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

Rossi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1096 (3 April 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2016/4810
Re:Alexander Rossi
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member T. Tavoularis
Date:3 April 2017
Date of written reasons: 13 July 2017
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
.........................[sgd]................................
Senior Member T. Tavoularis
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – whether Applicant had conditions that were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during relevant period – whether Applicant had 20 impairment points – conditions listed as: diseased liver, liver cancer, Hepatitis C, discopathy and radiculopathy, back injuries, shattered right foot and depression - Applicant’s conditions not fully treated and stabilised – no impairment ratings could be assigned - decision under review is affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
CASES
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
SECONDARY MATERIALS
The Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member T. Tavoularis
13 July 2017
INTRODUCTION

On 3 February 2016, Mr Alexander Rossi (“the Applicant”) lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (“DSP”), listing his medical conditions as - diseased liver, liver cancer, Hepatitis C, discopathy and radiculopathy, back injuries, shattered right foot and depression.[1]
[1] Exhibit 6, T documents, T36, p 254.
HISTORY OF THE MATTER
It is important to, at this stage, say a few words about the history of the matter, and it is fair to say that Mr Rossi has been through a lot in terms of the various reports, consultations and question and answer sessions that he has had to endure the arduous course of this particular DSP application and review.
The first of those assessments or consultations was with a Job Capacity Assessor (“JCA”) on 29 February 2016. Mr Rossi attended a face-to-face meeting with the JCA who subsequently produced a report on 24 March 2016. In summary, that JCA did not think, or was not satisfied, that any of Mr Rossi's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and on that basis no impairment ratings for any of the conditions could be assigned. As he was not assigned any impairment points by the JCA, he did not get the required 20 impairment points and consequently there was no qualification for DSP.
On 22 April 2016 the Respondent department, relying on that JCA report, rejected Mr Rossi's claim for DSP on the basis of him not having 20 impairment points. On that day, 22 April 2016, Mr Rossi asked for a review of that decision, as is his right.
With regard to that requested review, the Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) engaged the Department of Human Services’ Health Professional Advisory Unit (“HPAU”) to examine Mr Rossi and/or the material, and to produce a report.
The HPAU provided an opinion on 10 May 2016, which essentially agreed with the findings of the earlier JCA report. The HPAU assessor was not satisfied that any of the Applicant's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and therefore no impairment points could be allocated, and in a nutshell, there was no entitlement to DSP, according to the HPAU.
What then happened was that the ARO reviewed all of the material, including the JCA report, the HPAU opinion, and all of the other relevant material. On 11 May 2016, the ARO made these findings of fact:
“Findings of Fact
After careful consideration of the evidence, I have made these key findings:
·     Your conditions of alcohol dependency, Hepatitis C, depression, low back pain and right foot injury are not accepted as being permanent as they have not been fully treated and stabilised.
·     Your condition of liver cancer and high blood pressure is not accepted as being permanent as it has not been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised.
·     Your total impairment rating is 0 points.
·     You do not have an impairment rating of 20 points or more.
·     You do not have a continuing inability to work 15 hours per week or more because of your impairment.”[2]
[2] Exhibit 6, T documents, T45, p 321 (ARO decision).
On 13 May 2016, the Applicant made an application for first level review at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT1”). On 16 August 2016, my colleague at AAT1 affirmed the original decision under review.
On 13 September 2016, the Applicant made an application to this tribunal for second review (“AAT” or “this Tribunal”). In relation to this application for second review, he filed two further reports:
(1)The report of Mr Thompson, physiotherapist at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, dated 13 September 2016.
(2)The report from Dr Boshoff, dated 2 December 2016.
On 11 November 2016, the Respondent obtained an updated opinion from its HPAU. The new HPAU expert thought none of the Applicant's conditions could be considered fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, and therefore no impairment points could be assigned and there was no entitlement to DSP.
That, in broad terms, is the history of the matter up to and including this particular hearing.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
It is also necessary to mention the legislative framework for these type of matters, because that is what informs both the Applicant and the tribunal, and of course the Respondent, as to the rules and bases upon which these applications are determined.
The relevant section for present purposes is section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the “Act”). This prescribes the criteria that one has to satisfy to properly qualify for DSP. For present purposes the three primary requirements are that:
(i)the applicant has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment;
(ii)that the applicant's impairment is of 20 points or more under the impairment tables; and
(iii)that the applicant has a continuing inability to work.
There is a second Act which applies, and that is called the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) and it makes it very clear the qualification for the DSP and assessment of relevant impairment ratings must be determined as at the date of the claim (in this case 3 February 2016). There is, however, an exception where the person is not qualified on that date but “becomes qualified” within 13 weeks of lodging the claim in which case the start date for the DSP is the date that the person becomes qualified. Therefore the relevant period for considering whether this applicant became qualified for DSP is between 3 February 2016, plus 13 weeks, to 4 May 2016 (“the Relevant Period”). So to repeat, the Relevant Period is from 3 February 2016 until 4 May 2016.
