Steven Froude and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 808
•30 October 2014
[2014] AATA 808
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2014/0769
Re
Steven Froude
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Dr M Denovan, Member
Date 30 October 2014 Place Brisbane The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.......................[Sgd].................................................
Dr M Denovan, Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Pensions, benefits and allowance – Applicant in receipt of disability support pension – DSP – Applicant wishes to remain overseas for more than six week portability period – Whether portability can be extended – Whether applicant suffers ‘severe impairment’ – Decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 26, 94, 1217, 1218AAA, 1218AA, 1218AB, 1218, 1218C
CASES
Scrivener and Secretary Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 537
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guide to Social Security Law, Australian Government
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr M Denovan, Member
30 October 2014
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Mr Steven Froude, is in receipt of disability support pension (“DSP”). His wife permanently resides in north-east Thailand (“Thailand”) and he seeks exemption to the maximum portability period of his pension.
The legislation deems the maximum portability period for DSP to be six weeks.[1] There are a number of exceptions to this rule. The only one of these exceptions that may apply to the applicant requires the applicant to be suffering from a severe impairment,[2] which will continue to be severe and will prevent him from performing any work independently of a program of support within the next five years.[3]
[1] Section 1217 of the Act.
[2] Subsection 94(3B) of the Act.
[3] Subsection 1218AAA(1) of the Act.
The Respondent accepts the applicant suffers from a number of conditions and that he qualifies for DSP, however contends that none of the applicant’s conditions can be regarded as severe.
I must decide whether Mr Froude qualifies for an exception to the maximum portability period of six weeks.
BACKGROUND
The applicant has been in receipt of DSP since June 1993 with short periods of suspension due to his overseas absences being longer than the maximum portability period.
On 15 March 2013 the applicant advised Centrelink that he intended to travel to Thailand on 9 May 2013 and enquired about unlimited portability of his DSP.
The Secretary accepts the applicant suffers from the following conditions:
·Bilateral right wrist osteoarthritis
·Right shoulder rotator cuff disorder/osteoarthritis
·Osteoarthritis of the fingers
·Osteoarthritis of the right elbow
·Tremor of the right arm/hand
·Bilateral hip osteoarthritis
·Right knee osteoarthritis
·Lumbar spondylosis/chronic back pain
·Cervical spine pain;
·Anxiety and depression
·Hypertension
·Hypercholesterolemia, and
·Hemochromatosis.
Following receiving notification that the applicant intended to remain overseas, the applicant was sent for a Job Capacity Assessment (“JCA”). The assessor considered he is capable of working eight to 14 hours a week with intervention.[4] In his report dated the
18 July 2013, the assessor considered many of the applicant’s conditions were not fully treated and fully stabilised, and could not attract an impairment rating under the Impairment Tables. He decided the total impairment points the applicant is entitled to be 10.[5] For these reasons the assessor found the applicant did not qualify for DSP.
[4] Exhibit 1, folio 161-169.
[5] The provision of a legislative instrument which contains the Impairment Tables, the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, is provided for at s 26 of the Act.
On 22 July 2013 a decision was made to cancel the applicant’s DSP. A letter was sent to the applicant advising him on 23 July 2013.
The applicant sought review of the decision, and the matter was referred to the
Health Professional Advisory Unit (“HPAU”) for a file assessment. A registered nurse performed the assessment. She concluded that the applicant’s conditions had a combined impairment rating of 20 points, and therefore he qualified for DSP. She considered none of the applicant’s conditions attracted more than 10 impairment points, and he therefore had no conditions that could be regarded as severe.
The decision to cancel the applicant’s DSP was subsequently set aside and the applicant continued to receive payment. On the 15 October 2013, an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) affirmed the decision that the applicant did not qualify for unlimited portability. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) affirmed that decision on
29 January 2014.
On 7 February 2014 the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) for review of that decision.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out relevant legislation in this matter. Policy advice contained in the Guide to Social Security Law (“the Guide”) is also relevant.
