[2014] AATA 621
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2014/1472
Re
Tamas Vass
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Dr P McDermott RFD, Senior Member
Date 2 September 2014 Place Brisbane The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..............................[Sgd]..........................................
Dr P McDermott RFD, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Pensions, benefits and allowances – Disability support pension – Whether 20 impairment points – Whether continuing inability to work – Applicant did not complete the Program of Support – Decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 26, 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 13, 14, 42, Sch 2 cls 3, 4
CASES
Tey and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2013] AATA 753
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
Social Security (Requirements and Guidelines – Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr P McDermott RFD, Senior Member
2 September 2014
INTRODUCTION
I have to determine whether Mr Tamas Vass (“the applicant”) is entitled to disability support pension (“DSP”). The applicant elected not to give evidence but made submissions in support of his application.
PRIOR DECISIONS
On 14 January 2013 the applicant lodged a claim for DSP. On 1 February 2013 this claim was rejected. On 13 March 2013 an authorised review officer affirmed that decision. On 7 May 2013 the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) affirmed the decision to reject the claim. On 18 March 2014 the applicant made an application to this Tribunal for review of the decision to reject the claim for DSP.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The legislation that I have to administer is the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“the Administration Act”).
Section 94 of the Act provides that in order to be qualified to receive DSP the applicant must have:
·a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment (s 94(1)(a) of the Act);
·an impairment rating of at least 20 points (s 94(1)(b) of the Act); and
·a continuing inability to work (s 94(1)(c) of the Act).
The Administration Act provides that the start day for a claimant who qualifies to receive DSP is the date on which they contact the Department regarding the payment, the deemed date of claim (ss 13, 41, 42, Sch 2 cl 3 of the Administration Act). The applicant will be entitled to receive DSP if he was qualified to receive that benefit as at the deemed date of the claim. If he was not qualified to receive DSP on that date he will nevertheless be entitled to receive DSP if he becomes qualified within thirteen weeks of lodging a claim. In that event, the start-day is the day that he becomes qualified to receive the social security benefit (Sch 2 cl 4(1) of the Administration Act).
There are a number of Ministerial Determinations which have to be considered.[1] The Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support…
- AGLC
- Tamas Vass and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 621
- Case
- [2014] AATA 621
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The AAT carefully examined the relevant legislation and Ministerial Determinations, including the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 and the Social Security (Requirements and Guidelines – Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011. These Determinations provide the Impairment Tables and guidelines necessary for assessing the level of functional impact of impairments and the active participation requirements for DSP eligibility. The Tribunal focused on the assessment of Mr. Vass's functional capacity and whether his impairments met the statutory criteria for DSP. The AAT concluded that while Mr. Vass had impairments, they did not meet the necessary threshold to qualify for DSP. Consequently, the AAT affirmed the earlier decisions to reject Mr. Vass's claim for DSP.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.