Re Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs - [2012] AATA 922

Mahmodi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 2507 (19 July 2019)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)No: 2018/4135

General Division )

Re: Shir Mahmodi
Applicant

And: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Respondent
DIRECTION

TRIBUNAL: I F Thompson, Member

DATE OF CORRIGENDUM: 12 August 2019

PLACE: Adelaide
The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application:

To change the text on page 1 of the decision from ‘Date: 19 July 2018’ to ’Date: 19 July 2019’; and

To change the text at the bottom of page 2 of the decision from ‘19 July 2018’ to ‘19 July 2019’.
……………[sgnd]…………..
I F Thompson, Member

Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/4135
Re:Shir Mahmodi
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Member I F Thompson
Date:19 July 2018
Place:Adelaide

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review namely that the Applicant was not qualified to receive the disability support pension from 13 June 2017 or within 13 weeks of that date.
...............................[sgnd]....................................
Member I F Thompson
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – pensions, benefits and allowances – claim for disability support pension rejected – physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment – whether impairment rating of 20 points or more existed under the Impairment Tables – whether there was a "continuing inability to work" – reports of medical practitioners considered – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Cases
Re 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
Secondary Materials

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member I F Thompson
19 July 2018
INTRODUCTION

This application concerns the applicant’s qualification for a disability support pension (DSP). The applicant, Shir Mahmodi, lodged a claim for disability support pension on 13 June 2017.Centrelink rejected the claim in the first instance and Mr Mahmodi requested a review of that decision. An authorised review officer (ARO) of Centrelink subsequently affirmed the decision. Mr Mahmodi requested a review by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1).The decision under review was affirmed. Mr Mahmodi applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for a second review.
The hearing took place on 17 May 2019. Mr Mahmodi attended the hearing and was self‑represented. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Dari language. Ms Odgers represented the respondent, the Secretary, Department of Social Services.
Mr Mahmodi gave oral evidence, and 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.
Mr Mahmodi is now 47 years old. He suffers from a number of medical conditions which include conditions relating to his spine, upper limbs, mental health and gout.
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 physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment and if that impairment attracts a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables. 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 Impairment Tables are contained in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Impairment Tables). The assessment period in this case is 13 June 2017 to 12 September 2017.
Further, s 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 Mahmodi will qualify for the DSP if the Tribunal is satisfied that he has 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. The Secretary accepted that Mr Mahmodi suffers from an impairment and therefore satisfies s 94(1) (a) of the Act.
In the statement of facts and contentions, the Secretary contended that Mr Mahmodi’s overall impairment rating for impairments arising from fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised conditions is zero points and that he does not satisfy s 94(1) b of the Act.
Accordingly the Secretary contended that Mr Mahmodi did not have a continuing inability to work and was not qualified for the DSP during the assessment period.
The main issue for determination is whether Mr Mahmodi’s impairments could be assigned 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the assessment period and, if so, where he had a continuing inability to work.
CONSIDERATION
Mr Mahmodi’s claim for DSP listed his disabilities, illnesses and injuries as cervical radiculopathy, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and right shoulder bursitis. The claim form listed treatments which he has had, including psychotherapy, physiotherapy, pain specialist review, and that he was awaiting further review by a psychiatrist.[1]
[1] T9/132.
