Re Ulukut and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 399
•23 June 2014
[2014] AATA 399
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2013/3812
Re
Gulten Ulukut
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
Date 23 June 2014 Place Sydney The decision under review is set aside.
.........[Sgd]...............................................................
Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – permanent conditions – whether the Applicant has an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the impairment tables – whether the Applicant had a continuing inability to work – whether Applicant has a severe impairment – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), ss 94, 94(1), 94(2), 94(3B), 94(5)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 41, 42, Sch 1B, Sch 2
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, ss 3, 6
CASES
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Bell (1998) 52 ALD 472)
Hamal and Secretary, Department of Social Services (1993) 30 ALD 517
Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Harris [2010] FCA 360
Re Hynninen and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 664
Li and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 96 ALD 769REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
23 June 2014
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
On 10 October 2012, the Applicant, Gulten Ulukut, lodged a claim for DSP. Her application was refused. That decision was affirmed on internal review and upon review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (‘SSAT’). The Applicant seeks review of that decision.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant was qualified or became qualified to receive DSP within the period 10 October 2012 (the date of claim) to 9 January 2013 (13 weeks of that date). This depends on whether the Applicant satisfied s 94 of the Social Security Act 1991, in particular:
·Whether some or all of the Applicant’s impairments were permanent, and, if so;
·Whether her impairments attracted an impairment rating of at least 20 points, and, if so;
·Whether he had a continuing inability to work.
THE LEGISLATION
The legislation relevant to this decision is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 ‘(the Act’) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (‘the Administration Act’).
Section 94 of the Act provides the qualification criteria for DSP. Relevantly, the person must have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment: s 94(1)(a), which attracts an impairment rating of at least 20 points (s 94(1)(b)) and the person must have a continuing inability to work: s 94(1)(c). A continuing inability to work (‘CITW’) is defined in s 94(2) of the Act.
The Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination) took effect from 1 January 2012. The Determination contains the Impairment Tables (‘the Tables’) and the rules for their application. The Tables are function-based and describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations. They are designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impairment. Impairment is defined to mean a loss of functional capacity affecting a person’s ability to work that results from the person’s condition: s 3 of the Determination. A claimant’s impairment is to be assessed on the basis of what the person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for the person: s 6(1) of the Determination.
The Tables may only be applied after the person’s medical history has been considered. An impairment can only be allocated if a condition is permanent, i.e. fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and likely to persist for more than two years: s 6(2)-6(4) of the Determination.
The relevant period
The Administration Act provides that ordinarily the start-day for DSP is the date of claim (s 13, 41, 42, Schedule 2 clause 3). This means that qualification and impairment ratings must be determined at the date of claim. The only exception is where the person is not qualified on the day of claim but ‘will... become qualified’ and ‘becomes so qualified’ within thirteen weeks of lodging a claim, in which case the start-day is the day they became qualified: Schedule 2 clause 4(1).
The Applicant lodged a claim for DSP on 10 October 2012. By virtue of ss 13, 41, 42, Schedule 2 clause 3 of the Administration Act, the issue is whether the Applicant is qualified to receive DSP and whether he became so qualified within 13 weeks, i.e. 10 October 2012 to 9 January 2013.
At the hearing the Applicant tendered a number of medical reports and imaging documents, all of which were from late 2013 or 2014. Because these related to a period about a year or more after the relevant period they were unhelpful with respect to the matters I was to decide. They may, of course, be relevant should the Applicant make another application for DSP, as was discussed at the hearing.
Does the Applicant suffer a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment?
At the time of application, the Applicant indicated she had had breast cancer, had had her lymph nodes removed from her right arm, had constant arm pain and also cataracts in both eyes. She stated that she was currently taking medication in relation to these illnesses and that she was to have surgery on both eyes, for which she was on a waiting list. She stated that her treatment affects her ability to work or study as it leads to pain in her arm and tiredness and that she is unable to drive a car because of her eyes. She stated that her highest level of education was the completion of year seven, and that she had no qualifications and no employment history.
In the treating doctor’s report dated 4 October 2012 by Dr Sarfraz provided in support of the Applicant’s claim the following disabilities/illnesses were listed, in order of severity:
(a)anxiety and major depressive disorder;
(b)carcinoma of the breast; and
(c)a bilateral eye condition (epiphora).
At the hearing the Applicant confirmed that these conditions impacted upon her ability to function. She claimed that it is mainly her depression that prevents her working.
The Respondent conceded that the Applicant suffered physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment during the relevant period. Therefore I find the Applicant satisfies s 94(1)(a) of the Act.
Were, at the relevant date, the Applicant’s conditions permanent, as defined?