Section 1217 of the Act identifies that the maximum portability period for DSP is
six weeks. In some very limited circumstances, a person’s maximum portability period for social security payments can be extended.[6] These provisions in the legislation that allow extension do so only for unusual and extreme circumstances, such as terminal or severe illness of the applicant or a family member, natural disaster, political unrest and criminal proceedings. Most of the provisions allowing extension of the portability period are not relevant to Mr Froude’s claim. Of relevance is s 1218AAA(1) which reads:
The Secretary may make a written determination that a particular person's maximum portability period for disability support pension is an unlimited period, if all of the following circumstances (the qualifying circumstances) exist:
(a) the person is receiving disability support pension;
(b) the Secretary is satisfied that the person's impairment is a severe impairment (within the meaning of subsection 94(3B));
(c) the Secretary is satisfied that the person will have that severe impairment for at least the next 5 years;
(d) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person were in Australia, the severe impairment would prevent the person from performing any work independently of a program of support (within the meaning of subsection 94(4)) within the next 5 years.
[6] Sections 1218AAA, 1218AA, 1218AB, 1218 and 1218C of the Act.
Subsection 94(3B) provides that a person’s impairment is severe if the person’s impairment is made up of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which
20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table.
The relevant Impairment Tables are in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (“the Determination”).
The Determination provides that before a condition can be assigned a rating, it must be accepted as a permanent condition in that the condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and is more likely than not, in the light of available evidence, to persist for more than two years.[7]
[7] The Determination, Part 2, cl 2.
A program of support is a program designed to help people prepare for, find, or maintain work. Section 94(4) of the Act defines the phase ‘work independently of a program of a support’ to mean that a person is unlikely to need a program of support, or likely to need a program only occasionally, not on an ongoing basis.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
Mr Froude gave evidence at the hearing by telephone. The essence of his case is as follows.
He is frustrated and upset and cannot make sense of the decision. He has a miserable life because of his medical problems. He is incapable of working, and should be allowed to be with his wife indefinitely. He has no resources and he can no longer meet the ongoing expense of travelling to and from Thailand.
In Australia he resides with his parents in their home at Bundaberg, Queensland. He does not own anything of value, not even a car. He travels as often as he can to Thailand to see his 46-year-old wife. He departs Australia from either the airport in Brisbane or the
Gold Coast, depending on which airline has the most inexpensive price for flights.
He travels alone to the airport by train. On the flight he always has an aisle seat, in case he has to stand, if his back ‘seizes up’. When he is awake, he has to stand up approximately every 10 to 20 minutes. He does not eat for three days prior to travelling on the aeroplane. The reason for this is to make sure he does not have to defecate during the flight. He has trouble using the toilets on the aeroplane; however he can get by if he only has to urinate.
He has difficulty picking anything up because his all of his fingers are twisted and bent due to arthritis. He exists without the use of his thumbs. He has trouble writing, and submitted that his father helped write the application for the AAT. He has to put a pen between his first two fingers if he needs to write. He does a similar action with a fork to eat. He retains his driver’s licence in case he needs to assist one or both of his parents, in the event they took ill. At the moment he does not drive because ‘it would be a danger’. Under cross-examination, he admitted he could drive himself to the local doctor, about five to six minutes from his parent’s home.
He does not cook for himself; he does not know how to cook meat properly.
He has loss of balance, and mental health issues. He has had two hip replacements and can no longer cross his legs or play bowls. He can walk up and down stairs, with pain – going down is worse than going up. He does not believe obesity contributes to any of his problems, and he is upset with the doctor who stated that in the medical report.
He has been on a waiting list for 12 months to have his shoulders and spine reviewed by a specialist at the Gold Coast hospital. Originally it was intended that Dr Chaudhry would operate on him at the Bundaberg hospital, however the government withdrew the doctors rights to a public list in that city.
