Vracar and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2021] AATA 3382

Vracar and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 3382 (21 September 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/0440
Re:Ranko Vracar
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
Date:21 September 2021
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.
.....................................[sgd]...................................
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – entitlement to disability support pension – whether conditions fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the qualification period – where treatment was refused – whether impairment was of 20 points or more under s 94(1)(b) – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
CASES
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447
Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123
Jansen v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1358
Smalldon v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 2
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
21 September 2021

On 5 December 2018 Mr Ranko Vracar (the Applicant) lodged an application for the Disability Support Pension (DSP) on the basis that he suffered from a number of health-related impairments.
On 21 January 2019 his claim was rejected by the Secretary, Department of Social Services (in this particular instance Centrelink) (the Respondent) on the basis that he did not have an impairment rating of 20 points or more.
The Applicant sought a review of that decision but on 30 September 2020 an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) of the Department affirmed that it was correct.
The Applicant then sought a further review of that decision in the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (AAT1) which, on 7 January 2021 affirmed the ARO’s decision. Thereupon, on 25 January 2021, the Applicant sought a second-tier review of the AAT1 decision in this Tribunal where the matter was heard on 8 September 2021. The hearing took place using the Microsoft Teams platform and in accordance with the Tribunal’s COVID-19 protocols. The Applicant was assisted by the provision of an interpreter in the Serbian language.
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
In order to qualify for DSP an applicant must fulfil certain criteria which are set out in section 94 of the Social Security Act1991 (Cth) (the Act). Section 94 has three distinct limbs:
94 Qualification for disability support pension
(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 Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system;
In essence, these requirements or criteria amount to this:
·the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric condition;
·the person’s medical condition(s) rates 20 points or more on the Impairment Tables (which are specific criteria, set out in the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Impairment Tables) made under section 26 of the Act, established to assess the level of impairment). Points may be accumulated for a variety or number of conditions or, in certain circumstances, awarded directly for one condition of particular severity;
·the person has a continuing inability to work or the Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in a program known as the supported wage system;
·the person has turned 16; and
·the person is an eligible citizen or qualifying resident.
Failure to meet any one of these requirements is fatal to application claim for DSP and the Tribunal has neither the power nor the authority to disregard any such failure.
In assessing the points to assign to impairments, the condition (however defined) giving rise to the impairment must be:
·fully diagnosed and documented;
·fully treated; and
·fully stabilised.
These important terms are defined in the Impairment Tables[1] as follows:
[1] Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-Related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Impairment Tables) s 6.
...
Impairment ratings
(3) An impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if:
(a) the person’s condition causing that impairment is permanent; and
(b) the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
Permanency of conditions
(4) For the purposes of paragraph 6(3)(a) a condition is permanent if:
(a) the condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and
(b) the condition has been fully treated; and
(c) the condition has been fully stabilised; and
(d) the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
Fully diagnosed and fully treated
(5) In determining whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether it has been fully treated for the purposes of paragraphs 6(4)(a) and (b), the following is to be considered:
(a) whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and
(b) what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and
(c) whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.
Fully stabilised
(6) For the purposes of paragraph 6(4)(c) and subsection 11(4) a condition is fully stabilised if:
(a) either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or
(b) the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(i) significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or
(ii) there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.
Each of these criteria must be met before any points on the Impairment Tables can be considered or awarded.
A “continuing inability to work” is defined in subsection 94(2) of the Act. In effect, it means that the impairment prevents the person from:
(a) … doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and
(b) … 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 support within the next 2 years.
It is against this legislative background that the Tribunal must consider each application coming before it, taking into account the particular circumstances and facts of each case, but making sure that the rules are applied equally to each case.
Finally, the DSP scheme has a temporal element to it in that any claim must be assessed with reference to a specific time framework. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) provides that a claim must be assessed taking as a starting point, the day upon which the DSP application was made and considering the applicant’s eligibility from that date forward within a 13-week period thereafter. This is referred to as the “qualification period”. Only evidence which relates to the applicant’s condition during this period can be taken into account by the Tribunal and any evidence which post-dates the period must, to be accepted, relate specifically to that period.[2]
[2] Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922; Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123.
