Sonter and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services
[2003] AATA 743
•4 August 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 743
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1352
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Glen SONTER Applicant
And
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Member Date4 August 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
...............................................
Ms N Isenberg, Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY - disability support pension – physical impairment – entitlement to disability support pension – whether the Applicant had an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the impairment tables – whether the Applicant had a “continuing inability to work”
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 – section 94, Schedule 1B
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 – Schedule 2, article 4
CASE LAW
Secretary of Department of Social Security v Pusnjak (1999) 56 ALD 444
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Bell (1998) 52 ALD 472
Hamal v Department of Social Security (1993) 30 ALD 517
REASONS FOR DECISION
4 August 2003
Ms N Isenberg, Member
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
1. In this matter, Mr Glen Sonter (the “Applicant”) seeks a review of the decision of the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services ("the Respondent") dated 19 December 2001(T27), as affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) on 31 January 2002 (T30) and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT") on 17 July 2002 (T2), to refuse a claim for disability support pension (“DSP”).
2. A hearing was held before the Tribunal on 16 July 2003 at which the Applicant was represented by Mr S Palmer, Solicitor, and the Respondent was represented by Ms J Green, an advocate from the Centrelink Service Recovery Team.
3. The following material was placed into evidence before the Tribunal:
Exhibit No. Description Date T1-33
pp 1-126Documents pursuant to section 37 of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975A1
Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions
11 July 2003
A2
Report of Dr A Dinnen
14 April 2003
A3
Report of D.P. Lewis-Enright
5 May 2003
A4
Letter P Giblin to Dr P Sarathy
23 August 2000
A5
Report of Dr H Lam
15 October 2001
A6
Letter Dr H Lam to Dr P Sarathy
17 January 2001
A7
Letter Dr H Lam to Dr P Sarathy
9 February 2001
A8
Report of P Conrad
13 July 2001
A9
Report of P Conrad
30 July 2002
A10
Letter Dr D Salmon to Dr Letran
24 April 2001
A11
Report of Dr M Ellis
26 November 2001
A12
Report of Dr M Ellis
15 July 2002
R1
Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions
25 February 2003
R2
Mr Sonter’s Claim for DSP
20 December 2002
R3
Report of Dr Tan Letran
20 December 2002
ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
4. This application concerns a claim for DSP made by the Applicant on 24 July 2001 (T16), one issue in dispute being whether he had an impairment of 20 points or more (required by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (the “Act”)) under the impairment tables found in Schedule 1B of the Act, and, if so, whether he had a "continuing inability to work" (section 94(1)(c)(i) of the Act). Insofar as section 94(1) is concerned, there is no dispute that the Applicant does have a physical impairment, he is greater than 16 years of age and he is an Australian resident. With regard to the start date of the payment of DSP as laid out in Schedule 2, article 4 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the “SSA Act”), the Tribunal has to consider whether the Applicant was entitled to the DSP by the end of October 2001.
LEGISLATION
5. Entitlement to DSP is governed by section 94 of the Act , which provides as follows:
“94(1) A person is qualified for disability support pension if:
(a) the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b)the person's impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(c) one of the following applies:
(i) the person has a continuing inability to work;
(ii) the Health Secretary has informed the Secretary that the person is participating in the supported wage system administered by the Health Department, stating the period for which the person is to participate in the system; and
(d) the person has turned 16; and
(e) the person either:
(i) is an Australian resident at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c); or
…
94(2) A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a) the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work within the next 2 years; and
(b) either:
(i) the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training during the next 2 years; or
(ii) if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training—such training is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work within the next 2 years.
Note: For work see subsection (5).
94(3) In deciding whether or not a person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment, the Secretary is not to have regard to:
(a) the availability to the person of educational or vocational training or on-the-job training; or
(b) if subsection (4) does not apply to the person—the availability to the person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.
…
94(5) In this section:
"educational or vocational training" does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments;
"on-the-job training" does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments;
"work" means work:
(a) that is for at least 30 hours per week at award wages or above; and
(b) that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market.
