Prasanta Chattopadhyay and Secretary, Department of Social Services - [2015] AATA 158

[2015] AATA 158

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number(s)

2014/1094

Re

Prasanta Chattopadhyay

APPLICANT

And

Secretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Senior Member J F Toohey

Date 19 March 2015

Place Sydney
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............................................
Senior Member J F Toohey
CATCHWORDS – social security – disability support pension – ulcerative colitis – diabetes mellitus – glaucoma – hypertension – cardiac disease – whether conditions fully diagnosed treated and stabilised – impairment ratings – program of support – active participation – exemptions – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 s 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 s 42 and Sch 2
Secondary Materials
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Social Security (Requirements and Guidelines – Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J F Toohey
Background

Mr Prasanta Chattopadhyay suffers from ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus, glaucoma, cardiac disease and hypertension. On 28 March 2013, he applied for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Centrelink decided he did not qualify for the payment. In January 2014, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision.
The legislation concerning DSP is in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). Section 94 provides that, to qualify for DSP, a person must have:
(i)a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment, or impairments, which rated at 20 or more points according to the Impairment Tables in the Act; and
(ii)a continuing inability to work as defined in the Act.
To qualify for DSP, Mr Chattopadhyay had to satisfy these criteria on 28 March 2013 when he applied, or within the following 13 weeks, that is by 27 June 2013: s 42 and Sch 2 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. I will call this the claim period.
The Impairment Tables
I will first consider whether Mr Chattopadhyay had an impairment rating of 20 or more points during the claim period.
5.          The Impairment Tables are found in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. There are 15 Tables which are used to assess the functional impact of various impairments. According to whether the impact is nil, mild, moderate, severe or extreme, an impairment is assigned a rating of zero, five, ten, twenty or thirty points.
6.          A rating can only be given to an impairment if the condition causing it is permanent: cl 6(3)(a). Permanent means that the condition is fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, and has been fully treated and fully stabilised, and is more likely than not to persist for more than two years: cl 6(4).
7.          When deciding whether a condition has been fully diagnosed and fully treated, the following must be considered: whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; what treatment or rehabilitation the person has had for the condition; and whether treatment is continuing or is planned…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Prasanta Chattopadhyay and Secretary, Department of Social S...

Details

AGLC: Prasanta Chattopadhyay and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 158
Case: [2015] AATA 158
Decision Date: 19 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prasanta Chattopadhyay, an Australian citizen, applied for a disability support pension, which was contested by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was tasked with determining the merits of Chattopadhyay’s application, considering the impact of his various medical conditions on his ability to work. The primary legal issues revolved around whether Chattopadhyay's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, as well as the extent to which they impaired his ability to participate in the workforce and engage in a program of support.

The court examined the medical evidence presented, focusing on Chattopadhyay’s diagnoses of ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus, glaucoma, hypertension, and cardiac disease. The analysis considered whether these conditions, individually and collectively, met the statutory criteria for a disability support pension. The court needed to determine if Chattopadhyay's impairments warranted the highest level of impairment rating and if he was actively participating in a support program. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether any exemptions applied under the Social Security Act that might affect his eligibility.

The Federal Circuit Court concluded that Chattopadhyay’s conditions, while significant, were not sufficiently debilitating to meet the threshold for a disability support pension. The court found that his medical conditions, while requiring ongoing management, did not prevent him from engaging in the workforce or participating in a support program. The court also held that there were no applicable exemptions that would alter the outcome. Consequently, the decision to deny Chattopadhyay’s application was affirmed.

Orders