In this instance, the qualification period commences on the day which the Applicant lodged their application, 5 December 2018 and concludes on 6 March 2019.
CLAIMED IMPAIRMENTS
In his original DSP claim the Applicant listed his medical conditions as:[3]
·seizures;
·diabetes mellitus;
·cervical, thoracic and [unclear] spine spondylosis;
·left shoulder rotator cuff;
·sacroiliac joint arthritis; and
·left knee arthritis.
[3] Tribunal documents (T-documents) at 176.
By the time the matter came before the ARO, the reference to seizures had been replaced with reference to epilepsy and the application was considered in relation to claims of disability related to epilepsy, diabetes mellitus and chronic pain.[4]
[4] Ibid at 238.
When the matter came to the AAT1 there was yet a further iteration of the claimed conditions which were now taken to be:
·mental health problems;
·injuries to the back and shoulders;
·diabetes;
·epilepsy; and
·previous gallstones.[5]
[5] Ibid at 8-10.
In the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions the reference is to:
·spinal condition;
·shoulder condition (bilateral shoulder joint and rotator cuff degeneration);
·mental health condition;
·epilepsy;
·diabetes; and
·other conditions.
It is somewhat less than helpful to have a variety of different impairments identified or characterised differently and for some of them (e.g. “mental health condition”) to appear without what appears to be a direct reference to the Applicant’s own original claim. However, as the decision under review is that of the AAT1, it is that suite of identified impairments which will be considered by this Tribunal.
By way of further background, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant sustained workplace injuries in the course of his employment on 12 December 2009 for which he received a settled compensation payment.[6] The Tribunal gathers from the documentation that this involved injuries of his whole spine, and his upper and lower limbs.
[6] Ibid at 143. Payments were made in 2012.
There is extensive medical documentation associated with this claim including a series of recent reports submitted by the Applicant created on various dates in 2021,[7] together with a Health Professional Advisory Unit (HPAU)[8] report of 17 August 2021.
[7] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) at [17].
[8] Annexure B, Respondent’s SFIC. HPAU is an agency within Services Australia – the Respondent.
DISCUSSION
Subsection 94(1) has three elements. The first of these is that the “person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment”. The medical evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Applicant has been diagnosed with several conditions, including impairment of his spine and spinal functions; damage to his shoulder; epilepsy; diabetes and gallstones. The Respondent agrees that these conditions were fully diagnosed during the qualification period.[9] The AAT1 found that the Applicant “suffers from impairments resulting from these conditions”[10] and this Tribunal agrees with that conclusion.
[9] Respondent’s SFIC at [50], [52], [61], [64] and [69].
[10] AAT1 decision at [20], T-documents at 7.
The second element of subsection 94(1) is that the various conditions rate at least 20 points on the Impairment Tables. In order to be eligible to be assessed on any of those Tables, the condition must be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and this must have been the case during the qualification period. Each of the claimed impairments must be examined on this basis and if found to have met those requirements, be assigned a score on the relevant Impairment Table.
Mental Health problems
The Applicant arrived in Australia in 1995 coming from Bosnia and suffering a degree of mental distress occasioned by the internecine warfare which afflicted that region between 1992 and 1995. His marriage subsequently broke down and none of his three children live with him.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant suffered a degree of trauma due to his experience before escaping from the Bosnian conflict and accepts the diagnosis made by Dr Kuljic that he suffers from Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and “significant depressive symptoms”.[11]
[11] Ibid at 219.
The Respondent draws attention to the fact that there was no valid mental health diagnosis made before that of Dr Kuljic on 31 October 2019. Dr Kris Tomka provided a report (dated 16 October 2020) to the effect that the Applicant’s conditions amounted to a “severe impact on [his] mental health function and this qualifies him for 20 points”.[12] Dr Tomka also refers to the Applicant being “under the care of [a] psychiatrist”.
[12] Ibid at 306.