Person not qualified in certain circumstances
94(6) A person is not qualified for a disability support pension on the basis of a continuing inability to work if the person brought about the inability with a view to obtaining a disability support pension or a sickness allowance or with a view to obtaining an exemption, because of the person's incapacity, from the requirement to satisfy the activity test for the purposes of job search allowance, newstart allowance, youth training allowance, youth allowance or austudy payment.
…
6. Schedule 2, article 4 of the the SSA Act provides:
“4 Start day—early claim
(1) If:
(a) a person … makes a claim for a relevant social security payment; and
(b) the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the payment; and
(c) assuming the person does not sooner die, the person will, because of the passage of time or the occurrence of an event, become qualified for the payment within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made; and
(d) the person becomes so qualified within that period;
the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the social security payment.
(2) For the purposes of subclause (1), the following provisions have effect:
(a) subject to paragraph (b), any social security payment, other than newstart allowance or special benefit, is a relevant social security payment;
…
BACKGROUND
7. The Applicant was born on 28 September 1973 and is now 29 years old. After completing Year Ten he undertook an apprenticeship as a Fitter Machinist. On 9 August 2000, whilst working as a trades fitter the Applicant slipped on a platform and fell approximately one and a half metres onto his buttocks. After leaving work he felt pain in his lower back.
8. The Applicant was on Worker’s Compensation weekly payments from 14 August 2000 to 11 July 2001. His employment was terminated on 21 June 2001 as a result of “a slow down of work” (T12).
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
9. The Applicant suffers from back pain extending to the legs. He suffers from severe lumbosacral pain with occasional sciatica, especially on the left (T10). His spine is flexed about 70 degrees from his hips, and side-flexed to the right (T11). The Applicant is only able to walk and stand in the flexed posture. He is unable to extend to anywhere near what is considered a normal, erect standing position. (T11)
10. On 15 August 2000, Dr Cohen of Liverpool Diagnostics observed that the Applicant had a fracture of the fifth sacral segment without displacement (T4). On 23 August 2000, the Applicant was examined by Dr Giblin, who became his treating orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Giblin subsequently advised Dr Sarathy, the Applicant’s GP, that the Applicant had sustained “a fracture of the coccyx” (Exhibit A4).
11. On 25 August 2000, Dr Cheung found that there was increased bone activity consistent with fracture in inferior aspect of sacrum (T6). On 18 October 2000, Dr Billings found that there was a fracture of the lower sacrum and that it was consolidating satisfactorily (T7).
12. On 13 December 2000, the Applicant was examined by Dr Lam who concluded that “Mr Sonter appears to have a significant amount of musculoskeletal pain …” (see page two of Dr Lam’s report dated 15 October 2001 at Exhibit A5). The Applicant was reviewed by Dr Lam on 17 January 2001 for pain management. Dr Lam concluded in a letter to Dr Sarathy (Exhibit A6) that “There is still evidence of allodynia and hyperalgesia over the sacral region…”.. Dr Lam prescribed medication and an epidural block. On 9 February 2001, Dr Lam again reviewed the Applicant. The doctor states in a letter to Dr Sarathy, the Applicant’s GP: “On examination again Mr Sonter has a significant amount of paravertebral muscle spasm over the lumbar region and has hyperalgesia over the sacral area where the fracture was” (Exhibit A7). Medication was prescribed. On 9 March 2001, Dr Lam administered an epidural injection into the Applicant’s back.
13. On 26 March 2001, Dr Sing of Liverpool Diagnostics observed that there was “At the L4-L5 level … mild generalised disc bulge …, central canal stenosis or nerve root impingement … there is mild bilateral facet joint degeneration.” (T8). Further, Dr Sing found that there was a “mild anterior subluxation of L5 on S1 with bilateral pars defect noted in keeping with mild spondylolisthesis”. On 9 April 2001, Dr Gale of Rayscan Imaging stated that “A spondylosis is present at L5 but without evidence of spondylolisthesis” (T9).