The Impairment Tables are contained in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (“the Determination”), a legislative instrument made under the Act.[3] The Tables are function based rather than diagnostic based and describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations. They are designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment, and not to assess conditions.[4] The impairment of a person is to be assessed on the basis of what they can, or could do, and not on what they chose to do or what others do for them.[5]
[3] See s 26(1) of the Act.
[4] See s 5(2) of the Determination.
[5] See s 6(1) of the Determination.
Under the rules for applying the Impairment Tables, an impairment rating can only be assigned if the person’s condition causing the impairment is “permanent” and the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of the available evidence, to persist for more than two years.[6] In order for a condition to be considered “permanent” it must have been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; been fully treated; been fully stabilised; and more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than two years.[7]
[6] See s 6(3) of the Determination.
[7] See s 6(4) of the Determination.
In determining whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether it has been fully treated, the following facts are to be considered: whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years.[8]
[8] See s 6(5) of the Determination.
A condition is “fully stabilised” if:
(a)either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or
(b)the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(i)significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or
(ii)there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.[9]
[9] See s 6(6) of the Determination.
“Reasonable treatment” is treatment that: is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; is at a reasonable cost; can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity; is regularly undertaken or performed; has a high success rate; and carries a low risk to the person.[10]
[10] See s 6(7) of the Determination.
An impairment rating can only be assigned in accordance with the rating points in each Table. A rating cannot be assigned between two consecutive impairment ratings. If an impairment is considered as falling between two ratings, the lower of the two ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied. A rating cannot be assigned in excess of the maximum rating specified in each Table.[11]
[11] See s 11(1) of the Determination.
In respect of the requirement that the Applicant have a continuing inability to work, all the criteria in s 94(2) of the Act need to be satisfied.
ISSUES FOR THE TRIBUNAL
Based on the medical evidence provided during the life of the claim, and as conceded by the Respondent both at the hearing and in their statement of facts, issues and contentions, there is no doubt that this Applicant suffers from a number of medical conditions, and that they constitute physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments. Consequently, the first of the requirements under section 94(1) of the Act is satisfied.
The remaining issues for me to consider are therefore:
(i)Whether at the relevant time the Applicant’s impairments attracted 20 impairment points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables; and, if so
(ii)whether the Applicant has a severe impairment of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table, or if not, whether the Applicant completed a Program of Support; and
(iii)whether the Applicant has a continuing inability to work.
CONSIDERATION
Did the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables?
I propose to deal with this issue by reference to the Applicant's various medical conditions.
During the hearing Mr Rossi, the Applicant, very helpfully and in quite a forthcoming and honest way, told the hearing that the specific issues of alcohol dependency, Hepatitis C, liver cancer and depression were effectively in his past and that he did not want them considered or taken into account for the purposes of this matter. He said that in all respects those four conditions caused him no functional impact on his capacity to get on with his life on a day-to-day basis.
The other two conditions, which are the spinal disorder and the right foot injury, the Applicant says are still contended for, and both are still the basis of his application to reach the necessary 20 impairment points to qualify for the DSP.
Be that as it may, and as I said at the beginning of these reasons, Mr Rossi, the Applicant, has gone through a lot with this application, and any consideration of the evidence and associated material, in my respectful view, should for Mr Rossi's sake, be done in a clear and fulsome way. I therefore will address each of the four non-contended issues and say a few words about them. However, I do note and again confirm that the alcohol, the Hepatitis C, the liver cancer and the depression are no longer contended for. I will nevertheless address them briefly here.
Firstly, in relation to the alcohol dependence, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that - as per the JCA, the HPAU, the ARO and the AAT1 - the alcohol dependency was fully diagnosed, but it was not fully treated or stabilised during the qualification period.
In reviewing the Applicant, the HPAU writer said, on 10 May 2016, that the condition was not fully treated or stabilised because there was insufficient evidence to confirm whether the Applicant had engaged in any kind of alcohol or drug rehabilitation program. To his credit, the Applicant frankly told the AAT1 hearing, that he has not had a drink for four years, and that in all other respects alcohol does not affect his capacity to function on a daily basis.
Having regard to those comments and that concession, one can only say there is therefore no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's symptoms were unlikely, during the qualification period, to show significant improvement within two years. That of course is no longer a factor because as the Applicant said, alcohol has not been in his life, or even part of his life, for four years.
