·Ms Osborne’s impairment attracted 20 impairment points and satisfied section 94(1)(b) of the Act, and
·Ms Osborne had a continuing inability to work and satisfied section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
Accordingly I find that, at the relevant period, Ms Osborne satisfied all the requirements of section 94(1) of the Act and as a result she was qualified for the DSP.
This is contrary to the AAT1 decision, hence I set that decision aside.
DECISION
I set aside the decision under review and substitute the decision that, at the relevant period, Ms Osborne was qualified for DSP.

I certify that the preceding 70 (seventy) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr Conrad Ermert, Member
[sgd].....................................................
Associate
Dated 5 December 2016

Date(s) of hearing 16 November 2016

Applicant In person

Advocate for the Respondent Mr Pietro Nacion

Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore

[2016] AATA 988

5 December 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)	2016/3651
Re	Mrs Ursula Osborne
APPLICANT
And	Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Mr Conrad Ermert, Member
Date	5 December 2016
Place	Melbourne

Date(s) of hearing	16 November 2016
Applicant	In person
Advocate for the Respondent	Mr Pietro Nacion
Solicitors for the Respondent	Sparke Helmore