In considering Mr Mahmodi’s DSP claim, the Tribunal notes the comments of Deputy President Bean in Secretary, Department of Social Services and Seyfang:[2]
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.
[2] [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:[3]
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.
[3] [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. For example, in Re Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services, Deputy President Handley stated that:^[4]
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.
[4] [2014] AATA 447, 33.
Those comments are particularly relevant to the present case given the significant lapse of time between lodging the DSP claim on 13 June 2017 and the hearing before this Tribunal on 17 May 2019. This is a period of almost two years. Nonetheless the Tribunal must assess his condition at the time of the DSP claim and within the assessment period.
EVIDENCE OF MR MAHMODI
Mr Mahmodi told the Tribunal that he lives in Adelaide with his wife and children. He came to Australia from Afghanistan in 2009. He worked for about one year in a factory and later visited Pakistan as he was tired of working and needed to have some rest. He reunited with family members in Pakistan and later they came to Australia. After he returned, he was unwell and didn’t return to work. He enrolled in TAFE English lessons.
Mr Mahmodi gave evidence about back pain which, he said, was his primary health problem. Then the problems extended to his legs and to other parts of his body. His lower back was painful at the time of the DSP claim. He recalled having injections. He took medication, underwent physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. He still takes the medication and the therapy is continuing.
Mr Mahmodi said that he has had problems with his right shoulder. Injections did not resolve those problems. He told the Tribunal that he had suffered from gout, particularly in the left ankle at the time of his DSP claim. This year, he has also had pain in his right ankle. He would take medication to deal with the pain in the left ankle and rest for three or four days. He has been referred to a rheumatologist at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. He said the gout has not been cured by treatment; rather it goes up and down with treatment.
The evidence about his daily activities revealed that he is inactive most of the time. Mr Mahmodi does not leave home often. He said he does not have a social life. Sometimes he goes shopping if someone is with him. He cannot lift the shopping bags. He drives a car over short distances. Sitting down induces sleep within ten minutes. He is forgetful. He does not participate in household activities such as cooking and cleaning. He asks someone to fetch a cup of water if he is thirsty. He can manage dressing although he has to sit down to put on his trousers. Because of mental health factors, he was unsure if these current issues were the same at the time of the DSP claim.
Mr Mahmodi told the Tribunal that he has had treatment form a psychologist and his doctor has prescribed medication for his mental health. With his psychologist, he would discuss various problems and strategies, but still needed medication a short time later. At one point he was consulting two psychologists, thinking that if one of them could not help then perhaps the other one could. His moodiness has adversely affected his relationship with his family to the extent that his wife and children keep their distance from him. He said he was isolated and alone most of the time.
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.
Consideration must be given to whether each condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised during the assessment period before determining an assessment rating, because the Impairment Tables provide this as a prerequisite for the allocation of an impairment rating.
The applicable impairment rating for each of Mr Mahmodi’s conditions will be considered in turn by reference to the Impairment Tables.
Spinal disorder
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. The diagnosis must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner.
The Secretary contended that the spinal condition was fully diagnosed within the assessment period, though not fully treated and stabilised. The Secretary submitted that treatment should include psychological support with a focus on management of chronic pain, and that focus was not present prior to and during the DSP assessment period.
The main finding from an x-ray report on 18 December 2015 regarding the lumbar spine was a diffuse, shallow bulging at the L4/5 disc and disc bulges at L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1.[5] A report on 5 August 2016 about the cervical spine found mild degenerative changes with no significant central canal stenosis.[6]