The applicant implied that he asks for a wheel chair to meet him at the airport when he arrives in Bangkok. During the flight he asks another passenger or an air steward/stewardess to assist him complete immigration documentation. At the Bangkok airport he is met by his wife, who accompanies him on a domestic flight to the town closest to her home. From there it is a 70 kilometre drive on a four-lane highway to his wife’s home. He relies on a friend to collect them from the airport and drive them home. He always has a return ticket to Australia when he goes to Thailand. Whilst in Thailand he can access all the medications he needs through the local pharmacy. He ingests two ‘sleepers’ before he boards the plane, and sleeps for much of the flight. He also spends a lot of time sleeping when in Thailand. When in Thailand he goes out to dinner with his wife, catches up with friends, and visits some temples.
When asked how his disabilities affect his capacity to function he said he cannot wipe his own bottom; he needs to have a shower to clean himself after each defecation. In Thailand his wife has a ‘proper’ toilet, and also a bidet. If he drops the soap in the shower he cannot bend down to pick it up, he takes a utensil in the shower with him to assist picking up the soap from the floor of the shower. When in Bundaberg he is cared for by his 86-year-old father and his 83-year-old mother. His father has cancer.
He takes Panadeine Forte for pain, as well as Mobic. He takes medication for depression, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He also takes six to eight Valium (5 mg) a day to treat his depression.
CONSIDERATION
As observed by Senior Member Kenny in Scrivener and Secretary Department of Social Services,[8] whilst it may be the case that a person who is in receipt of DSP has a range of conditions that limit his or her ability to work, it does not mean that they can be paid DSP indefinitely whilst they are outside Australia. As explained above, the applicant must also have a severe impairment, and for that to be the case, he must have been allocated 20 or more impairment points from one of the Impairment Tables for his conditions.
[8] [2014] AATA 537 at [27] – [28].
When deciding the appropriate rating from an Impairment Table, it is inappropriate to rely solely on the history provided by the applicant. Functional impairment must be assessed with reference to medical evidence.
Ms Forsyth, for the respondent, correctly contends that this matter is to be distinguished from consideration of DSP eligibility, because in this matter the applicant does not have the benefit of the extra 13 week window in which the severity of his conditions can be assessed. Mr Froude’s impairments are to be assessed at the time he applied for indefinite portability. There is no evidence to suggest Mr Froude’s conditions have changed to any material degree since the date of application.
The SSAT found that osteoarthritis of the fingers, wrists and right elbow, and lumbar spine disorders are the only conditions the applicant suffers which are permanent, and can be considered fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised.
The SSAT concluded that the medical evidence pointed to Mr Froude’s left hip requiring further investigation; however the SSAT was still prepared to accept the applicant’s hip conditions as fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised, for the purpose of assessing his eligibility for extension of portability.
Although the HPAU concluded rotator cuff/osteoarthritis of the right shoulder was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised, the SSAT did not agree.
The SSAT found it appropriate to allocate ratings from the Impairment Tables for the conditions osteoarthritis of the fingers wrists and elbow, lumbar spine disorders, and left hip. The reasons of the SSAT are clearly explained in the decision, and I will not repeat them here.
Ms Forsythe contends that, on the basis of the evidence before it, it is open to the Tribunal to find that Mr Froude’s conditions of rotator cuff/right shoulder; lumbar spondylosis/chronic back pain; and his hip osteoarthritis are not permanent, because they have not been fully diagnosed, and/or fully treated, and/or fully stabilised. Having said that, Ms Forsyth said the respondent was prepared to concede that all of these conditions are permanent for the purpose of assessing Mr Froude’s eligibility for indefinite portability.
After the SSAT made their decision, a report pertaining to the recently performed
CT (computed tomography) on the applicant’s lumbar spine was made available. The report dated 16 April 2014, indicates there is no obvious spondylosis or spondylolisthesis in Mr Froude’s spine. Multilevel thecal sac narrowing due to degenerative disc disease was noted.[9]
[9] Exhibit 3.
