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

Radmanovic and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 1780 (23 June 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/1071
Re:Daniella Radmanovic
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
Date:23 June 2023
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
........................................................................
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – refusal of disability support pension – whether applicant's medical conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised – whether impairments rated 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
CASES
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1
Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Department of Social Services, Guide to Social Policy Law: Social Security Guide
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
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member A Nikolic AM CSC
23 June 2023
INTRODUCTION

This is the Applicant’s fourth application for Disability Support Pension (“DSP”). The first three were rejected by the Respondent on the basis that the claimed conditions were variously not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised.[1]
[1] Exhibit R1, 34; 52; 61; 72; 88; 99.
On 26 August 2022, the Applicant lodged her most recent claim.[2] It was rejected by Centrelink at first instance and by an Authorised Review Officer, because she did not meet the requirements set out in s 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”).[3] The Applicant’s appeal to another Division of this Tribunal was unsuccessful.[4] On 20 February 2023, she lodged a further appeal with the General Division.[5]
[2] Ibid 111-119.
[3] Ibid 128-129.
[4] Ibid 6-18.
[5] Ibid 1-5.
The hearing was conducted by telephone on 14 June 2023 at the Tribunal’s Melbourne Registry. The Applicant was represented by her mother, Ms Anna Radmanovic, gave oral evidence, and was cross-examined. The Respondent was represented by Ms Stefana Doslo, a solicitor from Services Australia.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
Legislative Framework
The relevant law to assess eligibility for DSP is found in the Act, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“the Administration Act”) and the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (“the Determination”). Qualifying requirements are set out at s 94(1) of the Act, where 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 …
In relation to s 94(1)(c)(i), a person has a ‘continuing inability to work’ if:
(i) they have an inability to work due to their accepted impairments for 15 hours or more a week; and
(ii) they have actively participated in a Program of Support (“POS”).
Under s 94(3B) of the Act, participation in a POS is not required if the person has a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single impairment table. Where a person’s impairment is not a severe impairment, they must have actively participated in a POS within the meaning of s 94(3C) of the Act. The term ‘actively participated’ means satisfying the requirements in a legislative instrument made by the Minister, titled Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014. Sections 5 and 7 provide that active participation requires partaking in a POS for a period of at least 18 months during the 36 months prior to the date of claim.
Rules relating to impairment ratings
The Impairment Tables referred to in s 94 of the Act assign ratings reflecting the level of functional impact a condition has on an applicant. Only conditions that are ‘permanent’ can be assigned an impairment rating. This means they must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years: Determination, s 6(4).
In deciding if a condition is fully diagnosed and fully treated, consideration must be given to factors such as: whether the diagnosis was made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; any corroborating evidence about the condition; and what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred: Determination, s 6(5).
For a condition to be fully stabilised, means it is unlikely there will be any significant functional improvement, with or without reasonable treatment, within the next two years: Determination, s 6(6).
Assessing reasonable treatment requires consideration of factors such as: whether the treatment is in a reasonably accessible location; at a reasonable cost; can be reliably expected to substantially improve functional capacity; is regularly undertaken or performed; has a high success rate; and carries a low risk to the person: Determination, s 6(7).
EVIDENCE
The Tribunal took into evidence documents lodged by the Respondent numbering 203 pages. The Tribunal has also considered the oral evidence of the Applicant and her mother.