I therefore find there is no evidence to suggest that any past refusal by the Applicant to comply with any recommended treatment for his alcohol use was due to a medical or other compelling reason. To repeat, alcohol is no longer a factor in his life and has no effect on his functional capacity. Accordingly for the purposes of this decision, no impairment points can be allocated to it.
I will say a few words about the Hepatitis C. Once again - the JCA, the HPAU, the ARO and AAT1 - all thought that the Hepatitis C infection had been fully diagnosed, but that it was not fully treated or stabilised. No impairment rating was allocated by any of those report writers or reviewers. At the hearing the Applicant told me he has been told by his medical advisers that the Hepatitis C is clear and that he is no longer affected by it. To use his words, he has beaten that condition.
On the basis of that evidence it is therefore difficult for any reviewer in my position now to find that there is any evidence to suggest that the Applicant's symptoms were unlikely, during the qualification period, to show significant improvement within two years. Obviously, he is clear of the Hepatitis C and it is not a factor in his life anymore, and nor is there any other evidence to suggest that he has in the past refused to comply with treatment due to some sort of medical or other compelling reason. There is no need to go into those factors as to whether or not he has missed any appointments from the past because as he has told us Hepatitis C is no longer affecting his life and he has been told that he is otherwise clear of it.
I will turn now to the liver cancer condition. The findings of the ARO and HPAU were that the liver cancer had not been fully diagnosed, treated or stabilised during the Relevant Period and no impairment rating could be allocated to it.
The Applicant at the hearing, once again, said this condition is no longer an issue in his life and that it does not affect his functional capacity. That evidence from the Applicant is consistent with what the HPAU reporter said on 10 May 2016:
“There is no current evidence Mr Rossi has liver cancer. Mr Rossi has a small benign liver cyst that has remained stable for many years and has previous specialist gastroenterological and hepatic surgeon advice that it is benign and requires no specific treatment.”[12]
[12] Exhibit 6, T44, HPAU Report dated 10 May 2016, p 317.
Liver cancer is no longer part of this Applicant's symptomology. It has no functional impact on his daily capacity to get on with his life. No impairment points can be allocated to it.
The fourth condition previously contended for by the Applicant related to his depression. Once again, the Applicant has given very helpful evidence to the hearing that his depression is, to an extent, largely under control and that it does not cause him any functional impact.
For the record, I think it is important to note that the JCA, HPAU, ARO and AAT1 all thought that the depression was not fully diagnosed, treated or stabilised during the Relevant Period and that therefore no impairment rating could be allocated to it. I agree with these findings because of the fundamental difficulty arising from the way that the depression, according to the Applicant, had been diagnosed. Table 5 of the impairment tables requires that any diagnosis of a mental health condition like depression has to be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, which includes a psychiatrist, with evidence from a clinical psychologist if the diagnosis, or primary diagnosis, has not been made by a psychiatrist.
The Applicant was examined by Dr Pun on 7 October 2014. If one has regard to what Dr Pun said to the referring doctor, Dr Powell, there was reference to some kind of euthymic mood with reactive effect, and that, in addition, the Applicant would be suitable for interferon treatment, were any treatment required. Apart from that general comment by Dr Pun about the personality style and possible medication regime of the Applicant, I do not think that those comments by Dr Pun constitute any formal diagnosis of any mental health condition. So even if the mental health condition of depression were to be propounded or contended for, which it is not, the difficulty with it is that even with an adequate trial of antidepressant medication in conjunction with psychological treatment, there is still no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's mental health symptoms were unlikely, during the qualification period, to show significant improvement within two years. In addition to that, it can be found that there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's refusal to engage in recommended treatment was due to some sort of medical or other compelling reason.
Accordingly, no impairment points can be allocated to the Applicant’s depression.
Those are my comments and findings about the first four conditions which were not pressed at the hearing by the Applicant. They are alcohol dependence, Hepatitis C, liver cancer and depression. I will turn now to the two conditions that are still being propounded by the Applicant as a basis for trying to arrive at 20 impairment points for this application for DSP.
Before I talk about the two remaining conditions, the spinal disorder and the right foot injury, I must point out that to my mind there seems to be two fundamental difficulties with the stated basis of this Applicant's contention suggesting 20 impairment points for those two conditions. Firstly, my assessment of this applicant's condition must be undertaken at the relevant period, which is from 3 February 2016 until 4 May 2016. Second, there is a question as to the level of evidentiary weight that I can give to the unscientific evidence or self-reported evidence of the applicant.
It is well established and indeed mandatory in a legislative sense that the Applicant's condition, and thus assessment of attributable impairment points, has to be undertaken as I have said, during the Relevant Period. This was made clear by this Tribunal in the case of Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922, and I will quote what the tribunal said there:
“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…. But 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.”[13]
[13] Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 at [34].

