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

Sneyd; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 2117 (19 April 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/4556
Re:Secretary, Department of Social Services
APPLICANT

AndMark Sneyd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member I Thompson
Date:19 April 2021
Place:Adelaide

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................[Sgnd]................................................
Member I Thompson
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – whether medical conditions diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the qualification period – whether an impairment rating of 20 points or more existed under the Impairment Tables – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member I Thompson
19 April 2021

The Respondent, Mr Mark Sneyd, lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (“DSP”) on 21 January 2019 which was rejected. Mr Sneyd requested a review of that decision. An Authorised Review Officer of Services Australia affirmed the decision. Mr Sneyd requested a review by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT1”). The decision under review was set aside. Subsequently, the Applicant, the Secretary, Department of Social Services applied to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a second review.
The hearing took place on 7 April 2021. Mr Sneyd attended the hearing and represented himself and Mr Visser represented the Secretary.
Mr Sneyd gave oral evidence. The Tribunal also received in evidence the documents lodged in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, together with various medical reports and other documents. [1]
[1] Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4
Mr Sneyd is now 39 years old. In his claim for DSP, Mr Sneyd listed his disabilities as including a back injury which required three operations, frequent and recurrent back pain, and depression.[2] He wrote that he had received treatment by a neurosurgeon and a general medical practitioner, and trialled multiple medications, psychotherapy and physiotherapy.
[2] Exhibit 3, p 132
LEGISLATION AND ISSUES
Section 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) provides that a person is qualified for DSP if the person has one or more physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments which attract a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and has a continuing inability to work. The impairment must be present at the time of the claim or within the following 13 weeks (“the qualification period”), as specified by the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The Impairment Tables are contained in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (“the Impairment Tables”). The qualification period in this case is 21 January 2019 to 22 April 2019.
Further, s 94 of the Act requires that a person has a continuing inability to work which will be satisfied if:
(1)They have an inability to work due to their accepted impairments for 15 hours or more a week, or undertake a training activity within the next two years; and
(2)They have actively participated in a “program of support”.
The second requirement is not necessary if a person has a “severe impairment”, whereby they are assigned 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table.
Accordingly, Mr Sneyd will qualify for the DSP if the Tribunal is satisfied that he has one or more physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments, that the impairment is rated at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and that he has a continuing inability to work.
In their Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the Secretary:
·accepts that Mr Sneyd suffers impairments arising from a spinal condition and a mental health condition and therefore satisfies s 94(1)(a) of the Act;
·accepts that Mr Sneyd’s spinal condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised in the qualification period with a rating of 10 points under Impairment Table 4;
·contends that Mr Sneyd does not have a mental health condition that was fully diagnosed in the qualification period and no impairment points can be assigned;
·contends that without an impairment rating of at least 20 points, Mr Sneyd did not qualify for the DSP during the qualification period; and
·seeks an order setting aside the decision under review and substituting a decision that Mr Sneyd was not qualified for the DSP at the date of the claim. [3]
[3] Exhibit 1
The AAT 1 assigned a rating of 20 points under Impairment Table 4 upon finding a severe functional impact on activities involving Mr Sneyd’s spinal function, with a continuing inability to work.
The Secretary correctly identified the central issue in this review as being the correct rating for Mr Sneyd’s spinal impairment under the Impairment Tables. The Secretary contends that the rating is 10 points under Impairment Table 4.
IMPAIRMENT TABLES