The Applicant submitted the following further medical evidence :
·Hospital discharge summary dated 19 September 2008;
·Letter from Dr Mok (oncologist) dated 25 September 2013;
·Medical certificates from Dr S.K. Law, consultant psychiatrist, dated 2 May 2013 and 19 December 2013; and
·Letters from Dr Law to Dr Sarfraz dated 18 January 2006, 5 January 2007, 12 February 2008, 11 November 2009, 16 December 2010, 21 March 2013, and 29 July 2013
The Respondent tendered a job capacity assessment dated 3 January 2014 (‘the second JCA’) conducted in response to the Applicant’s subsequent claim for DSP.
Anxiety and depression
In describing the effects of her condition the Applicant said that she gets upset easily and cries on most days. She ‘has thoughts’. She told the SSAT she sometimes becomes angry and hits her head. It is mostly in relation to her son that she becomes upset – he was ill as a baby; he was burnt; he required operations; and has developmental problems and he has problems at school generally.
The Applicant said she walks the children to school. There she talks to two mothers, but does not socialise with them beyond that. She does not have any other friends. As to why she does not engage with other people she said she cannot dress up like other people and does not know what stops her from doing it. She told the SSAT that sometimes people misunderstand her and she wants to get on with people.
As to how she fills in the day, she said that nearly every day her parents and sister come to her home or she goes to their home which is close by. She watches little TV, watching only the news and light entertainment with the children in the evenings. She chooses not to watch dramas ‘because they aren’t real’. She used to read magazines and was able to follow the articles but does not feel like doing that now that she has to wear reading glasses following her eye operations, so, in 2013 stopped reading altogether.
She said that she may go grocery shopping at the nearby shops. She might go 2-3 times a week, depending on the need. She will drive to about 10 minutes to Fairfield or Liverpool if she needs to buy clothes for the children and drives to Fairfield twice a week for Jobsearch. She can use public transport, as she did to come to the hearing, because she would not drive in the city.
As to activities with the children she said that while they have friends at school they do not have friends come to the home. The children have swimming one afternoon a week and she will walk them to the pool. They have Turkish school on Fridays in Bonnyrigg but her husband will take them because it is too far for her. As a family they might go to the park next door. Her husband or sister might take the children to the cinema because she could not watch two hours of cartoons. She and her husband go nowhere together without the children.
Five years ago she travelled to Turkey with her husband and children, and they were away for about seven weeks, mainly visiting his family. Last year her husband and son went again. She and her daughter did not go, mainly because of the expense.
She told the SSAT she has difficulty concentrating and is forgetful. She might sometimes sleep for about two hours during the day 2-3 times a week. Since her cancer she becomes easily fatigued. She told the SSAT that she experiences sleeping difficulties and takes tablets after dinner to help her sleep. She awakes at around 2am and remains awake for a couple of hours.
She told the SSAT she is able to wash and dress herself. She said she does the washing up and the washing. Her husband does the vacuuming and cleans the bathroom. She does not cook because her son was badly burned when he was very young. She will not use the stove and will not own a kettle. Her mother does most of the cooking and her father delivers dinner to them, virtually daily. Other meals are very simple – cornflakes for breakfast and the children might buy lunch at the school canteen, or there are leftovers from dinner. She does not like using the kitchen at all.
She said she last worked in about 1998. In 2000 she went to Turkey. She married in 2001 and her son was born in 2002. Her daughter was born in 2005. Her daughter started school 2011. The Applicant’s cancer was diagnosed in October 2011.
The Applicant told me she has been seeing Dr Law, since about 2000; although she had told the SSAT that it was 2005. She said she could not remember dates. She stopped seeing him (and taking medication) for about two years while receiving treatment for breast cancer. She told the SSAT that, more recently, she has been seeing him monthly.
Her GP, Dr Sarfraz, reported on 4 October 2012 that her prescribed treatment was Dothep. Dr Law reported on 2 May 2013 that her medication had been changed to Cymbaita. The Applicant told the SSAT that she has seen a psychologist in the past.
The Applicant has previously been hospitalised because of her psychiatric condition. The hospital discharge summary dated 19 September 2008, which she produced, referred to an admission following her reporting to police that she wanted to kill her children and herself. She told the SSAT that, more recently, the people at Jobfind, where she has to go to retain her Centrelink payments, wanted to put her in hospital.
I find that the Applicant received psychiatric treatment from Dr Law since at least 2006, the date of his first report. She has undertaken courses of anti-depressants continuously since that time except for when she was having treatment for her breast cancer. In his last report before the Applicant’s breast cancer diagnosis (when she stopped psychiatric care) Dr Law, consultant psychiatrist, wrote on 16 December 2010 that she still easily became nervous and dejected and still suffered from impaired concentration. He described her “mentally very fragile”. Despite Dr Law’s resumed treatment the Applicant’s condition has not improved.