Dr Advani referred Mr Froude to orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Blenkin, for review of the CT findings and other orthopaedic conditions on 2 May 2014. From the information included in Dr Advani’s referral,[10] it is clear that Mr Froude’s shoulder condition, cervical spine condition, and lumbar spine conditions are not fully treated and fully stabilised. If this was an application for DSP, I would not allocate a rating for any of these conditions.
[10] Exhibit 5.
As the applicant’s eligibility for DSP is not in dispute, and the respondent concedes the conditions are rateable only for the purpose of assessing eligibility for an extension of portability, I will consider the appropriate rating for all of the applicant’s conditions the respondent accepts are rateable.
Hemochromatosis, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension
I agree with the conclusions of the HPAU and the SSAT, in relation to the conditions of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hemochromatosis. These conditions are permanent, and are fully investigated, fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, but have no significant impact on Mr Froude’s capacity to function. Each attracts a rating of zero from the Impairment Tables.
Lower Limb Function – Table 3
Impairment Table 3 is used to assess functional impairment that results from lower limb conditions. The most recent medical report indicates that Mr Froude complains of severe pain in his right hip, groin and lower back when walking. Dr Frielingsdorf indicates in his report that walking is painful for Mr Froude, he cannot bend to tie his shoelaces and he has difficulties with lifting.[11]
[11] Exhibit 2, folio 154.
Mr Froude had his right hip joint replaced in 2006, and the left hip joint replaced in 2009. The contemporaneous medical reports indicate it was anticipated that the applicant would experience considerable improvement in the function of his hip joints following the surgery to his hips. There are no medical reports relating to Mr Froude’s hips from
2009 to 2013.
The rating scale for determining a severe functional impact on activities using the lower limbs (20 points) is as follows:
Table 3 – Lower Limb Function
Points
Descriptors
0
There is no functional impact on activities requiring use of the lower limbs.
(1) The person can:
(a) walk without difficulty on a variety of different terrains and at varying speeds; and
(b) walk without difficulty around the home and community; and
(c) kneel or squat and rise back to a standing position without difficulty; and
(d) stand unaided for at least 10 minutes; and
(e) use stairs without difficulty.
5
There is a mild functional impact on activities using lower limbs.
(1) At least one of the following applies:
(a) the person has some difficulty walking to local facilities (e.g. shops or bus-stop); or
(b) the person has some difficulty walking around a shopping mall or supermarket without a rest; or
(c) the person has some difficulty climbing stairs; and
(2) At least one of the following applies:
(a) the person is unable to stand for more than 10 minutes;
(b) the person can mobilise effectively but needs to use a lower limb prosthesis or a walking stick.
10
There is a moderate functional impact on activities using lower limbs.
(1) At least one of the following applies:
(a) the person is unable to walk far outside their home and needs to drive or get other transport to local shops or community facilities; or
(b) the person is unable to use stairs or steps without assistance; or
(c) the person is unable to stand for more than 5 minutes; and
(2) The person is able to use public transport or a motor vehicle and walk around in a shopping centre or supermarket.
(3) This impairment rating level includes a person who can:
(a) move around independently using a wheelchair and can independently transfer to and from a wheelchair (e.g. can use a wheelchair accessible toilet independently); or
(b) move around independently using walking aids (e.g. quad stick, crutches or walking frame).
Note: The person may require additional time and effort to move around a workplace, may need to use disabled access entries, lifts and toilets, and may not be able to access some areas of a workplace or training facility.
20
There is a severe functional impact on activities using lower limbs.
(1) The person:
(a) is unable to do any of the following:
(i) walk around a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance;
(ii) walk from the carpark into a shopping centre or supermarket without assistance;
(iii) stand up from a sitting position without assistance; and
(b) requires assistance to use public transport.