In her DSP application, the Applicant stated she has a ‘chronic severe whole back injury left leg injury [sic]’[6] that started on 7 March 2015.[7] The date she attributed to the origin of her injuries, however, is contradicted by other documentary and oral evidence. The Applicant referred to taking medication and undertaking physiotherapy for her conditions, claiming this was a ‘permanent disability’ for which ‘no future treatment [is] available’.[8] The Applicant also stated in her DSP application that she had never claimed, and could not claim, ‘compensation, insurance and/or damages…’[9] This was contradicted during her oral evidence. The Applicant claimed she had suffered injuries during two accidents in 2006 and 2020, which purportedly occurred on the same escalator in the same shopping centre, albeit 14 years apart. She said a compensation claim lodged after the 2020 accident was rejected because her lawyer misled her. The Tribunal notes in this regard a medical letter relating to a personal injury claim after the 2020 incident, commissioned by the Applicant’s lawyer.[10] Reference is made to the Applicant:
(a)sustaining a back injury ‘after a fall in 2006’ which resulted in ‘ongoing low back problems’;
(b)aggravating her back condition and injuring her left leg during another fall at the same location on or about 23 May 2020 while using an escalator. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the circumstances of the escalator incidents;
(c)consulting with medical practitioners regarding her ‘neck, lower back, left knee and ankle joint following the fall’; and
(d)being ‘on a waiting list to see a pain management specialist for review, assessment and possible commencement of a pain management program’, as well as needing to ‘continue with core stretching and strengthening exercises for her neck, back and her left knee, ankle and hindfoot, as well as undergoing evaluation and psychological counselling for the depression and anxiety that has developed following this injury’. This information is suggestive of injuries that were not being fully diagnosed, treated or stabilised at that time.
[6] Ibid 114.
[7] Ibid 118.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid 117.
[10] Ibid 107-110.
The Applicant said that during the 2020 escalator incident she ‘fell on [her] knee’ and re-injured her back ‘even more’. She claimed to experience ‘a lot of migraines because of [her] back’, and suffers anxiety/depression, which causes her to ‘shut down a lot’. When the Applicant attends the supermarket, she claims to be unable to stand or sit for long periods because of pain. She said several shopping trips have previously been abandoned because of her need for assistance.
The Applicant’s mother said that the Applicant has seen a physiotherapist, psychologist, is on medication for depression, and has been placed on a waiting list for pain management assessment. The Applicant’s mother said she has already provided doctors’ reports relevant to the Applicant’s conditions and, if further specialist examination is required, the Respondent should organise and pay for them.
Key Issues
Refusal of the Applicant’s DSP application to date is based on her claimed conditions not being fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised. The Tribunal must decide:
(a)What is the relevant period for the Applicant’s claim?
(b)Does the Applicant have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment(s) as defined under the Act during the relevant period?
(i)If yes, were these impairments capable of being assigned 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the relevant period?
(ii)If the Applicant’s impairment(s) is/are of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, are 20 points assigned under a single Impairment Table (severe impairment)?
(iii)If the Applicant did not have a severe impairment during the relevant period, but her impairment(s) nevertheless attract(s) a rating of 20 points or more, has she participated in a POS?
WHAT IS THE RELEVANT PERIOD FOR THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM?
The Applicant lodged her DSP application on 26 August 2022. In accordance with cl 4(1) of sch 2 of the Administration Act, she had to satisfy the DSP criteria on the date of claim lodgement, or within the following 13-week period ending on 25 November 2022 (“the relevant period”).
The Applicant currently claims to suffer other symptoms, conditions, and impairments beyond those initially relied upon in her DSP application. In assessing whether she satisfies the requirements in s 94 of the Act, however, medical evidence regarding functional impact after the relevant period can only be considered if it casts light on functional impact during the relevant period.[11]
DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL OR PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?
