SM and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 552
•5 August 2014
[2014] AATA 552
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2014/3561
Re
SM
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member J Toohey
Date 5 August 2014 Place Sydney The Tribunal refuses an extension of time for the Applicant to lodge an application for review.
.............................................
Senior Member J Toohey
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 35
Social Security Act 1991
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J Toohey
5 August 2014
SM applied for disability support pension (DSP) on 14 October 2013. Centrelink decided that she did not qualify for DSP.
On 8 May 2014 the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) affirmed Centrelink’s decision. SM received a copy of the SSAT’s decision on 19 May 2014. On 11 July 2014, she applied to this tribunal for review of the SSAT’s decision.
An application for review must be lodged with the Tribunal within 28 days after a person received the decision, meaning SM’s application should have been lodged by 16 June 2014. The Tribunal has discretion to extend the time for lodging an application if it is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
Dr RD, who is SM’s treating psychiatrist, has written to the Tribunal explaining why she was late in lodging her application. I accept what Dr RD says.
At a short hearing on 5 August 2014, I decided that SM should not be granted an extension of time because there was no prospect of her application being successful. These are my reasons.
To qualify for DSP, SM had to qualify on 14 October 2014 when she applied for it, or within the next 13 weeks, that is, by 12 January 2004. I will call this period “the relevant period”.
To qualify for DSP, SM had to have impairments rating at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables which are part of the Social Security Act 1991.
The condition for which Dr RDis treating SM was not fully treated and stabilised during the relevant period. That is because it was not until January 2014 that she started a program of treatment that included Dialectical Behavioural Therapy at a hospital. As SM had not yet started the program, her condition could not be considered fully treated and stabilised and so could not be given an impairment rating.
SM has a separate condition which Centrelink and the SSAT agree should be rated 10 points. However, that is not enough on its own to give her the 20 points necessary before she may qualify for DSP. It would serve no purpose to grant SM an extension of time because her application could not succeed.
SM has explained in writing and at the hearing this morning that she has a number of complaints about how Centrelink has treated her. I have explained to her that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is the appropriate place to make any complaints but that the Ombudsman cannot grant her a DSP.
SM has asked that some of the documents she provided to the Tribunal be returned to her and not kept on file. As they are part of the Tribunal’s records, I do not think the documents should be returned but I will make a confidentiality order under section 35 two of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 which means that no information about SM’s application can be disclosed.
12. I certify that the preceding 11 (eleven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Jill Toohey.
............................................
Associate
Dated 5 August 2014
Date(s) of hearing 5 August 2014 Representative for the Applicant Self-represented Representative for the Respondent Mr S Misrachi, Solicitor
0
0
0