(2) This impairment rating level includes a person who requires assistance to:
(a) move around in, or transfer to and from a wheelchair (e.g. the person needs personal care assistance to use a toilet); or
(b) move around using walking aids (e.g. a quad stick, crutches or walking frame), that is, the person needs assistance from another person to walk on some surfaces and could not move independently around a workplace or training facility, even when using a walking aid.
30
There is an extreme functional impact on activities using lower limbs.
(1) The person is unable to mobilise independently.
Mr Froude’s conditions do not have a severe impact on activities using his lower limbs. If a person was suffering from a severe functional impact on activities of the lower limbs, I do not believe it would be impossible to complete the journey from Bundaberg to the small town in Thailand where Mr Froude’s wife lives. Mr Froude describes having to spend time at the Kuala Lumpur airport when he travels from the Gold Coast to Thailand. His journey from Bundaberg to the small town in Thailand would take a minimum of
16 hours, and would most likely take in excess of 20 hours. Mr Froude uses public trains during this journey without the assistance of another person. I note that Mr Froude travelled to and from Thailand on five occasions in the 15 months immediately preceding his claim, and again approximately eight weeks following the lodgement of his claim in March 2013. A person who completes this travel is clearly capable of walking around a shopping centre and walking from the car park to the shopping centre.
There is no medical opinion to support Mr Froude’s claim that he can stand for only
10 minutes, sit for 30 minutes, or has balance problems and needs the assistance of a walking stick. Although Mr Froude describes having some hygiene difficulties after he defecates, there is no medical evidence to support a conclusion that he is unable to use a toilet without assistance. None of the criteria for 20 impairment points are satisfied. The medical evidence supports a finding of five impairment points from Table 3. There is absolutely no suggestion that any of the criteria for 20 impairment points from Table 3 are satisfied.
Spinal Function – Table 4
Table 4 is used to assess the impact of spinal conditions that affect a person’s ability to bend or turn the back, trunk or neck.
In order for a condition to be regarded as having a severe functional impact on activities involving spinal function the descriptors for 20 points must be satisfied:
Table 4 – Spinal Function
Points
Descriptors
0
There is no functional impact on activities involving spinal function.
(1) The person can:
(a) bend down to pick a light object off the floor (e.g. a piece of paper); and
(b) turn their trunk from side to side; and
(c) turn their head to look to the sides or upwards.
5
There is a mild functional impact on activities involving spinal function.
(1) The person has some difficulty in:
(a) activities over head height (e.g. activities requiring the person to look upwards); or
(b) bending to knee level and straightening up again without difficulty; or
(c) turning their trunk or moving their head (e.g. to look to the sides or upwards).
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 applies:
(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).
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.
30
There is an extreme functional impact on activities involving spinal function.
(1) The person is:
(a) completely unable to perform activities involving spinal function; or
(b) unable to bend or turn their trunk or their neck to complete the most basic of daily activities (e.g. dressing, bathing, showering or light housework).
Mr Froude claims to experience considerable difficulties turning his head, and bending his neck, as a result of his cervical osteoarthritis. This condition has not been accepted as being fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised. The effects of that condition on his capacity to function cannot be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate rating from Table 4.
Dr Frielingsdorf indicated that Mr Froude has difficulties with lifting and difficulties bending forward to do up his shoelaces. There is no suggestion in the medical evidence that Mr Froude cannot remain seated for 10 minutes, bend forward to pick up a light object from a desk or table, or perform any overhead activities.
The HPAU assessor noted Mr Froude reporting a sitting capacity of 30 minutes.[12] The SSAT recorded Mr Froude as stating his sitting capacity was 15-20 minutes, and that he can bend forward enough to pick up a light object from a desk or table. Mr Froude told me that he needs to stand every 10 minutes unless he is asleep. Mr Froude’s account of his ability to sit appears to have progressively altered as his understanding of the legislative requirements has evolved. I do not find his account of his inability to sit more than 10 minutes credible, given the lengthy time Mr Froude spends in the trains and aeroplanes traversing the journey between Thailand and Australia. At the time of
Mr Froude’s application, he was capable of sitting for at least 30 minutes, regardless of Mr Froude’s belief that his sitting tolerance has decreased. Dr Frielingsdorf did not indicate that Mr Froude has any difficulty with prolonged sitting. If his spinal condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, five impairment points from
Table 4 would be appropriate.
