Prahauser and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2020] AATA 105

Prahauser and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 105 (3 February 2020)
Division: General Division
File Number(s): 2019/1897
Re:Gerhard Prahauser
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:I Thompson, Member
Date:3 February 2020
Place:Adelaide

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.......................[sgnd].................................
I Thompson, Member
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY- disability support pension - whether conditions fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised – whether impairments rate 20 points or more – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Cases
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447
Secretary, Department of Social Services and Seyfang [2016] AATA 243
REASONS FOR DECISION
I THOMSPON
3 February 2020
INTRODUCTION

The applicant seeks review of a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) dated 4 March 2019 that affirmed a decision to reject the applicant’s claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP).
The applicant, Gerhard Prahauser, lodged a claim for DSP which was received by Centrelink on 26 June 2017. Centrelink rejected the claim in the first instance and Mr Prahauser requested a review of that decision. An authorised review officer (ARO) of Centrelink subsequently affirmed the decision. Mr Prahauser requested a review by the AAT1. The decision under review was affirmed. Mr Prahauser applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for a second review.
The hearing took place on 20 January 2020. Mr Prahauser attended the hearing and was self‑represented. Mr Visser represented the respondent, the Secretary, Department of Social Services.
Mr Prahauser gave evidence on oath. The Tribunal received in evidence the documents lodged in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 together with various medical reports and other documents.[1]
[1] Exhibits 1 – 6.
Mr Prahauser is now 58 years old. He suffers from a number of medical conditions which include conditions relating to his upper limb, lower limb, and neck.
LEGISLATION AND ISSUES
Section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) provides that a person is qualified for DSP if the person has:
(a)a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b)an impairment that attracts a rating of 20 points or more under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Impairment Tables); and
(c)a “continuing inability to work”.
The impairment must be present at the time of the claim or within the following 13 weeks, as specified by the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act). The assessment period in this case is 26 June 2017 to 25 September 2017 (assessment period).
Section 94 of the Act requires that a person has a “continuing inability to work” which will be satisfied if:
(a)They have an inability to work due to their accepted impairments for 15 hours or more a week; and
(b)They have actively participated in a “program of support”.
The second requirement is not necessary if a person has a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table.
Accordingly, Mr Prahauser will qualify for the DSP if the Tribunal is satisfied that he had during the assessment period he had one or more physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments, secondly that the impairment is rated at least 20 points under the impairment tables and, finally, that he has a “continuing inability to work”.
Mr Prahauser’s claim for DSP listed his disabilities, illnesses and injuries as “osteoarthritis especially on the left side but also some on the right side, sensory loss of finger movement, and generalised loss of mobility, weakness in arms, hands and fingers as well as ankles, pain in cervical spine and lower back with osteoarthritis.” [2]
[2] Ex 1 T9/131.
The Secretary accepted that Mr Prahauser suffers from impairments and therefore satisfied s 94(1) (a) of the Act.
In the statement of facts and contentions, the Secretary contended that:[3]
(a)the cervical spine condition could be assigned 5 impairment points;
(b)the lower back condition and the lower limb condition could not be assigned an impairment rating;
(c)an overall impairment rating of 5 points does not satisfy s 94(1)(b) of the Act.
[3] Ex 2.
Additionally, the Secretary contended that Mr Prahauser did not have a continuing inability to work. And accordingly that Mr Prahauser was not qualified for the DSP during the assessment period.
The Secretary accepted that the applicant had actively participated in a program of support for 971 days in the 36 months prior to his claim for DSP, and accepted that the POS requirement is met in this case.
Mr Prahauser also provided the Tribunal with a helpful, written statement of issues facts and contentions, dated 23 September 2019, which included his comments about the pain which he has in his neck, lower back and knees and the problems which those conditions cause .[4]
[4] Ex 4.
The main issues for determination is whether Mr Prahauser’s impairments could be assigned 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the assessment period and, if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work.
EVIDENCE OF MR PRAHAUSER
Mr Prahauser gave evidence about his medical conditions and their effects. His evidence was clear, consistent and honest.
He resides alone in suburban Adelaide. During the assessment period his general routine revolved around looking after himself, going for walks, reading books, shopping, and cooking and cleaning at home.
His last employment was in 2010. Previously Mr Prahauser had been working for about 12 years in the lighting industry, having migrated to Australia in 1995 from Austria where he had worked for many years both in an office and in a factory.
Mr Prahauser told the Tribunal about the difficulties he had with his upper limbs, both now and during the assessment period. He is right hand dominant. His arms would stiffen and sometimes he would drop things unexpectedly. The problem was worse in his left hand and he and he described the pain as ‘rusty’, causing the fingers to bend into a claw. Running hot water over the fingers softened them and helped to push them back into their normal position. Nothing in particular seemed to exacerbate these problems which were unpredictable and may occur a couple of times in an hour or after a few hours.