It is an unfortunate feature of the Applicant's case before me that not much or any of his medical evidence is contemporaneous with or otherwise probative of his conditions during the Relevant Period. The most probative evidence available during the Relevant Period is, firstly, the JCA report dated 24 March 2016, followed by the HPAU opinion dated 10 May 2016, which is then followed by the ARO decision provided on 11 May 2016. I will approach any discussion or analysis of the two contended conditions, being spinal disorder and right foot injury, on that basis.
The spinal disorder was regarded by the JCA, HPAU, ARO and AAT1 as fully diagnosed but not yet fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period, and on that basis, none of them allocated an impairment rating to it. Perhaps the most important report is the HPAU report of 10 May 2016, which, as I said, assessed the condition as not fully treated or stabilised. However, the HPAU reporter also noted that there was a great deal of uncertainty about the nature and the severity of the Applicant’s pain.
The HPAU thought that if the Applicant were to engage in a structured pain management and/or addiction medicine program, he could be reasonably expected to see significant increases in his ability to function in the next two years.
The Respondent submitted that there are a series of medical reports, or medical statements that indicate the Applicant required a referral to orthopaedic and pain management specialist clinic prior to and during the Relevant Period. The Respondent’s representative took me to the medical report of Dr Toe, general practitioner, in which Dr Toe said: “The applicant may need specialist or orthopaedic review.”[14]
[14] Exhibit 6, T-documents, T20, p 143.
The Respondent further referred me to the report of Dr Hall, general practitioner, dated 14 October 2014, where Dr Hall noted that the Applicant was “awaiting review with a pain specialist clinic, to review back pain”.[15] In addition to that I was referred to the telephone discussion between a HPAU assessor and Dr Boshoff on 24 March 2016. In that conversation Dr Boshoff confirmed the Applicant had been referred to a pain clinic to address both foot and back pain.[16] Finally, there was a further telephone discussion between the HPAU assessor and Dr Efimoff, who was the previous general practitioner or local medical officer of the Applicant. That telephone conversation occurred on 6 May 2016. Dr Efimoff confirmed to the HPAU report writer that he had referred the Applicant to the PA Hospital orthopaedic clinic. Dr Efimoff also told the HPAU report writer that he had no information as to whether or not the Applicant had made an effort to attend any appointment with the clinic or not.
[15] Exhibit 6, T-documents, T29, p 194.
[16] Exhibit 6, T40, p 304.
I therefore agree with the contention in relation to the spinal injury that there is simply no available evidence of the Applicant attending any orthopaedic or pain management programs for any effective period prior to or during the Relevant Period. Indeed it was not until 25 August 2016, being three months outside the Relevant period, that the Applicant did attend upon the Back Assessment Clinic at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.[17]
[17] See letter dated 13 September 2016, attached to Exhibit 1.
It is quite obvious from the letter attached to exhibit 1 that Mr Thompson (the PA Hospital Back Assessment Clinic) reviewed the Applicant and his medical history and formed the view that it was unlikely he would be considered a candidate for urgent surgical review. Instead Mr Thompson suggested the Applicant be referred for a course of extended physiotherapy and hydrotherapy, with a further suggestion for his general practitioner, Dr Boshoff, to consider a referral to a Persistent Pain Team.
In my view, there can be no doubt that this Applicant has a spinal disorder. What I cannot find for the purposes of this application for DSP is that given the ongoing nature of the treatment he is yet to undergo, and this is obvious from the abovementioned report from the Back Assessment Clinic of the PA Hospital in September 2016, those symptoms cannot possibly be regarded as fully treated and stabilised.
Therefore the correct contention is that with specialist review and pain management intervention there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's symptoms were unlikely during the Relevant Period to show significant improvement within two years. We simply do not know the answer to that because those interventions and that treatment has not been undergone or completed by the Applicant. I therefore allocate no impairment points to the spinal condition.