[11] Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services (2015) 68 AAR 1, 7 [26], quoting Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 158 FCR 252, 253 [1].
The Respondent accepts that the Applicant suffered from back, left leg, and mental health issues during the relevant period. The Tribunal finds that s 94(1)(a) of the Act is satisfied.
WERE THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENTS CAPABLE OF BEING ASSIGNED 20 POINTS OR MORE UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?
When submitting her DSP application, the Applicant referred to ‘Chronic severe whole back injury left leg injury [sic]’, which she claimed started on ‘Approximately 07 March 2015’.[12] She did not name other conditions in this application, but the documentary evidence includes references to eczema, anxiety and depression, migraines, a shoulder condition, and a gynaecological disorder. Attention now turns to her claimed conditions.
[12] Exhibit R1, 114.
Back, neck, and shoulder pain
The Applicant did not refer to eczema, or a neck or shoulder condition during the hearing. The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence, including physiotherapy reports referring to past neck pain and shoulder bursitis. A summary report by Ms Duyen Kim Diep dated 12 December 2022 refers to the Applicant attributing her lower back and neck pain to a ‘fall’ that occurred ‘many years’ ago at the ‘Kmart in Footscray’.[13] The report also states:
Throughout the treatment sessions Daniela’s low back pain and thoracic pain demonstrated minimal healing and she was making poor progress with therapy. Any clinical benefits were short term only and her symptoms soon returned upon completion of each Physiotherapy session. The simplest strengthening and stretching exercises given to her were difficult for her to do and she found that they were aggravating her pain; therefore he [sic] had poor compliance to her home exercise program...In my opinion her right shoulder, low back pain and thoracic pain … will not change without further intervention (i.e. steroid injections or possible surgery) …[14]
[13] Ibid 137-143.
[14] Ibid 141.
There is an internal inconsistency evident between Ms Diep’s conclusion that ‘further intervention’ like steroid injections may assist the Applicant, while concurrently claiming her ‘condition [sic] has been fully treated, fully stabilized and fully diagnosed’. The Tribunal places little weight on this report given it largely relies on the Applicant’s self-reported claims. The author was not called to give evidence and could not be cross-examined about the basis of the medical opinions expressed. Moreover, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a physiotherapist is sufficiently qualified to determine whether a person’s medical conditions are ‘fully treated, fully stabilized and fully diagnosed’, or to reliably rate pain, or to determine capacity for work, or to assess the efficacy of treatments yet to be prescribed. These assessments are normally the domain of doctors with specialisation in competencies like pain management and occupational medicine.
The evidence about the origins and progress of the Applicant’s back pain is starkly inconsistent across the evidence as follows:
(a)A letter dated 1 June 2007 from the Emergency Department at Western Footscray Hospital states that the Applicant experienced a ‘collapse/fall whilst toileting’, resulting in a ‘minor head injury’ and ‘some back pain’.[15] No reference is made to the 2006 escalator accident referred to at the current hearing as the origin of her back pain. The fall in 2007 was instead attributed to a ‘vasovagal attack’. The Applicant was found to have ‘good range of movement of back’ and was ‘discharged home with analgesia’. An X-ray of her spine on the same day disclosed a ‘moderate lumbar scoliosis’ and some slight narrowing of the L4/5 and L5/S1 disc space, but with normal apophyseal joints and vertebral alignment.[16]
[15] Ibid 23.
[16] Ibid 24.
(b)A medical record dated 13 July 2015 states that the Applicant ‘began to experience lumbosacral pain 2-3 weeks ago following a fall at work’ in a childcare centre.[17] This is again inconsistent with the Applicant’s current claims.
[17] Ibid 25.
(c)An X-ray to examine the cause of the Applicant’s ‘coccyx pain’ on 28 September 2015 disclosed her lower sacrum appeared ‘within normal limits without evidence of fracture or abnormality of bone texture’.[18]
[18] Ibid 26.
(d)A CT scan performed on 6 October 2015 to explore the Applicant’s ‘low back tailbone pain’ disclosed ‘mild left facet arthritis’, ‘mild narrowing’ at the T12/L1 level, ‘abrupt angulation of the coccyx with convexity towards right side’ that could be related to ‘prior injury’, but no fractures, or evidence of sacroiliitis.[19]
(e)An X-ray of the Applicant’s cervical spine dated 29 August 2017 assessed her as having ‘mild to moderate lower scoliosis’.[20]
