Secretary, Department of Social Services and Keith Twentyman

[2015] AATA 198

[2015] AATA 198  

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number(s)	2013/6822
Re	Secretary, Department of Social Services
APPLICANT
And	Keith Twentyman
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President J W Constance
Date	31 March 2015
Place	Sydney

In accordance with section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth):

1.   the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, dated 5 December 2013, is set aside;

2. in substitution for the decision set aside, it is decided that Mr Twentyman did not meet the eligibility requirements contained in section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) for the payment of Disability Support Pension.

...........................[sgd].............................................

Deputy President J W Constance

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – bipolar disorder – whether impairment fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised – whether impairment could be rated twenty or more impairment points – decision set aside and substituted

Legislation

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) Sch 2 cl 4

Secondary Materials

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President J W Constance

31 March 2015

INTRODUCTION

1. Mr Twentyman lodged a claim for the Disability Support Pension on 7 January 2013. The accompanying Treating Doctor’s Report from Dr Selim, Mr Twentyman’s general practitioner, indicated that Mr Twentyman suffers from bipolar affective disorder.

2. On 5 December 2013, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Twentyman’s claim for Disability Support Pension. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal found that Mr Twentyman’s condition of bipolar affective disorder should be accorded an impairment rating of 20 points. It determined that he was eligible to receive Disability Support Pension.

3. The Secretary has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

4. The Secretary accepts that, for the purpose of determining Mr Twentyman’s entitlement to a pension, his condition of bipolar affective disorder qualifies as an impairment.  However, the Secretary denies that Mr Twentyman meets other eligibility criteria set out in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and in the relevant Ministerial Determinations.

5. For the reasons which follow, the decision will be set aside, and a decision substituted that Mr Twentyman was not qualified for the Disability Support Pension at the date of claim and within the thirteen weeks thereafter.

   LEGISLATION

6. To be entitled to the pension, Mr Twentyman must show that he met the eligibility requirements on the day he applied for the pension (7 January 2013) or within the 13 weeks immediately following that day.[1]  I will refer to this period as “the relevant period”.  It ended on 8 April 2013.

   [1] See s.42 and clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Administration Act.

7. Section 94(1) of the Act provides that to qualify for the pension:

   (a)a person must have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment, or impairments; and

   (b)the impairments must be rated at 20 points or more in accordance with the Impairment Tables; and

   (c)the person must have a continuing inability to work as defined in the Act.

   THE ISSUES

8. The Secretary accepts that Mr Twentyman suffers from bipolar affective disorder and that this qualifies as a psychiatric impairment. As such, the first issue for determination is whether Mr Twentyman’s condition can be accorded an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.  If so, it will be necessary to determine whether Mr Twentyman has a continuing inability to work.

   WHAT RATING IS APPLICABLE?

   The Impairment Tables

9. The Impairment Tables are found in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011.

10. The following subparagraphs of clause 6 are relevant in relation to the assessment of impairment ratings:

    Impairment ratings

    (3) An impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if:

    (a) the person’s condition causing that impairment is permanent; and

    Note: For permanent see subsection 6(4).

    (b) the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.

    Example: A condition may last for more than 2 years, but the impairment resulting from that condition may be assessed as likely to improve or cease within 2 years – if this is the case, an impairment rating under the Tables cannot be assigned to the impairment.

    Permanency of conditions

    (4) For the purposes of paragraph 6(3)(a) a condition is permanent if:

    (a) the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and

    (b) the condition has been fully treated; and

    Note: For fully diagnosed and fully treated see subsection 6(5).

    (c) the condition has been fully stabilised; and

    Note: For fully stabilised see subsection 6(6).

    (d) the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.

    Fully diagnosed and fully treated

    6(5) In determining whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether it has been fully treated for the purposes of paragraphs 6(4)(a) and (b), the following is to be considered:

    (a) whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and

    (b) what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and

    (c) whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.

    Fully stabilised

    (6) For the purposes of paragraph 6(4)(c) and subsection 11(4) 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.

    Note: For reasonable treatment see subsection 6(7).

    Reasonable treatment

    (7) For the purposes of subsection 6(6), reasonable treatment is treatment that:

    (a) is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; and

    (b) is at a reasonable cost; and

    (c) can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity; and

    (d) is regularly undertaken or performed; and

    (e) has a high success rate; and

    (f) carries a low risk to the person.

    Was Mr Twentyman’s condition fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised?