14. On 24 April 2001, Dr McKechnie, Neurosurgeon, stated that the Applicant’s symptoms were chronic and prescribed Diazepam 2mg for muscle spasm (T10). On 24 April 2001, Dr Salmon wrote to Dr Letran and advised that the Applicant had a “depressed mood” and medication was prescribed (Exhibit A10). On 17 May 2001, Patrick Cormack, Physiotherapist, stated that the MRI had shown “a mild L5 / S1 spondylolisthesis and he has a healed sacral fracture, I do not think that we can treat his case as either purely mechanical or neurological in origin. … He shows strong, fear-avoidance behaviours …” (T11).
15. On 25 July 2001, Dr Tsang, Consultant Psychiatrist, noted that the Applicant “has muscle wasting to his right leg” (T18). Dr Tsang recommended monthly psychological treatment. Dr. Tsang concluded that “Mr. Sonter appears to be very focused on his somatic symptoms, almost to the extent of ‘la belle indifference’.” La belle indifference is the lack or paucity of concern about disability and the prospect for recovery.
16. On 31 August 2001, the Applicant was assessed by Dr Ma of Health Services Australia (“HSA”) who determined that he had demonstrated a very dysfunctional back condition but that it was not consistent with the “radiological findings” (T19, p82). A specialist occupational physician’s assessment was required (T23) and he was referred to Dr Gliksman on 30 October 2001. Dr Gliksman found no rational clinical explanation (T24, p106) for the Applicant’s complaints of back pain. On 12 December 2001, the Applicant was assessed by Dr Forssman (HSA) whose view was that the Applicant’s back condition was temporary. The doctor gave a nil impairment rating (T26).
17. On 30 October 2001, as stated above, the Applicant was examined by Dr Gliksman of HSA. Dr Gliksman concluded that there was no clinical condition and that the congenital changes in the lumbar and lumbosacral spine were not capable of explaining his condition. He also concluded that there was no clinical explanation for the Applicant’s presenting problems and that the Applicant was therefore fit to resume his pre-injury employment immediately (T24).
18. On 19 November 2001, the Applicant was examined by Dr Ellis, Consultant. Dr Ellis stated (on page two of his report dated 26 November 2001 at Exhibit A11):
“… Glen Sonter has suffered musculo-ligamentous contusion, aggravation of degenerative change in his back and a traumatic spondylosis and spondylolisthesis at L5/S1 level. … He is in urgent need of continuing physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and rehabilitation. I think it likely eventually that he will require spinal fusion for his back disability. Readmission to hospital for further investigation and intensive physiotherapy is indicated.”
19. On 20 November 2001, Dr Salmon, Consultant in pain medicine, reviewed the Applicant and prescribed an increase in Baclofen and Oxycontin (T25). Dr Salmon also recommended a course of hydrotherapy, but the workers’ compensation insurer refused to pay for this.
20. On 15 July 2002, the Applicant was reviewed by Dr Ellis (Exhibit A12), who confirmed his diagnosis of 19 November 2001 (Exhibit A11). On 23 July 2002, the Applicant was examined by Dr Conrad, who concluded in his report dated 30 July 2002 (Exhibit A9), “… he sustained a fractured sacrum and a probable traumatic spondylolisthesis. He may well need a lumbar fusion operation…. In the meantime he needs ongoing physiotherapy”.
SUBMISSION: APPLICANT
21. Mr Palmer, the solicitor for the Applicant, stated that the Applicant’s case was best summarised in the evidence of Dr Lewis-Enright who had examined the Applicant on 5 May 2003. The doctor said on page five in his report of the same date (Exhibit A3) that “the effect of his back disability upon the functions of his lower limbs is such that it he meets all of the requirements for the assessment of 20.” On page six, Dr Lewis-Enright concluded that “… this man has a total impairment rating in excess of that required for the award of the disability support pension. … With regard to the meeting of the requirements for the Disability Support Pension, at this time Mr Sonter has all the points necessary to be eligible for this pension.” Dr Lewis–Enright mentioned that the Applicant stated that the conditions for which he is claiming have been present for two years, and Dr Lewis-Enright confirmed that the Applicant’s posture and psychological/psychiatric behaviour was well entrenched.