(f)An X-ray of the Applicant’s cervical and thoracic spine on 5 April 2018 to explore her ‘chronic neck and upper back pain’ referred to scoliosis but noted ‘no specific vertebral or disc abnormality’.[21]
(g)The Applicant’s general practitioner referred her to Ms Diep on 12 May 2018[22] and 24 June 2019.[23] A subsequent report from Ms Diep refers to scoliosis of the back and ‘mild left acromial bursitis’ in the shoulder, which had some impairment effect. The physiotherapist said she was trying to ‘manage her pain and maintain function’.[24] Physiotherapy reports dated 2019 again refer to scoliosis and ‘mild rotator cuff tendinopathy’.[25]
(h)An Employment Services Assessment Report dated 1 July 2019 records the Applicant’s claim that ‘she had a fall on the escalator at work in 2005, worse since two years ago’, for which she took Nurofen and anti-inflammatories.[26] This claim about the origin of her pain is inconsistent with her oral evidence at this hearing.
(i)The Applicant’s claim for Total and Permanent Disablement Benefit on 13 September 2019, contains the claim that she injured her back ‘due to fall in 2004’, which her general practitioner recommended she treat with physiotherapy and anti-inflammatories.[27] This claim about the origin of her pain is inconsistent with her oral evidence at this hearing. In response to a question about what changes to management of the Applicant’s condition were anticipated, her general practitioner wrote: ‘may be future pain management specialist review’.[28] The doctor also noted he was ‘uncertain’ if the Applicant would be able to return to her last occupation or to any other occupation to which she was reasonably suited.
(j)In a letter dated 18 October 2019, the Applicant’s doctor noted her back pain ‘was triggered by a fall on the escalator in 2008’.[29] This claim about the origin of her pain is again inconsistent with her oral evidence at this hearing. The doctor described her prognosis as ‘unceratin [sic) given the chronicity’.[30]
(k)A CT scan on 1 June 2020 of the Applicant’s cervical spine reported: ‘Very mild C5-6 and C6-7-disc degeneration with minimal posterior disc bulges at these levels not causing significant spinal canal narrowing’.[31]
(l)The Applicant’s general practitioner referred her for ‘occupationapy [sic] therapy/pain management re her chronic back pain’ on 24 August 2020.[32] As noted earlier, the Applicant’s evidence is that she remains on a waiting list for a consultation with a pain management specialist.
(m)A CT scan dated 15 September 2021 of the Applicant’s thoracic spine reported that ‘[l]ow-dose helical CT guided facet joint steroid injections may be of therapeutic benefit.’[33]
[19] Ibid 27.
[20] Ibid 30.
[21] Ibid 31.
[22] Ibid 32.
[23] Ibid 36.
[24] Ibid 33.
[25] Ibid 37; 44.
[26] Ibid 39.
[27] Ibid 54; 56.
[28] Ibid 56.
[29] Ibid 60.
[30] Ibid 60.
[31] Ibid 68
[32] Ibid 63.
[33] Ibid 93.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was diagnosed with a disc protrusion, scoliosis, and coccyx pain during the relevant period, but these conditions were not fully treated and stabilised. That is because her back problems are amenable to continuing assessment and other reasonable treatment, including specialist review, further imaging, steroid injections, core strengthening activities, hydrotherapy, and pain/medication management. On the Applicant’s own evidence, she remains on a waiting list for a pain specialist consultation.
Given that the Applicant can avail herself of specialist assessment and other reasonable treatments, her back condition is not fully treated or stabilised and does not attract any impairment points.
The neck and shoulder issues the Applicant has sought treatment for in the past are not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised, and therefore do not attract any impairment points.
Left leg condition
The Tribunal has considered the available evidence regarding the Applicant’s claimed left leg condition, including:
(a)An ultrasound of the Applicant’s left ankle and knee on 7 September 2021 stated she had a ‘fall one year ago’.[34] Reference is made to her suffering a grade 1 sprain of the anterior talofibular and the calcaneofibular ligaments, while the anterior tibiofibular ligament appeared normal. A ‘small lateral ankle joint effusion’ was noted.
(b)An ultrasound of the Applicant’s left knee was conducted on 28 January 2022 and was reported as a ‘normal examination’ with no abnormality detected except for a ‘small knee joint effusion’.[35]
(c)An MRI of the Applicant’s left knee was conducted on 10 February 2022, which again noted a ‘small knee joint effusion’, but no evidence of meniscal or ligamentous tear.[36]
(d)A medical record by Dr Firoz Ahmed Khan dated 26 July 2022, states that the Applicant ‘is waiting for more assessment by specialists for her left knee’.[37]
[34] Ibid 78-79.
[35] Ibid 95-96.
[36] Ibid 97-98.
[37] Ibid 75.