Mr Prahauser said that he uses a trolley when he goes to the shops. He can pick up most objects provided they are not too heavy. Picking up a one litre carton of liquid was not a problem. Something heavier such as a six pack of mineral water weighing around five kilograms would require use of both arms and hands. Generally he tries to avoid heavy lifting because it causes a cramping pain in his lower back as if some muscles have been squeezed.
At home Mr Prahauser used a computer. He is a two finger typist and he said that he did not have difficulty using a computer keyboard. He does not use pens and pencils frequently but, when he does, writing is not a problem. He can tie shoelaces and do up buttons generally without difficulty. If the buttons are tight, however, there have been occasions where he experiences difficulty.
Mr Prahauser has had long-term difficulties with his knees. He said that he was in his late 20s when those problems started. Treatment has included cortisone injections. His average daily activity involved walking from his home to the beach which is a distance of about 100 metres. He takes a walking stick with him as a precautionary measure. At the beach he would walk on the footpath, not on the sand which was too unstable for him. He could walk about 1 kilometre however he needs to rest occasionally on park benches. He enjoyed going for a walk near the beach and sitting down and reading. He can walk to and from the shops which are about 200 metres from his house. However sometimes, but not regularly, his knees would click and cause pain. He said that his solution is to bend down a couple of times to get the knee back into its correct position, and thereafter the pain is gone.
Inside his house Mr Prahauser does not use a walking stick. If he needs to he can hold on to furniture. He does not have to climb steps and considers that one set of steps would not be a problem; however multiple steps could be tricky. At times he gets cramp in his ankles with a feeling of numbness in the toes.
Mr Prahauser has problems with his spinal function. It causes some difficulty with overhead activity. He can get his arms readily to shoulder height but not any higher without some difficulty. He can bend so long as he takes care and does it slowly. He does not have problems bending over to fill up and empty his dishwasher, however cleaning the floor and vacuuming can be a little more troublesome. Getting dressed is sometimes painful, especially getting his socks on. When he bends over he makes sure that he takes care and bends slowly. Moving his head has caused some difficulties and he twists his trunk to look to the sides. He can sit in a chair for an hour and read a book without much difficulty, moving around in the chair occasionally to maintain a comfortable position.
At times Mr Prahauser suffered from fatigue. He described it as happening every fortnight or month. He mentioned that he feels dizzy if he stands up too quickly.
Mr Prahauser said that, as a general principle, he does not like having medical treatment as he does not know what the outcome would be and he is unwilling to take the risk of an unfavourable outcome. He has not been having treatment for his arms and hands and he said there is no treatment for those problems anyway. He was not having physiotherapy or other treatment for the neck and lower back. He would try pain killers such as Panadol or Neurofen when the pain is really bad. When he was first diagnosed with osteoarthritis he was prescribed a cream and he consulted a physiotherapist twice. The physiotherapist recommended some exercises to be undertaken at home and he was doing them “every now and again”.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Dr Middleton was Mr Prahauser’s general medical practitioner. He provided a medical certificate dated 5 May 2017 in which he recorded a diagnosis of left arm weakness with cramp in both hands and left leg weakness.[5] In a medical certificate dated 23 June 2017[6] Dr Middleton noted osteoarthritis in the neck and left arm weakness together with osteoarthritis in the hands, knees and lower back. He described the conditions as permanent. Impacts included left arm weakness and sensory loss, together with generalised loss of mobility. Mr Prahauser was being treated with analgesics and Dr Middleton wrote that no curative treatment was possible. Similarly in a report dated 23 June 2017, Dr Middleton referred to generalised osteoarthritis which caused pressure on nerves in the neck which, in turn, resulted in left arm weakness and loss of sensation.[7]
[5] Ex 1 T13/161.
[6] Ex 1 T13/162.
[7] Ex 1 T13/163.
An MRI of the cervical spine dated 15 May 2017 referred to mild to moderate degenerative changes, moderate narrowing of some of the left side foramina with no indication of foramina stenosis.[8]
[8] Ex 1 T13/165.
A neurologist, Dr Leyden, noted on 6 June 2017 that Mr Prahauser had intermittent, altered sensations down the left arm and an intermittent feeling of weakness in the left finger grip. He described the symptoms as relatively minor although likely to remain persistent. He recommended continuation with regular gentle exercises. A degree of lower back pain was likely to be the result of osteoarthritis in Mr Prahauser’s lower back and knees.[9]
[9] Ex 1 T13/164.
Another medical certificate by Dr Middleton on 24 September 2017 confirmed a diagnosis of osteoarthritis in the neck with associated left arm weakness and sensory loss, with a diagnosis also of osteoarthritis in the hands, knees and lower back with generalised loss of mobility. The conditions were described as permanent with symptoms that are likely to persist. Once again, treatment was noted to be analgesics with no curative treatment possible.[10]
[10] Ex 1 T13/167.
The reports referred to above were all generated during the assessment period. Subsequent to the assessment period, reports from Dr Middleton in February 2018 and March 2018 confirmed osteoarthritis of the neck, hands, knees, low back with poor mobility.[11] The MRI scan had confirmed the diagnosis.
[11] Ex 1 T13/171 and 172.