The Impairment Tables provide the mechanism by which to assign ratings for the level of functional impact of impairment. They are based on function rather than diagnosis and they describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms, and limitations.
Section 6 of the Impairment Tables sets out rules for applying the Impairment Tables and states that an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the person’s condition causing that impairment is permanent and the impairment results from a condition that is more likely than not to persist for more than two years.
The Impairment Tables provide that a condition is permanent if it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised. The functional capacity, which is rated under the Impairment Tables, concerns the question of an individual’s capacity to work.
Section 6(5) of the Impairment Tables provides that a decision of whether a condition is fully diagnosed and fully treated requires consideration of corroborating evidence of the condition, the treatment or rehabilitation that the person has had for the condition, and whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years.
Section 6(6) of the Impairment Tables states, in part, that a condition is fully stabilised when a person has undertaken reasonable treatment and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level which would enable the person to undertake work in the next two years.
EVIDENCE
Mr Sneyd attended the hearing in person and gave his evidence quietly ,thoughtfully and honestly. He injured his back in 2012 at work. Prior to the injury he had worked continuously as a carpenter for approximately 12 years. Unfortunately he has not resumed that work. In the years following the injury he participated in a return to work program, work experience and he studied for and obtained a certificate qualification in mental health. He has been unable to work since 2014 because of issues related to his back condition.
Dr Zacest is a consultant neurosurgeon and a clinical Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide. He treated Mr Sneyd for back pain and two disc herniations. In a report dated 6 March 2017, Dr Zacest confirmed that Mr Sneyd had undergone spinal surgery for disc herniations at L3/4 and L4/5, noting that:
“these have all initially helped him very well and he had relief of symptoms for the last six months after the last surgery. His ongoing problems now have become lower back pain and bilateral leg symptoms. He said that the only thing that provides him relief is rest. He has increased his weight, stopped swimming and has tried Lyrica and Norgesic without much benefit… I do not think any further surgical intervention is likely to be helpful for him and the mainstay of his treatment is really going to be pain management and physical therapy approach.” [4]
[4] Exhibit 3 p 268
A medical imaging report dated 3 September 2020 showed evidence of previous L3/4 and L4/5 laminectomy surgery. There was evidence of moderate, generalised disc bulge at L3/4 and mild bilateral neural foraminal stenosis (right greater than left). At L 4/5 the report noted mild generalised disc bulge and mild bilateral neural foraminal stenosis (right greater than left). There was mild bilateral facet degenerative change. At L5/S1 there was mild generalised disc bulge, mild to moderate left neural foraminal stenosis and mild bilateral facet degenerative change.[5]
[5] Exhibit 2 p 42
Mr Sneyd’s general medical practitioner, Dr Cheng, wrote on 23 November 2016 that Mr Sneyd reports “frequent flareup of lower back with minimal exertion, e.g., minimal house work can aggravate low back pain requiring bed rest for two days to recover.” [6] Dr Cheng noted on 12 April 2017 that Mr Sneyd’s low back pain, with radiation to the lower leg, occurs without apparent aggravating factors.[7] Similarly Dr Cheng noted on 11 May 2017 that his flareups in back pain are recurrent and occur without any trigger.[8] In certificates completed between November 2018 and May 2020 Dr Cheng recorded recurrent back pain and flareup of back pain which Mr Sneyd was experiencing with minimal exertion.
[6] Exhibit 2 p 162
[7] Exhibit 2 p 166
[8] Exhibit 2 p 167
Mr Sneyd has been a patient of Dr Cheng for approximately 10 years. Numerous reports, records, letters, certificates and notes which Dr Cheng compiled during that time were included in the documentary evidence. They provide a long-term overview of Mr Sneyd’s treatment in addition to details about referrals which Dr Cheng made and the progress and outcome of those referrals. They provide information about the medication which was prescribed from time to time and the effects of the medication. They record and attribute to Mr Sneyd comments which he made about his impairments and the effects which they had. They provide a useful insight into the fluctuations in his condition. As examples:
“19 March 2015 – back pain acutely worsened in last week – did not injury or done anything physical, now pain in both legs, especially on right leg”[9]
“16 August 2016 – back flares up with minimal exertion, seen physio in past, advised some stretching exercise but no further treatment for now.”[10]