There is a dearth of evidence about the Applicant’s left leg pain and what evidence there is, is unexceptional. Medical imaging to date does not disclose a cause for her pain and the available evidence about the origins of her leg pain are inconsistent and irreconcilable. There is no report from an orthopaedic surgeon or other specialist about the Applicant’s leg condition, which was not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised during the relevant period. This condition therefore does not attract any impairment rating. Even if the Tribunal is wrong about this and the Applicant did have a left leg condition that was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, the available evidence does not persuasively correlate with the requirement for either a moderate or severe impairment under Table 3 relating to lower limb function.
Mental health
The Introduction to Table 5 - Mental Health Function requires that a diagnosis of a mental health condition must be made by either a psychiatrist or another medical practitioner with evidence from a clinical psychologist.
The Tribunal has considered several documents related to the Applicant’s claims about anxiety and depression, including:
(a)A referral from her general practitioner for ‘psychiatric assessment’ dated 16 July 2019.[38]
(b)A letter from psychiatrist Dr Raid Al Humrany dated 24 July 2019 records the Applicant’s claim that her lower back pain ‘started ten years back’, which precipitated her psychiatric history.[39] Dr Al Humrany referred to the Applicant’s ‘alleged on and off emotional instability and low depressive mood’. He uses the term: ‘Ms Radmanovic told me’, repeatedly throughout the letter. Dr Al Humrany does not make a formal diagnosis in this letter and instead recommends the Applicant should see a ‘pain specialist/bulk-billed psychiatrist for ongoing follow-up’. He noted she was ‘totally against any medication’ but was ‘willing to proceed with psychotherapy first’ and then consider her willingness to commence taking ‘a small dose of antidepressant medication’.
(c)In the Applicant’s claim for Total and Permanent Disablement Benefit on 13 September 2019, her general practitioner thought she ‘may benefit from a rehabilitation provider’.[40] In response to the question: ‘Do you believe maximum rehabilitation has been achieved in each impairment’, the Applicant’s general practitioner responded: ‘No’.[41]
(d)In a letter dated 18 October 2019, the Applicant’s then general practitioner noted she ‘has some underlying mixed anxiety and depression’, was taking an antidepressant, and ‘has been referred to a psychologist [for] counselling’.[42]
(e)The Applicant claimed during the hearing that she takes medication for anxiety and depression. The Tribunal notes in this regard a Mental Health Treatment Plan from her general practitioner, which refers to ‘mixed anxiety and depression’.[43]
(f)A medical record from the Applicant’s general practitioner dated 6 January 2021 states she suffers anxiety and would like to see a different psychologist to the one she was referred to two years earlier.[44]
(g)In a letter from psychologist Ms Suzana Maksoni dated 26 March 2021, it states in part that ‘with on-going psychological treatment [the Applicant’s] symptoms of depression and anxiety have diminished in intensity and duration. Therefore, in my opinion she needs long-term psychological support’.[45]
[38] Ibid 45-46.
[39] Ibid 47-49.
[40] Ibid 57.
[41] Ibid 59 [4].
[42] Ibid 60.
[43] Ibid 50.
[44] Ibid 144.
[45] Ibid 71.
There is no formal diagnosis of the Applicant’s claimed psychological conditions by a psychiatrist or with evidence from a clinical psychologist. There is no evidence Ms Maksoni, has any endorsements to her registration as a general psychologist. The letter from Dr Al Humrany does not contain a discernible diagnosis. It follows that the Applicant’s depression and anxiety do not appear to have been diagnosed by a person with the requisite qualifications under Table 5. It is noteworthy that the counselling recommended by Dr Emezie on 18 October 2019, conducted by Ms Maksoni in early 2021, appears to have improved the Applicant’s symptoms, with further psychological support recommended. In essence, different therapeutic and pharmacological approaches were still being trialled to address the Applicant’s symptomology. It follows that her depression and anxiety were not fully treated, and stabilised during the relevant period, and cannot be assigned an impairment rating. Even if the Tribunal is wrong about this and the Applicant’s depression and anxiety were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, the available evidence does not persuasively correlate with the requirement for either a moderate or severe impairment under Table 5.
Gynaecological disorder
The Applicant did not refer to a gynaecological disorder in her DSP application, or during the hearing, and there are scant references to this in the documents.[46] In any event, there is no evidence about a consultation with a gynaecologist, or diagnosis during the relevant period, or of any treatment/prognosis. This condition is therefore not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised, and does not attract any impairment rating.
[46] Ibid 88; 99; 101.
Migraine
The Tribunal has considered the available evidence regarding the Applicant’s migraine claims, which is limited at best. There is no expert diagnosis of this during the relevant period, nor evidence of any prescribed treatment or prognosis. This condition is therefore not fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised, and attracts no impairment points.
IF THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENT(S) IS/ARE OF 20 POINTS OR MORE UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES, ARE 20 POINTS ASSIGNED UNDER A SINGLE IMPAIRMENT TABLE (SEVERE IMPAIRMENT)?
None of the Applicant’s claimed conditions are capable of being assigned 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table. It therefore follows she does not have a severe impairment within the meaning of s 94(3B) of the Act.
IF THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE A SEVERE IMPAIRMENT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, BUT HER IMPAIRMENT(S) NEVERTHELESS ATTRACT(S) A RATING OF 20 POINTS OR MORE, DOES SHE HAVE A CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK OR HAS SHE PARTICIPATED IN A POS?
The Applicant’s impairments have not been assigned any points under the Impairment Tables, meaning that she does not qualify for DSP under s 94(1)(b) of the Act. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether she has a continuing inability to work or has actively participated in a POS in the three years prior to lodging her DSP claim as required by s 94(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, does so for completeness.
The Applicant has only undertaken 19 days of a POS in the three years prior to lodging her claim.[47] She is not covered by any of the permissible exceptions, such as suffering a severe impairment. The available evidence is insufficient for the Tribunal to find that the Applicant did not have an ability to undertake at least 15 hours of work per week,[48] or, in the alternative, a training activity within two years of the qualification period. As such, she did not have a continuing inability to work.
[47] Ibid 191.
[48] Ibid 81; 85; 142.
Conclusion
The Applicant did not satisfy ss 94(1)(b) and 94(1)(c) of the Act during the relevant period.
DECISION
The reviewable decision is affirmed.

39. I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

................[sgd]........................................................
Associate
Dated: 23 June 2023

Date of hearing: 14 June 2023

Advocate for the Applicant:
Ms Anna Radmanovic, via telephone

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Stefana Doslo of Services Australia

[2023] AATA 1780

23 June 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing

Date of hearing:	14 June 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms Anna Radmanovic, via telephone
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Stefana Doslo of Services Australia