Dr Middleton’s wrote a report on 7 February 2019[12] which confirmed the diagnosis of generalised osteoarthritis involving the neck, lower back, knees, ankles and fingers. Dr Middleton wrote that the condition is permanent and no treatment will change the level of impairment. He considered that the condition had been fully diagnosed treated and stabilised and the time of the DSP claim without any significant, subsequent change. Dr Middleton’s report included his assessment of the appropriate ratings under the Impairment Tables. His estimate for impact on activities using hands or arms was 5 or 10 points, the estimate for impact on activities involving legs and feet was 5 or 10 points, the estimate for impact on activities involving spinal function was 20 points. In relation to other conditions Dr Middleton estimated the impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina was 5 or 10 points while his estimate for impact on bladder continence was 5 points.
[12] Ex 1 T16/235.
Mr Prahauser was referred to a pain and rehabilitation specialist, Dr Vo in October 2019. This consultation took place about two years after the assessment period. Dr Vo’s recommendations included a multidisciplinary pain management approach including a referral for a lumbosacral spine x-ray and MRI scan, potential referral to a spinal surgeon for further assessment, referral to a local physiotherapist under a GP allied health care plan targeting core strengthening and improvement of hamstring flexibility and the application of cream over the bilateral trapezii. Dr Vo’s report included comments to the effect that Mr Prahauser’s various conditions could potentially be better managed and functional gains, hopefully, could be made. Physical rehabilitation recommendations about physical rehabilitation included hydrotherapy, walking, Pilates and a Tens trial.[13]
[13] Ex 3.
A subsequent report dated 11 November 2019 by Dr Vo was written after a follow-up consultation with Mr Prahauser. Dr Vo wrote that “little has changed”. Mr Prahauser had consulted a physiotherapist twice and he was shown a floor-based exercise program which he was apparently engaging in at home. No further appointments have been made to see a physiotherapist. Dr Vo pointed out that Mr Prahauser had not undertaken a trial of the capsaicin cream. Dr Vo also wrote that Mr Prahauser:
…considers himself anti-vaccination and does not want to take any oral medications stating that he “doesn’t want to be filled up with medications just to prove that he is disabled”,… also declines any spinal injections into his back either as he does not want to have any “stranger fluid into his body” or take any potential risks associated with a facet joint or sacroiliac joint injections.
In Dr Vo’s opinion, Mr Prahauser’s presentation would be considered as meeting 20 impairment points under the Impairment Table relating to spinal function.[14]
[14] Ex 3.
CONSIDERATION
The Tribunal notes the comments of Deputy President Bean in Secretary, Department of Social Services and Seyfang:[15]
I am required to have regard to the state of affairs during the assessment period, and without regard to later developments. Whilst I may have regard to evidence which came into existence after the assessment period, this is relevant only in so far as it assists in establishing the true state of affairs during the assessment period.
[15] [2016] AATA 243 [23].
The rationale for that approach is highlighted in the comments of the Tribunal in Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs:[16]
In the Tribunal’s consideration as to whether a condition has been stabilised and is likely to persist for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal must look at the situation as it was, and the evidence that was available, at the time of the application for DSP (and the subsequent 13 weeks). Any subsequent evolution of a particular condition might be relevant to any weight the Tribunal places on competing prognostications or on an assessment of the quality of the medical reports provided (most notably where evidence indicates that the creator of a medical report may not have had access to all relevant information or may not have turned his or her mind to all the relevant issues). This point is important as it is quite frequently the case that appeals on DSP decisions arrive at this Tribunal twelve or more months after the initial DSP application was refused. In many instances, the natural course of illnesses or injuries has then become more obvious, thereby confounding the professional opinions honestly proffered by thorough and conscientious treating doctors. If a medical condition has progressed since the time of the original DSP application, then it is up to the applicant to make a new DSP application. It is not open in law for this Tribunal to use any evidence of such progression to directly award a DSP because of those changed circumstances.
[16] [2012] AATA 922 [34].
In fact, the way in which the Tribunal must assess evidence of treatment after the assessment period has been discussed in a number of decisions. In Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services, Deputy President Handley stated that:[17]
The language in clauses 6(5) and 6(6) of the 2011 Determination is forward-looking. With respect to whether a condition was fully stabilised, for example, the question for the Tribunal is whether ‘any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years’ (emphasis added). While hindsight may suggest that treatment did not result in improvement within two years that is not the question for the Tribunal to determine. The legislation requires the Tribunal to consider the treatment that has taken place, and was intended to take place, and the likely effect of that treatment, at the time of the claim and in the 13 weeks thereafter. For that reason, evidence of treatment, and the efficacy of that treatment, after the relevant period is not directly relevant to the Tribunal’s decision.
[17] [2014] AATA 447, 33.
Those comments are particularly relevant to the present case given the significant lapse of time between lodging the DSP claim in June 2017 and the hearing before this Tribunal in January 2019. This is a period of two and a half years. However the task for the Tribunal is to assess Mr Prahauser’s condition at the time of the DSP claim during the assessment period.
IMPAIRMENT TABLES
The Impairment Tables provide the mechanism to assign ratings for the level of functional impact of impairment. They are based on function rather than diagnosis and they describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations.
Section 6 of the Rules for Applying the Impairment Tables states that an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the person’s condition causing that impairment is permanent and that the impairment results from a condition that is more likely than not to persist for more than two years.