[12] Exhibit 1, folio 54.
Upper Limb Function – Table 2
The function impairment due to Mr Froude’s shoulder problems or his tremor condition cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining an appropriate rating from Table 2 for the reason that the only conditions that are fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised are osteoarthritis of the fingers, wrists and right elbow.
Table 2 sets out the criteria for impairment that results from upper limb loss of function:
Table 2 – Upper Limb Function
Points
Descriptors
0
There is no functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1) The person can pick up, handle, manipulate and use most objects encountered on a daily basis without difficulty.
5
There is a mild functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1) The person can manage most daily activities requiring the use of the hands and arms, but has some difficulty with most of the following:
(a) picking up heavier objects (e.g. a 2 litre carton of liquid or carrying a full shopping bag);
(b) handling very small objects (e.g. coins);
(c) doing up buttons;
(d) reaching up or out to pick up objects.
10
There is a moderate functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1) The person has difficulty with most of the following:
(a) picking up a 1 litre carton full of liquid;
(b) picking up a light but bulky object requiring the use of 2 hands together (e.g. a cardboard box);
(c) holding and using a pen or pencil;
(d) doing up buttons or tying shoelaces;
(e) using a standard computer keyboard;
(f) unscrewing a lid on a soft-drink bottle.
20
There is a severe functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1) Most of the following apply to the person:
(a) the person has limited movement or coordination in both arms or both hands, or has an amputation rendering a hand or arm non-functional;
(b) the person has severe difficulty handling, moving or carrying most objects even when using or wearing any prosthesis or assistive device that they have and usually use;
(c) the person has difficulty using a computer keyboard despite appropriate adaptations;
(d) the person has severe difficulty using a pen or pencil;
(e) the person has severe difficulty turning the pages of a book without assistance.
30
There is an extreme functional impact on activities using hands or arms.
(1) The person is unable to perform any activities requiring the use of both hands or both arms.
Mr Froude described difficulty writing and performing activities with his hands that require dexterity. Dr Heugh confirmed Mr Froude has impaired grip in both hands.[13] There is no medical evidence which supports a finding that Mr Froude has movement and/or coordination problems in his arms or hands; difficulty handling, carrying or moving most objects; turning the pages of a book; difficulty using a keyboard; or severe difficulty using a pen or pencil. Mr Froude told the tribunal he can drive if necessary, and can feed himself. Based on the medical evidence, he does not meet the requirements for 20 impairment points from Table 2, as he does not have difficulty with most of the activities described under 20 points. He therefore does not have a severe impairment of his upper limb function.
[13] Exhibit 2, folio 87.
Other medical conditions
Mr Froude describes considerable loss of function due to other conditions, including osteoarthritis of the ankles, cervical spondylosis, depression and anxiety, and tremor. The medical evidence, set out clearly in the decisions of the SSAT and the HPAU, is that these conditions are not fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised. No rating for any of these conditions can be given.
DECISION
Mr Froude does not have any medical condition that attracts a rating of 20 or more points from a single Impairment Table, and therefore he does not have a severe medical impairment. Consequently, Mr Froude does not meet all of the legislative criteria set out in s 1218AAA(1). Specifically he does not meet requirement set out in
ss 1218AAA(1)(b). There is no need for me to assess the other criteria in s 1128AAA(1).
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 57 (fifty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr M Denovan, Member ...........................[Sgd].............................................
Associate
Dated 30 October 2014
Date of hearing 26 September 2014 Applicant In person Solicitors for the Respondent Jasmine Forsyth, Department of Human Services
1
1
0