I will turn now to the right foot injury. The Applicant's evidence about this condition at the hearing was quite concerning. He told us in his usual frank way, that the right foot symptoms are getting worse. As I understood his evidence, the awful reality for this Applicant might be that some or part - I don't know quite how to phrase that - of his foot might have to be amputated, which in itself is a dreadfully unpleasant experience for this Applicant (or anyone) to undergo. But with regard to the right foot injury, I again arrive at the same conclusion: the HPAU, ARO and AAT1 all thought that it was not fully diagnosed, treated or stabilised during the Relevant Period and therefore could not allocate impairment points to it. In the HPAU opinion of 10 May 2016, the expert the assessed condition as not fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised on the basis that:
“… Mr Rossi has a complex presentation of chronic pain, alcohol and prescription analgesic abuse, and it remains unclear as to the exact nature and severity of his self-reported right foot symptoms and impairments.”[18]
[18] Exhibit 6, T44, p 319.
Confusingly, the report of Dr Boshoff, which is dated 2 December 2016, said that:
“His [the Applicant's] pain in his right foot is most likely a combination of his Radiculopathy and Metatarsalgitis and Morton's Neuroma.”[19]
[19] Exhibit 4, Attachment A, p 2.
I think it is very difficult for anyone to escape this conclusion: further investigations are still required to verify what Dr Boshoff has said on 2 December 2016.
As I have sought to make very clear to this Applicant through the hearing, no one is saying there is nothing wrong with him, particularly with regard to this right foot injury. However, it is not at all clear that the condition has been fully diagnosed, that it is fully treated, or that it has been fully stabilised. This is especially so in the dreadful circumstances described by the Applicant where he is talking about a possible amputation procedure. Obviously, if there is a possible amputation even spoken of by the treating doctors, it is very difficult for anyone to say that the condition is fully stabilised. Therefore in my view, the right foot injury is not fully diagnosed, and certainly not treated or stabilised. It therefore attracts no impairment rating.
The unfortunate reality of this application, and I repeat, this application, is that none of the Applicant's conditions were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, during the Relevant Period. Therefore, no impairment ratings could be assigned to any of them. On that basis the applicant cannot satisfy paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.
Additional observations
What I would like to talk about just briefly is this: when one has regard to the totality of both the expert evidence adduced, and anecdotal evidence of the Applicant, one clearly understands it is not of sufficient weight for this tribunal to award the Applicant any impairment points for his stated conditions. As he does not reach 20 points or more under the tables, he does not satisfy the second of the requirements for DSP, and he therefore does not qualify for DSP via this application. I will make these additional observations.
Firstly, I will respectfully repeat two things: (1) I think that this Applicant seems a sincere man with a notable list of ailments, (2) regard should be had to the court’s comments in the case of Bobera, that 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. Obviously, this Applicant has failed to reach 20 points or more via this application due to a dearth of medical evidence contemporaneous with or otherwise probative of his conditions during the relevant period. But some, or more, of his primarily contended conditions may well have worsened since the Relevant Period. Other ailments may well have manifested since the Relevant Period.
The totality of his current symptomatology, if properly analysed, reported upon and progressed through a fresh application for DSP, could conceivably result in a more favourable impairment rating. This may or may not result in a residual issue of any inability to work. It ultimately comes down to the Applicant's capacity to endure the requirements of a fresh application.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant does not qualify for DSP on this application because no impairment points could be allocated to his claimed conditions during the Relevant Period.
Accordingly, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member T. Tavoularis

.....................[sgd].......................
Associate
Dated: 13 July 2017

Date of hearing: Monday, 3 April 2017

Applicant: Self - by phone

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms C Campbell, DHS - FOI and Litigation Team

[2017] AATA 1096

3 April 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Standing

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Date of hearing:	Monday, 3 April 2017
Applicant:	Self - by phone
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms C Campbell, DHS - FOI and Litigation Team