[5] T12/196.
[6] Ex 4/B.
Mr Mahmodi received limited treatment from a physiotherapist, Ms Tilbrook in 2015. She wrote two reports in August 2015 in which she referred to his chronic lumbar back pain and bilateral knee pain.[7] It appears that Ms Tilbrook did not provide direct intervention, however she did suggest a home exercise program which involved walking and exercising. She also recommended that Mr Mahmodi consult a dietician to assist with weight loss which, in turn, would assist with his back and knee pain.
[7] Ex1, Annexure A.
A physician, Dr Green, wrote two reports about Mr Mahmodi. Both reports refer to persistent lumbar and limb pain, and to psychological factors which were significant in Mr Mahmodi’s presentation, with medications having little to offer. [8] In the first report, dated 23 March 2016, Dr Green wrote that Mr Mahmodi’s mood disturbances needed to be managed as a significant part of a pain management plan. In the second report, dated 30 November 2016, Dr Green wrote that psychological or psychiatric input should be beneficial.
[8] T12/193; T12/199.
A report dated 12 November 2018 by Mr Mahmodi’s general medical practitioner.[9] Dr Panjavani states that Mr Mahmodi suffered from lumbar back pain which was evident since 2015. According to the report, Mr Mahmodi had attended multiple physiotherapy sessions, he had been reviewed by Dr Green as part of pain management, he had an epidural injection in the lumbar spine and he was unlikely to experience functional improvement to the extent that he could undertake work.
[9] Ex 4.
Dr Panjvani provided medical certificates between 12 March 2016 and 10 September 2016 in which he recorded that Mr Mahmodi had a condition of lower back pain for which he was receiving specialist care.[10] In medical certificates between 11 December 2016 and 11 March 2017, Dr Panjvani recorded that Mr Mahmodi suffered neck pain with radiculopathy, causing headaches.[11]
[10] T12/188; 198.190.
[11] T 12/191,192.
The JCA Report, written on 1 August 2017 during the assessment period, determined that the spinal condition was not fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised .The report noted that Mr Mahmodi had not seen Dr Green for pain management since November 2016 and that he was to undergo physiotherapy or a structured exercise program. The report noted the desirability of a multi-disciplinary approach with a focus on managing chronic pain. The report suggested that Mr Mahmodi might benefit from:[12]
psycho-education around chronic pain as he has many fears of experiencing not just further pain with movement or exercise , but fear of pain, fear of trying and fears he isn’t brave enough to manage his pain.
[12] T 10/158.
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient medical evidence to conclude that the spinal disorder was diagnosed at the assessment period. However, the evidence about treatment and outcomes is limited and does not enable the Tribunal to find that the spinal condition was fully treated and fully stabilised as at the assessment period. Accordingly no impairment rating can be made.
Upper limbs
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.
Similarly to the submission regarding Mr Mahmodi’s spinal condition, the Secretary conceded that that the upper limb condition was fully diagnosed within the assessment period, though not fully treated and stabilised. The Secretary submitted that treatment should include psychological support with a focus on management of chronic pain.
A report by Dr Yapp on 15 August 2016 following a right shoulder ultrasound reported minimal tendinosis in the supraspinatus tendon and thickened sub acromial effusion, treated with a steroid injection at the time of the ultrasound.
Dr Green’s management plan dated 30 November 2016 briefly noted Mr Mahmodi’s right shoulder restriction.[13]
[13] T 12/193.
Dr Panjvani’s medical certificates between 10 September 2016 and 11 March 2017 list chronic shoulder pain as one of Mr Mahmodi’s medical conditions.[14] Past treatment was recorded as cortisone injection and physiotherapy, with ongoing treatment noted as medications and physiotherapy. In the last of the certificates Dr Panjvani wrote that pain specialist review was planned.
[14] T12/190,191,192.
The report dated 12 November 2018 by Mr Mahmodi’s general medical practitioner, Dr Panjavani notes that Mr Mahmodi had suffered from right shoulder chronic bursitis/tendinosis for a “few years”.[15] He had a cortisone injection, physiotherapy and analgesics for pain management. Dr Panjwani noted that Mr Mahmodi was still complaining of ongoing pain in the right upper limb with radiculopathy.
[15] Ex 4.