In the treating doctor’s report Dr Sarfraz assessed the Applicant’s condition as affecting her mood and memory patterns. He wrote of her poor concentration, lack of sleep, sense of worthlessness, irritability and apprehension.
At the time a job capacity assessment was undertaken in October 2012 the Applicant reported an anxiety and major depressive disorder which was noted in the report as having onset date of 2002. She reported depressed mood and poor sleeping pattern (5-6 hours a night and still fatigued). She said that about one day a week she is unable to take the children to school because of her condition. Memory and concentration were said to be unaffected, although this is at odds with the evidence of Dr Law and Dr Sarfaz, which, as the Applicant’s treating medical practitioners, I prefer.
In his letter of 29 July 2013 Dr Law expressed the view that the Applicant should be assigned a permanent impairment rating of 20 for “post-traumatic stress disorder”. Unfortunately he did not detail how he had reached that view. He reported though that the Applicant is visibly perplexed, nervous, frustrated and dejected but not suicidal. The Applicant was also said to hold a bleak view of her future in terms of both work and health, and to be medically unfit to work up to eight hours in a week at the time of the letter, and for the “coming few years”.
In his most recent medical report dated 19 December 2013 Dr Law wrote of the Applicant’s depression, tiredness, forgetfulness, poor concentration and broken sleep. The assessor undertaking the second JCA took Dr Law’s views in his medical into account but did not increase the impairment rating for depression.
A rating under Table 5 is appropriate for a condition that results in a functional impairment due to a mental health condition. That Table provides, relevantly:
10
The person has moderate difficulties with most of the following:
(a) self care and independent living;
Example: The person needs some support (that is, an occasional visit by or assistance from a family member or support worker) to live independently and maintain adequate hygiene and nutrition.
(b) social/recreational activities and travel;
Example 1: The person goes out alone infrequently and is not actively involved in social events.
Example 2: The person will often refuse to travel alone to unfamiliar environments.(c) interpersonal relationships;
Example: The person has difficulty making and keeping friends or sustaining relationships.
(d) concentration and task completion;
Example 1: The person finds it very difficult to concentrate on longer tasks for more than 30 minutes (such as reading a chapter from a book).
Example 2: The person finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (such as from an operating manual, recipe or assembly instructions).(e) behaviour, planning and decision-making;
Example 1: The person has difficulty coping with situations involving stress, pressure or performance demands.
Example 2: The person has occasional behavioural or mood difficulties (such as temper outbursts, depression, withdrawal or poor judgement).
Example 3: The person’s activity levels are noticeably increased or reduced.(f) work/training capacity.
Example: The person often has interpersonal conflicts at work, education or training that require intervention by supervisors, managers or teachers or changes in placement or groupings.
20
There is a severe functional impact on activities involving mental health function.
(1) The person has severe difficulties with most of the following:
(a) self care and independent living;
Example: The person needs regular support to live independently, that is, needs visits or assistance at least twice a week from a family member, friend, health worker or support worker.
(b) social/recreational activities and travel;
Example: The person travels alone only in familiar areas (such as the local shops or other familiar venues).
(c) interpersonal relationships;
Example 1: The person has very limited social contacts and involvement unless these are organised for the person.
Example 2: The person often has difficulty interacting with other people and may need assistance or support from a companion to engage in social interactions.(d) concentration and task completion;
Example 1: The person has difficulty concentrating on any task or conversation for more than 10 minutes.
Example 2: The person has slowed movements or reaction time due to psychiatric illness or treatment effects.(e) behaviour, planning and decision-making;
Example: The person’s behaviour, thoughts and conversation are significantly and frequently disturbed.
(f) work/training capacity.
Example: The person is unable to attend work, education or training on a regular basis over a lengthy period due to ongoing mental illness.
The Respondent submitted that there was scant independent evidence of the actual effect of the condition, but broadly, I find that the Applicant’s claims are supported by her treating medical practitioners.