There are however some significant difficulties with this evidence. Table 5 (Mental Health Functions) requires that any diagnosis of mental impairment:
“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”.
Dr Tomka, as a General Practitioner is not qualified to make the diagnosis in question. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was a patient of the late Dr Kecmanovic in 2012[13] but there is no evidence as to what, if any treatment he received from him, or from another treating practitioner mentioned by the Applicant in his oral testimony.
[13] Ibid at 218.
In the case of Fanning[14] DP Handley stated:
31. In my view, in the case of DSP, it is implicit in clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Administration Act that an Applicant must be qualified for DSP on the date of claim or with the period of 13 weeks following. Evidence, such as medical reports, that come into being after the qualification period may still be relevant, but only in so far as they are referrable to the Applicant’s condition during the qualification period.
32. This is supported by the judgment of Gyles J in Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404. Gyles J stated at [1] that as an Applicant’s entitlement to DSP must be considered at the date of claim and within the 13 week period, “Any subsequent change in her health is irrelevant to the questions which arise in this proceeding except insofar as it may cast light on the position at the relevant time”.
[14] Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 447.
The Tribunal finds that the expert diagnosis made by Dr Kuljic may be safely projected back to cover the qualification period. The PTSD and depressive conditions were occasioned primarily by the events witnessed by the Applicant in Bosnia. They accompanied him upon his arrival in Australia and have been with him ever since.
Hence the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s mental health condition and all the symptomatology associated with it was fully diagnosed at the date of the qualification period. However, it equally accepts that the condition was not fully treated and stabilised.
There is no indication between 2012 (when treated by Dr Kecmanovic) and October 2019 (the first appointment with Dr Kuljic) that the Applicant was undertaking any form of prescribed or regular treatment.
Given that the mental health condition was fully diagnosed but not fully treated and stabilised, it cannot be assessed on any of the Impairment Tables.
Injuries to the back and shoulders (Spinal condition)
Spinal Condition
The AAT1 gave no separate consideration to the Applicant’s spinal condition but rather subsumed this in its discussion of “back and shoulder” injuries. However, the condition should have been assessed separately, not least because spinal impairments and impairments to the functioning of upper and lower limbs are assessed on different Impairment Tables with different criteria.
As noted, the Applicant’s problems in this area derive from his work-related injuries of 2009 which, according to a report by Dr M Guirgis (Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon) “triggered & aggravated the effects of underlying spondylotic changes”.[15]
[15] T-documents at 111.
The HPAU report states, in relation to “[c]ervical and thoracolumbar spondylosis” that “[e]arlier diagnostic imaging report in 2009 and 2010 indicate generally mild spinal degenerative changes”.[16]
[16] Annexure B at 9, Respondent’s SFIC.
Reports from Dr Guirgis indicate that the Applicant was receiving treatment for his spinal problems, although his condition rendered him “totally unfit for work at the present stage” (July 2011).[17]
[17] T-documents at 140.
However, a further report by Dr Guirgis dated 11 January 2012 opines that the Applicant was:
“Fit for suitable duties within his pain tolerance under the care of Dr Todorovic joining a Graduated Return to Work program starting with 4 hours per day 5 days per week”.[18]
[18] Ibid at 141.
It appears that the Applicant continued to work at least at some level as a carpenter until 2018 when the HPAU report states “[t]he epilepsy was the reason for his recent loss of employment as a carpenter”.[19] It also describes his cessation of work in late 2018 as “apparently involuntary”.[20] This is further supported by the notation in the report by Dr Neil Griffith (Consultant Neurologist) dated 1 February 2019.
[19] Annexure B at 5, Respondent’s SFIC.
[20] Ibid at 13.
The Applicant was recommended for arthroscopic surgery. The AAT1 notes that “[s]urgery was recommended for the left shoulder injury, but declined”.[21] This gives the impression that surgery was declined by the Applicant alone whereas Dr Guirgis report states: “Dr Murrell recommended arthroscopic surgery but QBE decline to authorise the payment of the procedure”[22] which puts matters in a somewhat different light. However, it is true that at a later stage the Applicant himself expressed some doubts about the viability of such surgery.[23]
[21] AAT1 decision at [32], T-documents at 9.