“12 December 2016 – Mark feels that he is ready to restart work when right one comes along. Feels well mentally. Aware of limitations with back. Walking a lot with dog, trying to get fit again[11]”
“11 May 2017 – was doing well, last week woke up with severe pain in lumbar spine, no trigger, had to sleep for three days, now settled”[12]
“13 February 2018 – struggling with recurrent back pain with minimal exertion, about two weeks now noticing pain in both legs, started when pushing a heavy bin out and twisted. Only had two good months until end of November, applying for jobs even, better in a weeks time already but still sore down in both legs, very keen to return to work but knows in past that can’t push too hard, doing hydrotherapy once a week – I encouraged to do twice a week at least.”[13]
“19 May 2018 – suffering from recurrent back pain with minimal exertion, was doing well on Efexor and Lyrica but ran out and since then been lying down flat most of the day and night in bed.”[14]
“18 December 2019 – doing well, walks about an hour a day, feeling great in himself”[15]
“19 May 2020 – lumbar spine pain flares up easily with minimal exertion. Most recent episode happened only when turned over in bed. Now settled. Walks with sons most days, some days twice a day. Feels better when walking/exercising. Has seen physio in past but usually feeling worse after treatment – discussed with Mark that he needs to restart physio.”[16]
[9] Exhibit 2 p 73
[10] Exhibit 2 p 66
[11] Exhibit 2 p 64
[12] Exhibit 2 p 60
[13] Exhibit 2 p 58
[14] Exhibit 2 p 57
[15] Exhibit 2 p 50
[16] Exhibit 2 p 47
In a letter dated 9 June 2020 Dr Cheng noted that Mr Sneyd suffers from a long term lumbar spine injury with “recurrent low back pain with minimal trigger.” Dr Cheng also suggested that Mr Sneyd is likely to be “susceptible to flare ups over time requiring prolonged resting and medications.”[17]
[17] Exhibit 3 p 339
The neurosurgeon, Dr Zacest, saw Mr Sneyd recently and provided a report dated 8 September 2020 in which he noted that Mr Sneyd’s main complaint continues to be flare-ups of back pain, and on occasion, some pain in the right hamstring. On examination Dr Zacest noted that there was a well healed lumbar scar, and an area of tenderness on the right of the thoracolumbar junction, as well as the lumbar region. Dr Zacest confirmed that Mr Sneyd does not require further spine surgery and he concluded that Mr Sneyd’s problem “is mainly chronic back pain and intermittent leg symptoms”, for which he recommended “optimisation of his pain management and physical therapy approach”. He further stated:
“For muscle spasm, he could try baclofen 10 mg twice a day rather than Valium which has more cognitive side effects. Anti- inflammatory or Panadol would be reasonable. He needs to work with a physiotherapist who can give him advice on a pain management strategy to help him with pain flareups which needs to be proactive.”[18]
[18] Exhibit 2 p 34
The Secretary arranged an independent medical assessment of Mr Sneyd by an occupational physician, Dr Tschirn. The assessment took place on 20 October 2020 and Dr Tschirn provided a comprehensive report which included his findings on physical examination, a review of medical reports and associated correspondence with which he had been provided, together with his opinion about Mr Sneyd’s condition and its functional impact.[19]
[19] Exhibit 4
Dr Tschirn concluded that Mr Sneyd has chronic low back pain which is fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised.
Dr Tschirn noted that the medical history seemed to indicate that Mr Sneyd had recovered well following the operation in 2015 but subsequently his condition had regressed from time to time. There appeared to have been a deterioration in the 12 months prior to Dr Tschirn’s examination without clarity about the reasons for it. With regard to treatment, Dr Tschirn reported that an assessment by a pain clinic would not result in improvement or resolution of Mr Sneyd’s symptoms, however it may assist with advice and guidance about managing those symptoms.
Dr Tschirn wrote that Mr Sneyd’s back condition is “variable in intensity over time, deteriorated in latter part of 2019, reason unclear. Seems to have remained unchanged for several months.”[20]
[20] Exhibit 4 p 9
CONSIDERATION
The principle, that medical reports that come into being after the qualification period are only relevant to the extent that they provide evidence as to Mr Sneyd’s condition during the qualification period, is now well-established in several decisions of the Tribunal and the Federal Court.
Impairment Table 4 – Spinal Function, is used where a person has a permanent condition which has a functional impairment in the performance of activities involving spinal function, namely, bending or turning the back, trunk or neck. The diagnosis must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner.
A moderate functional impact on activities involving spinal function attracts 10 points as set out in Table 4 as follows:

Points

Descriptors

10

There is a moderate functional impact on activities involving spinal function.

(1) The person is able to sit in or drive a car for at least 30 minutes, and at least one of the following:

(a)    the person is unable to sustain overhead activities (e.g. accessing items over head height); or

(b)    the person has difficulty moving their head to look in all directions (e.g. turning their head to look over their shoulder); or

(c)    the person is unable to bend forward to pick up a light object placed at knee height; or

(d)    the person needs assistance to get up out of a chair (if not independently mobile in a wheelchair).

A severe functional impact on activities involving spinal function attract 20 points as set out in Impairment Table 4 as follows:

Points

Descriptors

20

There is a severe functional impact on activities involving spinal function.

(1) The person is unable to:

(a)    perform any overhead activities; or

(b)    turn their head, or bend their neck, without moving their trunk; or

(c)    bend forward to pick up a light object from a desk or table; or

(d)    remain seated for at least 10 minutes.

In his report, Dr Tschirn summarised responses which Mr Sneyd gave to him concerning the impact of his back condition on activities of daily living. Broadly, Mr Sneyd agreed that the report had recorded those comments accurately in relation to varying degrees of difficulty that he has with activities including self-care, preparation of meals, moving in and out of home, driving and shopping.
A job capacity assessment report (JCA) dated 16 March 2020 also summarised comments which Mr Sneyd made in interview with the assessor in relation to the functional impact of the spinal condition at that time.[21] In evidence Mr Sneyd agreed that his remarks were recorded accurately in the report.
[21] Exhibit 3 p 177 - 183
The AAT1 assigned a rating of 20 points for a severe functional impact and found that the descriptor (d) – inability to remain seated for at least 10 minutes – applied.
In this review the provisions in ss 11(3) and (4) of the Rules for applying the Impairment Tables are of particular relevance.
Section 11 (3) states:
“Descriptors involving performing activities
when determining whether a descriptor applies that involves a person performing an activity, the descriptor applies if that person can do the activity normally and on a repetitive or habitual basis and not only once or rarely”
Section 11 (4) states:
“Episodic and fluctuating conditions
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.”
Dr Tschirn commented on the variability and fluctuation in Mr Sneyd’s spinal condition as follows: “it is clear from the evidence that Mr Sneyd’s symptoms have varied significantly over a period of several years. When he is having a flareup his functional ability is severely curtailed and in my opinion falls at the lowest end of his functional range.”[22] Dr Tschirn also considered that there were other times when Mr Sneyd was coping better and as an example, in late 2019 he was walking for about an hour and feeling better physically and enjoying the activity.
[22] Exhibit 4
The medical evidence and Mr Sneyd’s evidence confirms that the impact of his spinal condition has fluctuated for several years which includes the time in early 2019 when he made the DSP claim. The Tribunal is satisfied that the spinal condition was stabilised during the qualification period with impairments that were episodic. They fluctuated in severity and duration and might occur without a discernible cause. The impact was severe with adverse effects on walking, aspects of self-care such as dressing and requiring relief by resting completely for several days.
The evidence does not support a finding that Mr Sneyd meets the descriptors in (a) (b) and (c) for a severe functional impact. The evidence does suggest that he has difficulty with the activities specified in those descriptors. The extent of the difficulty depends upon the severity and duration of the of the back pain during a flareup. At its worst the impact actually restricts him completely in those types of activities because he is unable to do anything other than lie down. At times when he is not enduring a flareup, he has some difficulty with bending, turning his head, picking up and carrying shopping bags, putting things away in cupboards. However those difficulties do not extend to the point of preventing him from carrying out the activities in their entirety.