11. The Secretary accepts that Mr Twentyman’s condition of bipolar affective disorder was fully diagnosed. Nonetheless, it is submitted on behalf of the Secretary that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the condition was fully treated and stabilised.

    Dr Ali, Psychiatrist

12. The Tribunal has before it a number of reports from Dr Ali, Mr Twentyman’s treating psychiatrist. Dr Ali gave evidence at the hearing.

13. Dr Ali first saw Mr Twentyman in about March 2000. He reported on 4 August 2000,[2] that Mr Twentyman gave a four year history of psychotic symptoms including admissions to Rozelle Hospital. He had seen his general practitioner regularly, and by the time he saw Dr Ali, “was already on medication and some of his symptoms were under control”. Dr Ali provided a diagnosis of bi-polar disorder.

    [2] Exhibit R3.

14. There is a gap in the reports of Dr Ali from 2000 to 2013. It is not clear on the evidence exactly how many times Mr Twentyman has attended on Dr Ali. Dr Ali stated in evidence that he believes he saw Mr Twentyman again in 2011. I find that Dr Ali was mistaken in this respect. He indicated in his report dated 27 February 2014[3] that after having seen Mr Twentyman “around 15 years ago”, Mr Twentyman “started coming to see [Dr Ali] again on a regular basis in 2013” on referral from his GP. There are no records indicating that Mr Twentyman attended on Dr Ali before 2013. I accept that he did not see Dr Ali from at least 2001 through to 2013.

    [3] Exhibit R1.

15. In his Treating Doctor’s Report dated 8 May 2013,[4] Dr Ali reported that Mr Twentyman was being treated with Quilonum SR, which contains Lithium. He noted that Mr Twentyman had been treated with antipsychotic and anti-depressant medication prescribed by himself and Mr Twentyman’s general practitioner over the past 12 years. He stated that Mr Twentyman will be on medication indefinitely and that the functional impact of his condition was expected to “remain unchanged” over the following two years.

    [4] Exhibit R2.

16. In a further report dated 27 February 2014, written for the purpose of these proceedings, Dr Ali stated with respect to Mr Twentyman’s treatment:

    Mr Twentyman has needed anti depressant and antipsychotic medication in the past but he has to be on Lithium tablets continuously,

    ...

    With regard to the overall prognosis as bipolar disorder is a chronic condition he will always be on medication he has to be continuously on Lithium and he will still have minor mood swings for which he will need anti anxiety and anti depressant or anti psychotic medication as necessary.[5]

    [5] Exhibit R1.

    Dr Selim, General Practitioner

17. The Tribunal also has before it a number of records and reports from Dr Selim, Mr Twentyman’s general practitioner.

18. In his Treating Doctor’s Report dated 7 January 2013,[6] Dr Selim diagnosed Mr Twentyman with bipolar affective disorder. He noted that he had been treating Mr Twentyman since 11 August 2003 and that Mr Twentyman had a “long history of drug abuse, psychotic problems”. He stated that Mr Twentyman was currently being treated through the prescription of lithium tablets, and that this was consistent with past treatment. Dr Selim recorded in his report that the functional impact of Mr Twentyman’s condition was likely to persist for over two years. The expected progression of the condition over that time, as well as Mr Twentyman’s compliance with treatment, was “uncertain”.

    [6] Exhibit A1, p. 132.

19. Records from Dr Selim’s practice indicate that during the period October 2012 to April 2014,[7] Mr Twentyman had been prescribed anti-depressants. He was prescribed valium in October 2012 (and again in 2014), and Quinlonum SR on 8 February 2013. 

    [7] Exhibit A1, Supplementary T-documents, p. 51.

20. These prescriptions are confirmed in Medicare records.[8] Mr Twentyman has also been prescribed diazepam, an anti-anxiety medication, by Dr Giurgius on two occasions in 2012 and 2014. Review of the medical records produced by Dr Selim, indicates that Dr Giurgius is a general practitioner in the same practice as Dr Selim.

    [8] Exhibit A1, Supplementary T-documents, p. 74

    Consideration

21. It is clear from the clinical records, and those produced by Medicare, that Mr Twentyman has been prescribed a number of psychiatric medications from at least mid-2012 through the relevant period.

22. The evidence indicates that the treatment of Mr Twentyman’s condition with medication has been long term. Such treatment is also expected to continue over the next two years.