According to the JCA report, Mr Mahmodi acknowledged that he had not undergone physiotherapy or other treatment for the upper limb condition.
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient medical evidence to conclude that the upper limbs condition was diagnosed at the assessment period. However, the evidence about treatment and its effects is not sufficient to conclude that the condition was fully treated and fully stabilised within the assessment period. In those circumstances an impairment rating cannot be given.
Mental health condition
Impairment Table 5 provides the descriptors relating to functional impairment due to a mental health condition, which includes recurrent episodes of mental health impairment.
The introduction to Impairment Table 5, Mental Health Function, states that a diagnosis is required from an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (including a psychiatrist) with evidence from a clinical psychologist when the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist.
For mental health conditions that are episodic or fluctuate, the rating that best reflects the person’s overall functional ability must be applied, taking into account the severity, duration and frequency of the episodes or fluctuations as appropriate.
The Secretary acknowledged that Mr Mahmodi’s mental health condition was diagnosed within the qualification period. The Tribunal considers that the Secretary’s acknowledgment is correct.
In particular, a clinical psychologist, Mr McInerney had made a diagnosis in February 2016 of severe depression and anxiety. A psychiatrist, Dr Asokan made a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood in July 2016.
However, the Secretary submitted that Mr Mahmodi’s mental health condition was not fully treated and stabilised in the assessment period because:
(i)at the time of diagnosis, Dr Asokan, a psychiatrist, had recommended referral to a psychologist with expertise in pain management;
(ii)a referral was made to a psychologist, Mr Abyiat in February 2017. However, Mr Abyiat did not have expertise in pain management and, in any event, treatment was continuing after the assessment period; and
(iii)subsequently there was a referral to a clinical psychologist, Ms Robertson, for treatment for pain related depression, anxiety and chronic pain management, however the referral was after the assessment period
Dr Panjvani referred Mr Mahmodi to Mr McInerney. On 20 February 2016, Mr McInerney reported that Mr Mahmodi was suffering from a depressive condition and significant anxiety. The condition was characterised by persistent irritability and tearfulness, together with depressed mood and social withdrawal. Behavioural therapy was the recommended course of treatment.
On 13 July 2016, Dr Asokan wrote to Dr Panjvani in relation to Mr Mahmodi’s “adjustment disorder with depressed mood in the context of his lower back pain which was reportedly sustained at work in 2009.”[16] Dr Asokan adjusted the medication and referred Mr Mahmodi back to Dr Panjavani, with a suggestion that he be referred to a psychologist with expertise in pain management, rather than the psychologist he was currently consulting.
[16] T12/209.
According to the JCA report, which was provided within the assessment period, Mr Mahmodi had been consulting the psychologist, Mr McInerney for about 18 months and after that he was consulting Mr Abiyat who was not, however, associated with a pain management program. The JCA report commented:[17]
While he is taking medication and has been seeing a psychologist more recently, the assessor supports the view of the psychiatrist that his primary presentation appears to relate to chronic pain and as such psychological intervention with a chronic pain focus alongside any other multi-disciplinary approach to chronic pain management is likely to be important.
[17] T10/160.
Mr Abiyat’s report on 9 February 2017 included an initial diagnosis of major depression with underlying grief.[18] Sessions of psychology were scheduled. In his report dated 13 November 2018, Mr Abiyat confirmed that he saw Mr Mahmodi on five occasions between February and July 2017.[19] Cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness were the strategies which Mr Abiyat used to address Mr Mahmodi’s health issues. Mr Abiyat confirmed that those issues included major depression, grief and physical problems which included chronic physical pain. According to Mr Abiyat, at the end of the psychology treatment, Mr Mahmodi was feeling little different from when he commenced the treatment..
[18] Ex 4.
[19] Ex 1.
In 2018, Mr Mahmodi was also consulting a registered psychologist, Ms Moghaddami. Her report written on 22 June 2018 confirmed that she had seen him on six occasions for treatment of depression and anxiety.[20] Psychology techniques were engaged, including cognitive behavioural therapy, with a concluding recommendation that Mr Mahmodi continue to implement the techniques developed during treatment to assist with his future progress and well-being.
[20] Ex 3, ST 10.
Psychological assistance with a focus on chronic pain management was introduced well after the assessment period through a referral to a clinical psychologist, Dr Robertson, in April 2018. She wrote a report on 12 November 2018, noting that she saw Mr Mahmodi on four occasions between April and November 2018 for assistance with depression that was related to pain, anxiety and chronic pain management.[21]
[21] Ex 1, Annexure C.