I find that the Applicant has difficulties with self-care and independent living in that she relies on her parents to provide cooked meals for her family on an almost daily basis because of her reluctance to use the kitchen as a result of her son’s accident. She goes only to the local shops on an as-needs basis or reasonably locally for clothes for the children. She may attend the park next door and can take the children to swimming classes, but will not go as far afield as Bonnyrigg to their Turkish classes. The Applicant’s evidence as to her interpersonal relationships was that she has no social life other than meeting two mothers at the school gate. Otherwise she meets only with her parents and sister. She feels people are unable to understand her. She gave evidence, as did her doctors of loss of concentration. She had difficulty discussing dates and, it seemed to me, sometimes had difficulty following the proceedings. Her affect at the hearing was very flat. Her evidence was of distress on an almost daily basis and an inability to communicate her feelings and to form a rapport with others. Dr Law’s description of her mental fragility was very persuasive. The Applicant has not worked for some time for a variety of reasons, including her psychological condition. She has received psychiatric care almost continuously for at least eight years.
I therefore find that 20 impairment points is the appropriate rating of her condition.
Breast carcinoma with related shoulder and arm pain
The Applicant said her breast cancer was diagnosed in September 2011. Apparently she went for a check-up after her mother received a breast cancer diagnosis. She had two operations, commencing in October 2011. In January 2012, she commenced chemotherapy. There were six treatments, each three weeks apart and these concluded in July 2012. She then had radiotherapy, which she had daily for seven weeks. She continues to take Tamoxifen.
As to the residual effects of her cancer she said that she is very tired. She also has pain in her right upper arm into her shoulder which hurts more in cold weather. She told the SSAT that she is now unable to carry her handbag on her right shoulder, whereas prior to the surgery she had no problem using her right arm.
She said she has difficulty putting on her bra and her husband has to help her. Hanging up the washing is manageable because they only have a clothes airer, and she does not have to hang the washing up high. She said that her upper arm also hurts when she reverses the car. She is unable to vacuum. She carries the shopping in her left hand and she uses a shopping trolley. She tries not to use her right arm so much but she is right-handed. She said she can write, manage coins and pick up small items such as a pencil. She does not use a computer by choice. She can unscrew a lid, using her left hand and holding the container with her right hand. She buys one litre cartons of long-life milk, because it is more convenient and cheaper. She told the SSAT that she is able to use eating utensils and is able to write a short letter. She has some difficulty lifting heavier objects. She said that blood cannot be taken from her right arm; blood pressure cannot be tested using that arm; and she has to be careful not to cut it.
In his treating doctor’s report Dr Sarfraz wrote that the Applicant’s breast cancer was diagnosed in 2011 and had been treated by a dissection of lymph nodes. The Applicant was treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy and reported experiencing pain along the dissected auxiliary nodes. He wrote that she continues to experience pain and weakness of the right arm.
Although the Applicant reported during the JCA that she had no difficulty with self-care, buttons, opening bottles and dealing with coins and could lift a 2kg carton of milk, the medical report of Dr Sarfraz reported that the Applicant had difficulty raising her arms and carrying objects.
The Applicant’s right shoulder pain was not mentioned by Dr Sarfraz but was referred to by Dr Mok, the Applicant’s oncologist. Dr Law also referred to her report of right shoulder pain in the medical certificate of 2 May 2013. Dr Mok also reported that the Applicant has fatigue, which appears to be a consequence of the breast cancer treatment.
The Applicant avoids some household tasks but her evidence suggested that some are avoided due to her psychiatric condition than to fatigue or pain or loss of mobility or strength in the right upper arm and shoulder.
The Respondent accepted, and I agree, that this condition is a permanent condition in that has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised as at the review period, with no significant improvement expected.
A rating under Table 2 is appropriate for a condition that results in a functional impairment when performing activities requiring the use of hands or arms. The relevant aspects of the Table provide:
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.
10
There is a moderate functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1) The person has difficulty with most of the following:
(a) picking up a 1 litre carton full of liquid;
(b) picking up a light but bulky object requiring the use of 2 hands together (e.g. a cardboard box);
(c) holding and using a pen or pencil;
(d) doing up buttons or tying shoelaces;
(e) using a standard computer keyboard;
(f) unscrewing a lid on a soft-drink bottle.
I find that as a consequence of the surgery associated with her breast cancer the Applicant experiences pain and some weakness of the right arm and into her shoulder. I accept that this causes permanent impairment of the right upper limb and therefore an impairment rating can be assigned.
I consider the evidence indicates that the functional impact is minor. The Applicant can pick up, handle, manipulate and use most objects encountered on a daily basis with little difficulty, although she has had to learn to use her left hand and arm for some tasks. The limitation is mainly in respect of lifting above shoulder height. She is able to drive, and to attend to self-care with the exception of doing up her bra.
I consider the appropriate impairment rating under Table 2 is five points.
Eye condition
Dr Sarfraz wrote in his treating doctor’s report that the Applicant’s condition was of minimal impact treated by lubricating eye-drops
The condition was accepted by the SSAT as being fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the relevant period, but was well managed and had limited impact on the Applicant’s ability to function.