[22] T-documents at 140.
[23] AAT1 decision at [31], T-documents at 8.
It appears that the Applicant maintained a regime of conservative treatment and management of his spinal condition, although some time after the qualification period, in May 2020 he experienced some exacerbation of his condition and was suffering from a sore back.[24]
[24] Medical Certificate of Dr Tomka (General Practitioner) 20 May 2020, T-documents at 228
The HPAU report states:
“The above evidence suggests that spine-related symptoms were not particularly troublesome to Mr Vracar at the time of his loss of employment in late 2018 (see T18) for unrelated reasons (see T26) and that his back did not begin to trouble him significantly until over a year after the subject DSP qualification period (Dr Tomka’s medical certificate in May 2020 at T49, as noted above). The underlying condition was probably FDTS at the time of claim but was very likely associated with mild and tolerable symptoms, considering that he was employed as a carpenter, presumably in formwork. Accordingly a mild impairment rating is warranted relevant to the qualification period, in my opinion. The apparent subsequent exacerbation of spine-related symptoms is clearly not related to that time period.”[25]
[25] Annexure B at 10, Respondent’s SFIC.
It should be noted that the HPAU report that the condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the relevant time is contradictory to the finding of the AAT1 that “at the time of the claim, problems with back and arm pain were not fully diagnosed, not fully treated and not fully stabilised”.[26]
[26] AAT1 decision at [35], T-documents at 9.

This finding of the HPAU is adopted by the Respondent who states “[t]he Secretary therefore accepts that the Applicant’s back condition was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised during the qualification period.”[27]
[27] Respondent’s SFIC at [50].
In the light of both Dr Guirgis’ various reports and the HPAU findings, this Tribunal accepts that the spinal condition – including back and arm pain – was fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised at the relevant time.
The question then becomes what rating this condition should be given on Impairment Table 4 – Spinal Function.
The HPAU report made certain assumptions about the degree of impairment suffered by the Applicant as a result of this spinal problem and concluded:
“Mr Vracar’s ability to continue working as a carpenter until the latter part of 2018 is consistent with a mild impairment rating. He continued to drive until told not to by his neurologist Dr Griffith, and late last year was still coping independently with his activities of daily living (see ESAt report at T60). Some restriction of spinal movements can reasonably be assumed on diagnostic imaging results. In my opinion descriptor points (1) (a), (b) and (c) for 5 impairment points can all be reasonably assumed to apply to Mr Vracar’s spinal disorder under Table 4 – Spinal Function.”[28]
[28] Annexure B at 13, Respondent’s SFIC.
In oral testimony the Tribunal had a more direct opportunity to take evidence from the Applicant about the impact of this impairment during the qualification period.
The relevant Impairment Table 4 – Spinal Function sets out the points criteria as follows:

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).

In his oral testimony the Applicant indicated that he had some difficulty in undertaking overheard activities, especially on his left side, when he needed to support his arm to do anything but that he was otherwise able to bend to knee level and turn his trunk. In terms of the conditions listed as attracting 10 points, with the qualification regarding sitting in a car for thirty minutes, none of them was met by the Applicant.
This would sustain a finding of an impairment rating of 5 points.
Shoulder and Rotator Cuff
In relation to shoulder and rotator cuff impairment issues, the evidence suggests that the Applicant did not pursue an active approach to treatment during the qualification period.
Following the Applicant’s workplace accident and injuries he was treated by Dr Guirgis and also by specialists (Dr Murrell – Orthopaedic Surgeon and Dr Mastroianni – Consultant Occupational Physician) and undertook some active physiotherapy.[29]
[29] T-documents at 111-119.
As discussed above, surgery was recommended but not proceeded with, although in his oral testimony the Applicant agreed that it should have been done. A number of cases have discussed situations where an applicant has declined to undertake reasonable treatment[30] although, in this case the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant at the time had a valid reason for not proceeding.