23. The Secretary, however, submits that it is not clear whether treatment options other than medication have been explored with Mr Twentyman and that this militates against a finding that Mr Twentyman’s condition was fully diagnosed and stabilised. Furthermore, there is uncertainty as to how often Mr Twentyman has attended upon his psychiatrist, Dr Ali. The Secretary also questioned the extent to which Mr Twentyman’s drug use was factored into considerations of his treatment.

24. I have found that Mr Twentyman recommenced his attendance on Dr Ali in 2013. Mr Twentyman’s Medicare records indicate that, since 1 January 2011, his first attendance on Dr Ali was on 8 February 2013. Although there is a substantial gap in consultations prior to 2013, this is not fatal to Mr Twentyman’s claim.

25. Mr Twentyman’s drug use does not affect my assessment of whether his condition was fully diagnosed and stabilised. Although Dr Ali was not aware of Mr Twentyman’s heroin use, he was aware of Mr Twentyman’s use of two other significant mood-altering drugs. The Applicant’s general practitioner, Dr Selim, reported on 7 January 2013 that Mr Twentyman had a “long history of drug abuse”.[9] His current symptoms were reported to include “drug dependency”.  Both Dr Ali and Dr Selim have also had the benefit of observing Mr Twentyman on a number of occasions over an extended period. For these reasons, I have no reason to doubt that Mr Twentyman’s drug use has been adequately taken into account by both doctors in their diagnosis and treatment of Mr Twentyman.

    [9] Exhibit A1, p. 132.

26. Mr Twentyman’s entitlement to the Disability Support Pension must be assessed at the date of claim or within the 13 week period thereafter. Although he was not given psychological treatment, Mr Twentyman had resumed taking medication under the supervision of Dr Ali. This was a similar course of treatment to that provided to Mr Twentyman in 2000 and a continuation of that prescribed by Mr Twentyman’s treating practitioners in 2012. Considering the long-standing nature of Mr Twentyman’s treatment, the fact that Mr Twentyman resumed seeing his psychiatrist, and that that psychiatrist saw it fit to continue Mr Twentyman on his previous regime, it is my view that his mental health condition was fully treated during the relevant period.

27. Turning to whether Mr Twentyman’s condition can be considered fully stabilised during the relevant period, the medical evidence suggests that Mr Twentyman’s condition was not likely to improve over the following two years. Although Mr Twentyman had not seen his psychiatrist in some years prior to the relevant period, after referral by his general practitioner, Dr Ali continued Mr Twentyman on his previous medication. I find that by this point, Mr Twentyman had undergone reasonable treatment in the form of medication. I accept also that it was not likely to lead to an improvement in his condition over the following two years. This is particularly so considering the long-standing nature of Mr Twentyman’s condition and his treatment. In my view, his condition was fully stabilised during the relevant period.

    The Impairment Rating

28. As I have found that Mr Twentyman’s bipolar disorder was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the relevant period, it is necessary to consider what rating should be afforded to this impairment under the Impairment Tables.

29. The relevant Table is Table 5- Mental Health Function. This Table provides in part:

    10 points - There is a moderate functional impact on activities involving mental health function.

    (1) 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 points - 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.

30. Mr Twentyman maintains that his impairment should be awarded 20 points under this table. The Secretary argues that Mr Twentyman’s impairment produces a moderate functional impact and 10 impairment points is the appropriate rating. An impairment rating of 15 cannot be given.[10] Clause 11 of the Determination makes it clear that where an impairment falls between two ratings, it is the lowest rating which is to be preferred.

    [10] Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, Clause 11(1)(b)

31. The Tables refer to difficulties with most of the factors listed. In determining which rating should be assigned to Mr Twentyman’s impairment, it will be necessary to consider each factor in turn.

    Self-Care and Independent Living

32. Mr Twentyman stated in evidence that he was able to get out of bed, dress and feed himself. He does not want to go shopping and so would often attend the local hamburger shop to get food. Occasionally, his friends would help Mr Twentyman carry the food home.

33. Mr Twentyman pays rent and makes appointments to attend doctors himself. He sometimes fails to show up to these appointments on account of forgetting the date.

34. In a report dated 27 February 2014,[11] Dr Ali stated that Mr Twentyman’s bipolar disorder has a severe functional impact on his capacity for self-care. He stated that “because of his mood swings and chronic condition he will always find difficulty in self care and there will be periods when he will not be able to look after himself”.

    [11] Exhibit R1.

35. Dr Ali, however, agreed at the hearing that this description is consistent with a moderate functional impact and the example given in the Table for the assignment of 10 impairment points. His assessment was not that Mr Twentyman needed someone to attend his premises to care for him a couple of times a week, but that in most circumstances Mr Twentyman was capable of self-care.