22. In addition, as Dr Lewis-Enright had not assessed the Applicant from a psychiatric viewpoint, Mr Palmer also relied on the evidence of Dr Dinnen, Consultant Psychiatrist, who examined the Applicant on 7 April 2003. In his report dated 14 April 2003 the doctor said “I would rate the depressive (dysthymic) disorder according to the Social Security scales at 10 points under the impairment tables” (Exhibit A2, page 5). Dr Dinnen also concluded that:
“… this patient … is … incapable of engaging in any work or undertaking any training or rehabilitation. The condition appears well established and has not responded to treatment. I believe the condition would have been present at this level when he applied for a disability support pension in July 2001. … He does have a “continuing inability to work”.
23. It was submitted in the Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Opinions that the Applicant:
“… has an impairment of 20 points arriving from:
(a)combined impairment of:
(i)his medical conditions relating to his spine as assessed under Table 5.2. He has lost ¾ of his normal range of movement and there is back pain and referred pain with most physical activities and with standing sitting or driving. AND
(ii)The effect of Mr Sonter’s back disability upon the function of his lower limbs is such that it meets all of the requirements for the assessment of 20 under the tables.
(iii)His medical condition relating to his diagnosed psychiatric condition of depressive (dysthymic) disorder meets all the requirements for the assessment of 10 under the tables.
Or, in the alternative
(b)an allocation of 20 points under Table 20 for miscellaneous conditions. Mr Sonter’s pain in his back, both legs and his depressive (dysthymic) disorder are such to cause “moderate to more severe symptoms with a decreased stability/efficiency to carry out many everyday activities. The Applicant requires assistance with some daily activities such as going to the toilet.”
24. Mr Palmer submitted that Dr Lewis-Enright’s report should be preferred over the report of Dr Gliksman as, he contended, Dr Gliksman ignored the weight of evidence in support of the Applicant’s claim.
25. Mr Palmer contended that all the medical evidence confirms that the Applicant’s condition is stable and may deteriorate within the next two years, and that his impairment is unlikely to improve within that time. He submitted that the Applicant’s pain and limited mobility in his back and lower limbs renders him unable to work.
26. Mr Palmer referred to a ‘lack of natural justice’ in that the Applicant had presented his case before the SSAT without the benefit of legal advice and contended that the Applicant had not provided medical evidence to the SSAT to satisfy the requirements of section 94(1) of the Act and the Impairment Tables of Schedule 1B.
SUBMISSION: RESPONDENT
27. The Respondent took the Tribunal in some detail through the medical evidence prior to, and contemporaneous with, the relevant period. The Respondent referred to the x-ray of 15 August 2000 which noted a fracture of the fifth sacral segment without displacement (T4), described by Dr Giblin, orthopaedic surgeon, as “a fracture of the coccyx”. It also indicated to the x-rays taken on 26 March 2001 which Dr Sing stated showed “At the L4-L5 level, … mild generalised disc bulge …, central canal stenosis or nerve root impingement … There is mild bilateral facet joint degeneration.” Dr Sing had also noted that there was mild spondylolisthesis (T8). However, the Respondent pointed out that on 9 April 2001 Dr Gale had interpreted x-rays as showing that a spondylosis was present at L5 but without evidence of spondylolisthesis (T9). The Respondent submitted that this was evidence of the condition not having been diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the relevant time.
28. The Respondent categorised the medical evidence into 3 groups. Firstly she noted that Drs Lam, Conrad and Ellis were engaged for medico-legal purposes associated with the Applicant’s Worker’s Compensation claim. On 13 December 2000, Dr Lam found the Applicant to have a significant amount of musculoskeletal pain and prescribed medication and an epidural block (Exhibit A5, page two). On 9 February 2001, he found a significant amount of paravertebral muscle spasm over the lumbar region (Exhibit A7).