Dr Robertson referred to chronic pain and its causal effect in Mr Mahmodi’s capacity for self-care, social and recreational activities, interpersonal relationships, concentration and task completion, behaviour planning and decision-making, and work capacity. On her reading of Impairment Table 5, Dr Robertson considered that Mr Mahmodi was experiencing severe to extreme functional impairment on those activities. It is clear, however, that Dr Robertson was conveying her view about Mr Mahmodi’s mental health functioning in November 2018, following psychology support which was initiated in April 2018 as part of a chronic pain management strategy.
It is important to note, however, that the Tribunal must assess the mental health issues at the time of the DSP claim, 13 June 2017, and in the following 13 weeks. At that time, the recommended optimal type of psychology support had not commenced. That is a different situation than the one that existed towards the end of 2018 when Dr Robertson wrote her report.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Mahmodi’s mental health condition was diagnosed within the assessment period. However, the treatment was still continuing throughout most of 2018. Notably, the treatment included a focus on chronic pain management through Dr Robertson’s involvement commencing in April 2018. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the mental health condition was not fully treated and fully stabilised at the time of the DSP claim and during the assessment period. Therefore no points can be assigned under Table 5 of the Impairment Tables.
Gout
The Secretary contended that the status of the gout was not altogether clear. Either it was not diagnosed, treated and stabilised in the assessment period, or alternatively, if it was diagnosed, treated and stabilised, the functional impairment was not sufficient to attract a rating of any points.
Mr Mahmodi was treated at the Modbury Hospital in early 2015 and diagnosed with “acute gouty arthritis”.[22] Panadene forte was recommended together with follow-up by his local doctor.
[22] T12/187.
More than three and a half years later, the report written on 12 November 2018 by the general medical practitioner, Dr Panjvani, confirms that that Mr Mahmodi continues to suffer from recurrent attacks of gout which had been stabilised, at some earlier stage, with medication. However, the attacks had recommenced and medication was prescribed once more, together with a referral to a rheumatologist for further help.
The JCA Report dated 1 August 2017, commented that Mr Mahmodi had not had further referrals following the hospitalisation in 2015. He had consulted his general medical practitioner for assistance. Alternative medications specific for treating gout had apparently not ben trialled.
Impairment Table 3 relates to lower limb function. It provides the descriptors relating to the use of the lower limbs. 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.
On the brief material available to the Tribunal, it is reasonable to conclude that the condition of gout was diagnosed at the assessment period. However, there is insufficient evidence to find that the conditions was fully treated and fully stabilised during the assessment period. Under those circumstances an impairment rating cannot be given.
SUMMARY
The Tribunal finds that s 94(1) (a) of the Act regarding impairment is satisfied.
Mr Mahmodis spinal condition was diagnosed during the assessment period, however it was not fully treated and fully stabilised. Accordingly an impairment rating cannot be given.
Mr Mahmodi’s upper limb condition was diagnosed during the assessment period, however it was not fully treated and fully stabilised. Accordingly an impairment rating cannot be given.
Mr Mahmodi’s lower limb condition of gout was diagnosed during the assessment period, however it was not fully treated and fully stabilised. Accordingly an impairment rating cannot be given.
Mr Mahmodi’s mental health condition was diagnosed, during the assessment period, however it was not fully treated and fully stabilised. Accordingly a rating cannot be given under the Impairment Tables for any impairment from the mental health condition.
With a total of 0 impairment points, Mr Mahmodi 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 these circumstances it is not necessary to consider whether or not during the assessment period Mr Mahmodi had a continuing inability to work within the meaning of s 94(1)(c) of the Act.
As Mr Mahmodi was not qualified for DSP at the time he lodged his claim or within 13 weeks of that date, the Tribunal is obliged to affirm the decision under review.
This decision does not mean that the Tribunal underestimates the complexities of Mr Mahmodi’s health issues involving the inter-relationship of the physical conditions and mental health factors and the emerging details about their treatment and impact. The effect of the Tribunal’s decision is that he does not meet the necessary criteria for qualification for DSP at the time he lodged the claim and during the subsequent assessment period. It does not preclude Mr Mahmodi from making another claim for the DSP in the future.
DECISION
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review that Mr Mahmodi was not qualified to receive DSP from 13 June 2017 or within 13 weeks of that date.

I certify that the preceding 76 (seventy six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member I F Thompson

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

Dated: 19 July 2019

Date(s) of hearing: 17 May 2019

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. L Odgers, Department of Social Services

.

TRIBUNAL:	I F Thompson, Member
DATE OF CORRIGENDUM:	12 August 2019
PLACE:	Adelaide

Dated:	19 July 2019
Date(s) of hearing:	17 May 2019
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms. L Odgers, Department of Social Services