36. Taking this into account, I am satisfied that Mr Twentyman’s bipolar disorder had a moderate functional impact on his capacity for self-care and independent living.

    Social/Recreational Activities and Travel

1. Dr Ali similarly agreed in cross-examination that the description provided in his report dated 27 February 2014, with respect to this part of the Table, was more consistent with a moderate as opposed to severe impairment. He stated in that report that Mr Twentyman:

   ... will have severe difficulties in social and recreational activities he has a tendency to mood swings and he will not be able to carry on these social activities on a regular basis.[12]

   [12] Exhibit R1.

2. Mr Twentyman travels to Thailand regularly. Immigration records revealed that he took a 10 day overseas trip during the relevant period.[13] Mr Twentyman gave evidence that during this trip he stayed at a friend’s place in Thailand. He travelled to Thailand alone, and caught a taxi from the airport to his accommodation. Mr Twentyman does speak some Thai, although not fluently. He enjoys travelling to Thailand as food is cheaper, he does not need to pay rent and the atmosphere and culture help him to relax.

   [13] Exhibit A1, Supplementary T-documents, p. 76.

3. Mr Twentyman has a few friends. They sometimes assisted him with money for food and he lived with one friend for almost two years prior to the relevant period. He does not like using public transport, but is able to if needed.

4. I accept Dr Ali’s evidence that Mr Twentyman cannot involve himself in social events on a regular basis. However, this is consistent with the descriptor of a moderate impairment. Mr Twentyman’s capacity to travel overseas regularly is also indicative of someone who does not have a severe impairment. I accept that Thailand is a relatively familiar place to Mr Twentyman and he enjoys travelling there. Nonetheless, his capacity to engage with strangers in an overseas environment, and in another language, suggests a capacity to travel in unfamiliar areas. In my view, Mr Twentyman’s bipolar disorder had a moderate functional impact with respect to social and recreational activities, and travel.

   Interpersonal relationships

5. For similar reasons, it is my opinion that Mr Twentyman’s mental health condition had a moderate functional impact with respect to interpersonal relationships.

6. Dr Ali reported that Mr Twentyman:

   ... has severe difficulties in this area, he has limited social contacts at the moment and as a result of his mood swings he has a tendency to become irritable and angry easily and this will always affect his relationship with others and he will have very few friends.[14]

   [14] Exhibit R1.

7. Dr Ali again admitted in cross-examination that this description was more along the lines of a moderate functional impact. Mr Twentyman does have difficulties sustaining relationships, but it is clear that Mr Twentyman had a support network consisting of a few friends during the relevant period. I accept also that he socialised infrequently. This, as agreed to by Dr Ali, does not equate to a severe impairment. I am satisfied that his impairment had a moderate functional impact in this regard.

   Concentration and task completion

8. When he gave evidence, Dr Ali was of the view that Mr Twentyman’s condition produced a severe functional impact with respect to his capacity for concentration and task completion. He confirmed his opinion that “... he will not be able to do any tasks for more than 10 minutes[;] this is as a result of his illness plus the medication he will always be on”.[15]

   [15] Exhibit R1.

9. This is largely consistent with Dr Ali’s Treating Doctor’s report dated 8 May 2013. He indicated, when asked to list the impacts of the condition on Mr Twentyman’s ability to function, that the condition resulted in an inability to concentrate. Mr Twentyman’s general practitioner, Dr Selim, also reported on 7 January 2013, that the condition left Mr Twentyman “unable to concentrate”.[16]

   [16] Exhibit A1, p.133.

10. Counsel for the Secretary submitted that Mr Twentyman’s capacity to complete tasks such as book travel, and make and attend appointments suggests that he is an individual with a moderate level of impairment. The Secretary also put that Mr Twentyman’s drug use may produce a more severe impairment.

11. I note that Mr Twentyman has a capacity to book flights and organise overseas travel. He also makes appointments to see medical practitioners. During the relevant period, Mr Twentyman was also capable of participating in a job capacity assessment at Centrelink. The assessor, Mr Toh, stated in evidence that this assessment took about 25 minutes. He reported on 17 January 2013 that Mr Twentyman “appeared to be agitated on a few occasions during the interview”.[17] On the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that Mr Twentyman had difficulty concentrating on any task or conversation for more than 10 minutes. His evident capacity to manage his own life and make arrangements would suggest otherwise. I am satisfied, however, that he did have some difficulty. This more properly equates to a moderate level of impairment.