29. The Respondent pointed out that on 19 November 2001, that is, outside the period under consideration, the Applicant was examined by Dr Ellis, who described the Applicant as having “… suffered musculo-ligamentous contusion, aggravation of degenerative change in his back and a traumatic spondylosis and spondylolisthesis at L5/S1 level” (Exhibit A11). Both Dr Ellis and Dr Conrad considered the Applicant to be in need of physiotherapy, and other treatment (Exhibits A8, A9, A11, A12). Both foreshadowed spinal fusion. Dr Ellis recommended further investigation of the Applicant’s condition. The Respondent submitted that this pointed to the Applicant’s condition not having been diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the relevant time.
30. The second group identified by the Respondent was that of Drs Letran and Salmon and Mr Cormack, who reviewed the Applicant for management of his condition. On 24 April 2001, Dr Salmon considered the Applicant had a “depressed mood” and medication was prescribed (Exhibit A10). Later, in November 2001 he prescribed an increase in the Applicant’s pain management medication (T25). He recommended a course of hydrotherapy but the Applicant did not undertake this treatment. Later still, on 10 January 2002, in a medical certificate, Dr Salmon said that the Applicant had “not enjoyed optimal rehabilitation” (T28). In May 2001 Patrick Cormack, Physiotherapist, did not think that the Applicant’s problems were purely mechanical or neurological in origin (T11). The Respondent submitted that this group of evidence also demonstrated that the condition had not been diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the relevant time.
31. The third group were the HSA doctors, Drs Ma, Gliksman and Forssman, who found no clinical explanation for the Applicant’s profound symptomatology. That being the case, the Respondent concluded that there was no diagnosable condition at the relevant time.
FINDINGS
32. In coming to the correct and preferable decision, the Tribunal took into account all the evidence, submissions, case law and relevant legislation.
33. The Applicant was not called upon to give evidence, although he was present at the hearing. The Tribunal noted that, during the hearing, he sat at an uncomfortable–looking angle, and stood in an almost ‘bent double’ position.
34. The first task for the Tribunal is to be satisfied that the Applicant’s condition was one which could properly be described as “permanent” so as to attract a rating at all. Under Schedule 1B of the Act, ‘Tables For The Assessment Of Work-Related Impairment For Disability Support Pension’, appears the following under the heading of ‘Introduction’:
“5. The condition must be considered to be permanent. Once a condition has been diagnosed, treated and stabilised, it is accepted as being permanent if in the light of available evidence it is more likely than not that it will persist for the foreseeable future. This will be taken as lasting for more than two years. A condition may be considered fully stabilised if it is unlikely that there will be any significant functional improvement, with or without reasonable treatment, within the next 2 years.
6. In order to assess whether a condition is fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, one must consider:
· what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred;
· whether treatment is still continuing or is planned in the near future;
·whether any further reasonable medical treatment is likely to lead to significant functional improvement within the next 2 years.
In this context, reasonable treatment is taken to be:
·treatment that is feasible and accessible ie, available locally at a reasonable cost;
·where a substantial improvement can reliably be expected and where the treatment or procedure is of a type regularly undertaken or performed, with a high success rate and low risk to the patient.
It is assumed that a person will generally wish to pursue any reasonable treatment that will improve or alleviate an impairment, unless that treatment has associated risks or side effects which are unacceptable to the person. In those cases where significant functional improvement is not expected or where there is a medical or other compelling reason for a person not undertaking further treatment, it may be reasonable to consider the condition stabilised.
In exceptional circumstances, where a condition was considered not stabilised and a permanent impairment rating not assigned because reasonable treatment for a specific condition has not been undertaken, the medical officer should:
·evaluate and document the probable outcome of treatment and the main risks and or side effects of the treatment; and
·indicate why this treatment is reasonable; and
·note the reasons why the person has chosen not to have treatment.”