By the time of the SSAT decision the Applicant had undergone surgery to remedy cataracts.
The Respondent contended, and I agree, on the basis of the Applicant’s evidence that her eyes have been normal since the cataract operations, although she requires reading glasses which she choose not to wear. This condition does not attract any impairment rating under Table 1 because at the relevant date the Applicant had yet to undergo the operations which have greatly improved her eyes.
Does the Applicant have a continuing inability to work?
Having found that the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more, it is necessary to consider if the Applicant has a continuing inability to work as defined in ss 94(2) and 94(5) of the Act.
In Re Hynninen and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 664 the Tribunal set out factors that generally should not be taken into account when considering whether there is a CITW under s 94(1)(c)(i), the following:
(a)any impairments that have not been assigned a rating under the Impairment Tables;
(b)the availability of work in the person’s locally accessible labour market, or the availability to the person of a training activity;
(c)the person’s motivation to work or train, except where the medical evidence indicates that the lack of motivation is directly attributable to the impairment;
(d)the person’s potential attractiveness to an employer in a particular area of work or employer preferences and discriminatory preferences including the willingness or otherwise of people to employ people with disabilities;
(e)the person’s preferences regarding the type of work or training; and
(f)the existence of a benign employer or sheltered or special employment, only a normal workplace is considered.
A CITW under s 94(1)(c)(i) is defined in s 94(2) of the Act, which during the relevant period provided:
Continuing inability to work
(2) A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(aa) in a case where the person's impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection (3B) – the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C); and
(a) in all cases – the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and
(b) in all cases – either:
(i) the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years; or
(ii) if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity – such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years.
Note: For work see subsection (5).
A ‘severe impairment’, referred to in s 94(2)(aa), is defined in s 94(3B) of the Act and includes where a person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which 20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table. This is the case here and it was not necessary to consider if the Applicant had participated in a program of support.
Further, ‘work’ in the context of section 94(2)(a) was defined in section 94(5) of the Act during the relevant period (and now) as follows:
(5) In this section: work means work:
(a) that is for at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and
(b) that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market.
When considering whether a person is prevented from doing “any work” in s 94(2)(a), the capacity of the person to attract an employer in the open labour market having regard to the level and nature of the disabilities suffered and the type of work that the person was capable of undertaking without retraining, should be taken into account: Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Harris [2010] FCA 360.
In my view the Applicant has little, if any, to attract an employer in the open labour market having regard to the debilitating effect of her psychiatric condition in particular. She has few work skills and in my view it is highly unlikely that any normal workplace could tolerate her symptoms, especially the manifestation of her despair and her fatigue: Li and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 96 ALD 769; Hamal and Secretary, Department of Social Services (1993) 30 ALD 517; Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Bell (1998) 52 ALD 472).
The Respondent relied on the JCA reports.
At the JCA of 17 October 2012 the Applicant reportedly informed the assessor that her last job had been 15 years ago and had been factory work. She had held this role for about four years. She was found to have a baseline work capacity of 15 to 22 hours per week, with or without intervention, noting that due to a limited lifting capacity of 2kg, work would be light less skilled work, such as light processing work.
By the time of the second JCA the Applicant was found to have a baseline work capacity of 0-7 hours per week, increasing to 15-22 hours per week within 2 years, noting that due to a limited lifting capacity of 2kg, work would be light less skilled work such as light process work or shop assistant. This assessment, undertaken about 18 months after the first, acknowledges, it seems, that the Applicant’s overall workability had in fact deteriorated.
“[T]raining activity” referred to in s 94(2)(b) is defined in s 94(5) of the Act:
training activity means one or more of the following activities, whether or not the activity is designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments:
(a)education;
(b)pre-vocational training;
(c)vocational training;
(d)vocational rehabilitation;
(e)work-related training (including on-the-job training).
The Respondent submitted that there is no evidence that the Applicant is not able to undertake a training activity with appropriate support; that the Applicant’s impairments per se are sufficient to prevent her from undertaking training activity within the next two years; or that if the Applicant’s impairments do not prevent her from undertaking a training activity, such activity is unlikely (because of an impairment or a combination of them) to enable her to do any work independently of a program of support within the next two years.
For the reasons discussed above in paragraph 59, I consider that the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the Applicant from undertaking a training activity during the next two years.
Conclusion
I therefor find that the Applicant satisfies all criteria for the DSP.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside.
I certify that the preceding 67 (sixty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member. .......[Sgd].................................................................
Associate
Dated 23 June 2014
Date of hearing 28 May 2014 Applicant In person Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore Lawyers
73
2
0