Somewhat different, however, is the situation with descriptor (d) – inability to remain seated for at least 10 minutes. Dr Tschirn recorded Mr Sneyd’s comment about tolerance for sitting as “he rates it as about 10 minutes due to back pain and says that sitting is the most provocative activity.”[23] Dr Tschirn found an inconsistency between tolerance for sitting around 10 minutes compared with apparent ability to sit in a car for a longer period such as 25 minutes, as mentioned in the JCA report. Dr Tschirn concluded that an average tolerance lies somewhere in the range of 10 to 30 minutes. That raised the question whether the impairment falls between a moderate and a severe level, that is between 10 and 20 points; and if it does, then the lower of the two ratings should be assigned.[24]
[23] Ibid
[24] Rules for applying the Impairment Tables, s 11(1)(c)
Dr Cheng wrote in her report dated 9 June 2020 that Mr Sneyd is not able to remain seated for at least 10 minutes.[25] Mr Sneyd gave evidence about driving a car. The occasions when he drives or is a passenger in a car are generally limited to local trips to his children’s school and to the supermarket. The clear impression from all of the evidence is that Mr Sneyd is not actively participating in the community in any way at all, least of all driving in a car, and when he is away from home it is generally when he goes out for walks either alone or with his children.
[25] Exhibit 2 p 199
Weighing up all of the matters referred to above, the Tribunal draws the conclusion that Mr Sneyd meets the descriptor (d) as he is unable to remain seated for at least 10 minutes because of the pain and the effects of his spinal condition. Indeed, it appears that he is most content and in the least amount of pain when he is upright and walking. He is unable to remain seated at all when his back pain is acutely severe during a flareup as he has to lie down for considerable length of time. The episodic aggravations are frequent, unpredictable, lengthy and difficult to endure. In the assessment of the overall functional impact of the impairment during the qualification period the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a severe functional impact for Mr Sneyd on activities involving spinal function and the applicable impairment rating is 20 points.
Impairment Table 5 provides the descriptors relating to functional impairment due to a mental health condition, which includes recurrent episodes of mental health impairment. The introduction to Table 5 also indicates that the signs and symptoms of mental health impairment can vary over time and for mental health conditions that are episodic, the rating that best reflects the persons overall functional ability is appropriate. It is necessary to have regard to the severity, duration and frequency of the episodes or fluctuations.
Impairment Table 5 specifies that the diagnosis of a mental health condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (this includes a psychiatrist) with evidence from a clinical psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).
Mr Sneyd’s general medical practitioner, Dr Cheng, recorded a diagnosis of depression in numerous medical certificates.[26] She also wrote in her letter dated 9 June 2020 that Mr Sneyd has suffered from depression since 2012 following his back injury together with adverse impacts to his mental health associated with stressors within his family.[27] Anti-depressant medication has been prescribed on occasions. Dr Tschirn commented on Mr Sneyd’s apparent comorbid depression which he described as significant, not fully diagnosed or treated and likely to affect his work capacity in the future.[28]
[26] Exhibit 3 p 44ff
[27] Exhibit 2 p 199
[28] Exhibit 4
The Secretary contends correctly that Mr Sneyd does not have a diagnosis of a mental health condition which is made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner. Dr Tschirn is an occupational physician and observations that he made about mental health did not purport to be anything other than an observations. Dr Cheng is a general medical practitioner. There is no evidence of diagnosis of a mental health condition made by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist. Accordingly impairment points cannot be assigned for a mental health condition under the Impairment Tables.
CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK
The next issue for determination is whether Mr Sneyd had a continuing inability to work as required by s 94(1)(c)(i) of the Act.
Section 94 (2) of the Act defines a continuing inability to work as follows:
“Continuing inability to work”
(1)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) or the person is a reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starter who has had an opportunity to participate in a program of support --the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C), and the program of support was wholly or partly funded by the Commonwealth; and
(a) in all cases--the impairment is of itself enough 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 within the next 2 years.
With an impairment rating of 20 points under a single Impairment Table, it follows that Mr Sneyd has a severe impairment within the meaning of s 94(3B) of the Act and participation in program of support is not required. In fact, to his credit, he completed 505 days which is close to the number of days required for active participation.
Dr Cheng has consistently provided her view that Mr Sneyd is unfit for work or vocational training. Similarly, although in slightly more detail, Dr Tschirn expressed the following view:
“… Taking into account factors including age, long length of time out of employment, the history of surgery, opinions from treating medical practitioners and ongoing pain from which maximal medical improvement has been achieved, with the situation not expected to change significantly for at least 24 months, it is my opinion that Mr Sneyd’s work capacity in a general sense (as against his pre--incapacity occupation) lies in the range 0 – 14 hours per week.” [29]
[29] Exhibit 4 p 12
The JCA report written on 16 March 2020 assessed Mr Sneyd’s baseline work capacity for light less skilled work as 8 to 14 hours per week and a capacity for work within two years with intervention at 15 to 22 hours per week.[30] Identified barriers included limitation in work skills, limitations in endurance and physical abilities and fluctuations in his condition. Significant support would be required to build his work capacity to a point where he could maintain employment.
[30] Exhibit 3 p 177
Work is defined in s 94(5) of the Act as follows:
“‘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”.
Having heard Mr Sneyd’s evidence, and noting the medical evidence about his spinal disorder and its impact, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Sneyd would have insurmountable difficulty in sustaining employment for at least 15 hours per week over a period of two years.
Training activity, which is referred to in s 94(2)(b) of the Act, is defined in s 94(5) of the Act as follows:
“‘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) prevocational training;
(c) vocational training;
(d) vocational rehabilitation;
(e) work related training (including on the job training)”.
Similar to his inability to work, Mr Sneyd’s impairment as a result of his spinal condition was sufficient to prevent him from undertaking a training activity within the relevant period.
The Tribunal finds that Mr Sneyd satisfies s 94(2) (a) and (b) of the Act and that he has a continuing inability to work within the meaning of s 94(1)(c) of the Act.
SUMMARY
The Tribunal finds that s 94(1)(a) of the Act regarding physical impairment is satisfied.
Ms Sneyd’s spinal condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised. The appropriate rating is 20 points under the Impairment Tables.
With a total of 20 impairment points the criterion in s 94(1)(b) of the Act is satisfied.
Mr Sneyd has a severe impairment within the meaning of s 94(3B) of the Act because of an impairment rating of 20 points under a single Impairment Table.
In view of the finding that Mr Sneyd has a severe impairment within the meaning of s 94(3B) there is no need for him to have actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of s 94(3C) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Sneyd has a continuing inability to work within the meaning of s 94(1)(c) of the Act.
DECISION
For the reasons set out above the Tribunal affirms the decision under review that Mr Sneyd is qualified to receive the DSP from 21 January 2019.

I certify that the preceding 64 (sixty four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member I Thompson
......................[Sgnd].......................................
Administrative Assistant Legal
Dated: 19 April 2020

Date of hearing: 7 April 2021

Representative for the Applicant:
Self-represented

Representative for the Respondent: Mr Christian Visser, SERVICES AUSTRALIA

[2021] AATA 2117

19 April 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Date of hearing:	7 April 2021
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Representative for the Respondent:	Mr Christian Visser, SERVICES AUSTRALIA