35. The Tribunal must therefore determine if the Applicant’s condition had been diagnosed, treated and stabilised as at the date of claim or in the 13 weeks thereafter.
36. The Tribunal finds that the medical evidence is clear in relation to what, clinically, had happened to the Applicant’s back. It indicates that he sustained a fracture of the coccyx. What is less clear is how that fracture affected him.
37. The Tribunal consequently finds that for quite some period after the initial x-rays the Applicant underwent a series of investigations to ascertain what might account for his ongoing pain and his bizarre posture, for example, more x-rays were ordered and, even now, it remains unclear if he ever suffered spondylolisthesis.
38. The Tribunal notes that, in November 2001, after the period under consideration, the Applicant’s condition was being described as ‘musculo-ligamentous contusion’ with aggravation of degenerative change in his back. At that time physiotherapy and other treatment were recommended (Exhibit A11). Even by January 2002, Dr Salmon considered that the Applicant had still ‘not enjoyed optimal rehabilitation’ (T28).
39. In May 2001 Mr Cormack, Physiotherapist, did not think that the Applicant’s problems were purely mechanical or neurological in origin and by November 2001 Dr Ellis, tellingly, recommended further investigation of the Applicant’s condition. The Tribunal is aware that, of the HSA doctors, Drs Ma and Gliksman both examined the Applicant in the relevant period and found no clinical explanation for his profound symptomatology.
40. Mr Palmer put great reliance on the evidence of Drs Dinnen and Lewis–Enright, neither of whom had seen the Applicant prior to April this year. In particular, the Tribunal noted that Dr Lewis-Enright reported that the Applicant told him the he had had his current posture for at least two years, which would bring it within the relevant period. Dr Lewis-Enright was of the opinion that the Applicant had suffered the conditions he claimed for the past two years and diagnosed them as so.
41. For application of the impairment tables under Schedule 1B of the Act, the Tribunal understands that the condition must be considered to be permanent, that is, at the relevant date, one that has been diagnosed, treated and stabilised. The Applicant had had treatment in the form of the physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and TENS treatment but did not apparently pursue these. All doctors are guarded in their prognoses, as most appear to have difficulty identifying precisely what ailed and continues to ail the Applicant. The treatment was not undertaken, it was said, because the Worker’s Compensation insurer declined to pay for it (T13). There was no evidence as to cost of the treatment or as to the Applicant’s financial circumstances in order to estimate the cost. There was no suggestion of risk to the patient.
42. While the Tribunal assumes that a person will generally wish to pursue any reasonable treatment that will improve or alleviate an impairment, the Applicant, from the available psychiatric evidence, does not appear to be overly amenable (refer to Dr Ma‘s use of ‘la belle indifference’). The Tribunal therefore considers that the Applicant’s back condition had not, in the relevant period, been one which had been diagnosed, treated and stabilised.
43. As to the Applicant’s psychiatric condition, the first diagnosis of depressive disorder is by Dr Dinnen (Exhibit A2). Although Dr Dinnen considered that Dr Tsang had provided a diagnosis in July 2001 (T18), the Tribunal does not agree. Dr Tsang excluded a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and said instead that the Applicant appeared to be focused on his somatic symptoms, almost to the extent of ‘la belle indifference’.. This does not amount to a diagnosis of a psychiatric condition. Furthermore Dr Tsang agreed to see the Applicant for monthly sessions ‘for monitoring, supportive and explorative purposes’.. The Tribunal is unable to conclude that, at the relevant time, the Applicant’s psychiatric condition, recently diagnosed as depressive disorder, had been diagnosed, treated and stabilised.
DECISION
44. The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be affirmed.
I certify that the 44 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Isenberg, Member
Signed: C. Gregson
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 16 July 2003
Date of Decision 4 August 2003
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr S PalmerSolicitor for the Respondent Ms J Green
0
1
0