    [17] Exhibit A1, p.140.

    Behaviour, planning and decision-making

12. Mr Twentyman has a demonstrated capacity to organise international travel.

13. I accept Dr Ali’s opinion to the extent that Mr Twentyman’s behaviour is erratic. Dr Ali suggested in evidence however that Mr Twentyman’s behaviour and though processes were significantly and frequently disturbed. He said that Mr Twentyman’s condition fluctuates. At times Mr Twentyman is capable of making arrangements like that for international travel, but at other times he is considerably worse.

14. The effect of Mr Twentyman’s bipolar disorder, however, must be assessed looking at its overall functional impact and not solely from the perspective of the condition at its worst. Clause 11(4) of the Determination provides:

    (4)When assessing impairments caused by conditions that have stabilised as episodic or fluctuating a rating must be assigned, which reflects the overall functional impact of those impairments, taking into account the severity, duration and frequency of the episodes or fluctuations as appropriate.

15. Mr Twentyman has consistently shown a capacity to make arrangements for international travel on a regular basis prior to and during the relevant period. This is not consistent with an individual whose thoughts and behaviour are significantly and frequently disturbed. I accept though that Mr Twentyman had behavioural and mood difficulties during the relevant period. Looking at his overall condition, it is my view that Mr Twentyman’s bipolar disorder produced a moderate functional impact with respect to behaviour, planning and decision making.

    Work/training capacity

16. In his report dated 27 February 2014, Dr Ali stated that Mr Twentyman will not be able to train for work on account of his mood swings and the side effects of his medication. Dr Ali accepted in evidence that it was possible that Mr Twentyman’s lack of education and use of drugs interacted with his mental health condition to exacerbate its impact on his capacity to work or train.

17. Mr Twentyman is currently unemployed and has been for some time. I am not satisfied that, on account of his condition alone, Mr Twentyman would have been unable to attend work or training on a regular basis over an extended period. Certainly his poor concentration would make work difficult. Nonetheless, there is not enough evidence before me to say that his condition during the relevant period would have prevented him from attending work regularly. It is highly likely that fluctuations in his behaviour, as noted by Dr Ali, would have led to conflicts in the workplace. This equates to a moderate functional impact.

    Conclusion with respect to the level of impairment

18. In order for Mr Twentyman’s condition of bipolar disorder to be accorded an impairment rating of 20 points, the condition must have a severe functional impact. This requires the condition to produce severe difficulties with respect to most of the factors considered above.

19. In accordance with my findings above, Mr Twentyman’s mental health condition produced moderate difficulties with respect to most of the factors. For this reason, the condition can only be accorded a rating of 10 impairment points. As this is the only impairment for which there is corroborating evidence, Mr Twentyman does not satisfy subsection 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

    Matters related to the conduct of the hearing

20. Having heard the evidence, and been told that he would be given an opportunity to address me at the hearing with respect to his claim for Disability Support Pension, Mr Twentyman decided to leave the hearing at the commencement of the Secretary’s submissions. I proceeded to hear those submissions in the absence of Mr Twentyman. In order to ensure Mr Twentyman was afforded a proper opportunity to respond, the Tribunal sent Mr Twentyman a copy of the transcript of the Secretary’s submissions along with the Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions on 25 November 2014.

21. Mr Twentyman was directed to provide a written statement in response to the Secretary’s submissions, if he so wished, by 10 December 2014. He was subsequently granted an extension to 19 December 2014 in order to provide any such submissions. On that date, Mr Twentyman requested a further three months in order to file his submissions.

22. I convened a directions hearing to discuss Mr Twentyman’s request on 27 January 2015. At that date, Mr Twentyman had not provided any further material. After hearing from both parties, Mr Twentyman’s request for a further three months to file his submissions was refused.

    CONCLUSION

23. The decision to grant Mr Twentyman the Disability Support Pension will be set aside. A decision will be substituted that, as at the relevant period, Mr Twentyman’s conditions did not satisfy the legislative requirement that they be rated at 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables.

24. It should be noted that this decision does not prevent Mr Twentyman making a further application for Disability Support Pension.

I certify that the preceding 60 (sixty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance

..............................[sgd]..........................................

Associate

Dated 31 March 2015

Date(s) of hearing	17 November 2014
Date final submissions received	17 November 2014
Counsel for the Applicant	B Tronson
Solicitors for the Applicant	B Dean; Australian Government Solicitor
Respondent	In person