The Impairment Tables provide that a condition is permanent if it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised. The functional capacity, which is rated under the Impairment Tables, concerns the question of an individual’s capacity to work.
Section 6(5) of the Impairment Tables provides that a decision of whether a condition is fully diagnosed and fully treated requires consideration of corroborating evidence of the condition, the treatment or rehabilitation that the person has had for the condition, and, whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years.
Section 6(6) of the Impairment Tables states, in part, that a condition is fully stabilised where a person has undertaken reasonable treatment and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level which would enable the person to undertake work in the next two years.
The applicable impairment rating for each of Mr Prahauser’s conditions will be considered in turn by reference to the Impairment Tables.
Estimates by doctors of their patient’s rating under the Impairment Tables provide a useful guide to the Tribunal in determining the rating. However, the Tribunal is not bound by a medical opinion about an estimated rating and must itself make the decision taking into account all of the oral evidence, documentary evidence and submissions presented at the hearing.
Upper limb
Impairment Table 2 concerns upper limb function and is used where the person has a permanent condition resulting in functional impairment when performing activities that require the use of hands or arms. The diagnosis of the condition must be made by a qualified medical practitioner and self-report of symptoms alone is not sufficient.
Dr Middleton wrote in his report on 7 February 2019 that the condition regarding the hands and arms was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the time of the DSP claim.
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient medical evidence, as summarised previously, to confirm that the upper limb function was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the assessment period.
In relation to mild functional impact, Impairment Table 2 states as follows:

Points

Descriptors

5
There is a mild functional impact on activities using hands or arms.

(1)     The person can manage most daily activities requiring the use of the hands and arms, but has some difficulty with most of the following:

(a)     picking up heavier objects (e.g. a 2 litre carton of liquid or carrying a full shopping bag);

(b)     handling very small objects (e.g. coins);

(c)     doing up buttons;

(d)     reaching up or out to pick up objects.

A job capacity assessment report dated 20 September 2017 assessed a mild functional limb impact on activities using hands or arms.[18]
[18] Ex 1 T10/136.
Mr Prahauser’s evidence reflects an impact on activities involving the hands or arms which is consistent with the descriptors for a mild functional impact, particularly noting the descriptors in (1) (a), (c) and (d).
The functional impact for Mr Prahauser’s performance of activities requiring the use of hands and arms rates five points under Impairment Table 2.
Lower limb
Impairment Table 3 relates to lower limb function. It is used where a person has a permanent condition which leads to functional impairment performing activities that require the use of legs or feet. The diagnosis of the condition must be made by a qualified medical practitioner.
Dr Middleton’s report dated 7 February 2019 confirms that the condition involving the lower limbs was fully diagnosed treated and stabilised during the assessment period.
The Tribunal notes the medical reports and medical certificates written during the assessment period, as described earlier, and is satisfied that the lower limb condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the assessment period.
For a mild functional impact on activities using the lower limbs Impairment Table 3 states:

Points Descriptors

5

There is a mild functional impact on activities using lower limbs

(1) At least one of the following applies:

(a) the person has some difficulty walking to local facilities (e.g. shops or bus-stop); or

(b) the person has some difficulty walking around a shopping mall or supermarket without a rest; or

(c) the person has some difficulty climbing stairs; and

(2) At least one of the following applies:

(a) The person is unable to stand for more than 10 minutes;

(b) The person can mobilise effectively but needs to use lower limb prosthesis or a walking stick.

The Job Capacity Assessment report dated 20 September 2017[19] noted that Mr Prahauser had pain when kneeling and walking, but only when the knee clicked. The assessor commented that Mr Prahauser could usually walk 30 to 60 minutes before the pain started and it was not a significant problem at night. It was also noted that Mr Prahauser had pain in his ankles which was worse when he moved the foot in a circular motion.
[19] Ex 1, T10/136.
Taking into account all of the evidence, including Mr Prahauser’s evidence , the Tribunal is satisfied that the impairment to lower limb function meets the descriptors, in both (1) and (2) for a mild functional impact.
The appropriate rating under Impairment Table 3 is five points.
Spinal
Impairment Table 4 – Spinal function, is used where a person has a permanent condition which has a functional impairment in the performance of activities involving spinal function, namely, bending or turning the back, trunk or neck. A diagnosis of the condition by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner is necessary.
Dr Middleton’s report dated 7 February 2019 confirms that the condition involving the lower limbs was fully diagnosed treated and stabilised during the assessment period.
Noting all of the medical evidence the Tribunal considers that Mr Prahauser’s neck condition can be regarded as fully diagnosed treated and stabilised in the assessment period.
For a mild functional impact, Impairment Table 4 states:

Points

Descriptors

5
There is a mild functional impact on activities involving spinal function.

(1)      The person has some difficulty in:

(a)      activities overhead height (e.g. activities requiring the person to look upwards); or

(b)      bending to knee level and straightening up again without difficulty; or

(c)      turning their trunk or moving their head (e.g. to look to the sides or upwards).

The Tribunal also notes the contents of a job capacity assessment report dated 20 September 2017.[20] In that report it was stated that Mr Prahauser spoke about his neck pain and stiffness, which started 12 to 18 months previously and became worse in 2016. The stiffness was mostly in forward and back movement and side to side movement “is not too bad”. Mr Prahauser stated that Nurofen helps him to sleep.
[20] Ex 1, T10/136.
The evidence which Mr Prahauser gave to the Tribunal indicates that he has some difficulty in each of the activities listed in the descriptors for a mild functional impact.
The appropriate impairment rating under Impairment Table 4 is five points.
Other conditions
Evidence about Mr Prahauser’s continence function included a report by a urologist, Dr Horsell on 18 November 2019. Dr Horsell described the urinary symptoms which dated back to 2017. He recommended a urinary tract ultrasound and further review. Following those tests Dr Horsell wrote a report dated 9 December 2019 in which he concluded there was mild urinary incontinence. He noted that Mr Prahauser preferred not to undertake any further investigation or treatment.[21]
[21] Ex 3.
Dr Horsell’s reports follow examinations which were conducted a considerable time after the assessment period.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the continence function was fully diagnosed, fully treated or stabilised during the assessment period. Accordingly it cannot be rated under the Impairment Tables.
Reference has been made to a condition of fatigue. Dr Middleton’s report dated 7 February 2019 refers to an impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina. Dr Middleton noted that Mr Prahauser fatigued easily which resulted in limitations on his walking and his ability to carry out various household duties.
Mr Prahauser’s evidence to the Tribunal did not paint a bleak picture about tiredness and loss of stamina. Indeed, Mr Prahauser said that he sometimes gets a moment of fatigue “every now and then,” maybe on average every fortnight or month and he also mentioned that if he gets up too quickly he suffers from dizziness.
Impairment Table 1 relates to functions requiring physical exertion and stamina. The Tribunal does not consider that the evidence about fatigue is sufficient to conclude that it was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised. Accordingly, no impairment rating can be given.
SUMMARY
The Tribunal finds that s 94(1)(a) of the Act regarding physical impairment is satisfied.
As outlined, the Tribunal finds that Mr Prahauser’s upper limb condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised during the assessment period. The appropriate rating is five impairment points.
Mr Prahauser’s lower limb condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the assessment period. An impairment rating of five points is appropriate.
Mr Prahauser spinal function was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the assessment period. An impairment rating of five points is appropriate.
With a total of 15 impairment points Mr Prahauser does not have an impairment or combination of impairments attracting a rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables during the assessment period. Therefore he does not satisfy s 94(1)(b) of the Act.
In those circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether or not during the assessment period Mr Prahauser had a continuing inability to work within the meaning of s 94(1)(c) of the Act.
As Mr Prahauser was not qualified for DSP at the time he lodged the claim or within 13 weeks of that date, the Tribunal is obliged to affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding eighty-three (83) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member I Thompson.

......................[sgnd]................................
Associate

Dated:

3 February 2020

Date(s) of hearing: 20 January 2020

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr C Visser, Department of Human Services

Dated:	3 February 2020
Date(s) of hearing:	20 January 2020
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr C Visser, Department of Human Services