[30] Smalldon v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 2; Jansen v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1358.
There does not appear to be any evidence of active management of this condition until in November 2019 Dr Giblin referred the Applicant for assessment by MRI, following which an active course of treatment by way of physiotherapy and steroid injections commenced in January 2020.
The Applicant reported to the Employment Services Assessment officer that the steroid injections had not had any effect for him and that he “had not accessed physiotherapy due to financial hardship”.[31] However, the Applicant admitted to the Tribunal that he had undertaken five physiotherapy sessions up until 2020 but was unaware that he could continue to access such services under a plan subsidised under Medicare. The Applicant is still seeing Dr Giblin for the management of this condition.
[31] T-documents at 310.
November 2019 is some eight months after the conclusion of the qualification period and the Tribunal must conclude that, during the qualification period, the Applicant was not engaged in pro-active assessment or management of his shoulder and rotator cuff conditions.
This leads to a finding that, during the qualification period, this condition was fully diagnosed but not fully treated and stabilised. As such, it cannot be assigned an Impairment Table rating.
Diabetes
It is accepted that this condition has been fully diagnosed but that it was not fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period.
There is no evidence as to the exact date when the Applicant was first diagnosed with diabetes although the AAT1 suggested that it was about “12 years ago” and that he had been prescribed Diaformin tablets by his general practitioner.[32] Dr Mark Borkman (an Endocrinologist) suggests this was some time in 2007.[33] It is not until February 2019 that there is any reference to the treatment of his diabetes with insulin which itself was the result of the Applicant’s “general health… detrior[ating] as a consequence of uncontrolled diabetes”[34] according to Dr Borkman.
[32] AAT1 Decision at [36], T-documents at 9.
[33] Ibid at 232.
[34] Ibid at 194.
Dr Borkman also notes that the Applicant was non-compliant with his prescribed level of medication,[35] a fact admitted by the Applicant in oral evidence who said that he felt that his dosage was too high and had deliberately reduced it.
[35] Ibid at 216.
Being non-compliant, and the fact that the treatment with insulin commenced only a month or so before the expiry of the qualification period and that “stabilis[ation] on insulin therapy” was only commencing as from a period outside that period, means that the condition of diabetes cannot be considered fully treated and stabilised as required. As such, no rating can be given on the Impairment Tables.
Epilepsy
On 1 February 2019, Dr Neil Griffith (Consultant Neurologist) confirmed that he had first seen the Applicant in 2007 “having the diagnoses of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy.” He reported that this condition was “under good control with Epilim up until about 2015 when he reports he started to lose weight.” As a result of this condition, aggravated by diabetes treatment, the Applicant has also developed tremors in his hands.[36]
[36] Ibid at 193.
Dr Griffith arranged for further assessment and treatment for this condition and has made a number of changes in his medication regime commencing in February 2020 (eleven months after the qualification period).
This is indicative of the fact that the epileptic condition is not fully treated and stabilised as regimes of medication continue to be adjusted. The Applicant reported to the Tribunal that he had suffered at least three epileptic episodes during 2021 (primarily taking place at night), and that he suffers from an increasing level of memory loss and episodes of confusion.
As the condition was not fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period it cannot be assigned any points on the Impairment Tables.
Gallstones (Cholelithiasis)
It appears that the Applicant suffered from gallstones and made a decision in August 2019 that he would return to Bosnia (assisted by his cousin) where he had surgery for their removal (at a cost of some €2,500.00). It is not clear that the return to Bosnia was planned in order to have surgery, and the discharge summary from the hospital in Banja Luka suggests that it was as a result of an emergency which occurred while there.[37]
[37] Ibid at 207.
August 2019 is some five months outside the qualification period; hence the Applicant’s condition cannot be regarded as fully treated and stabilised during that period and cannot be assigned any rating on the Impairment Tables.
CONCLUSION AS TO IMPAIRMENTS
It is evident that the Applicant suffers from a number of impairments and that while he generally manages to live an independent life, being able to look after himself at home, go shopping and keep in touch with people over the telephone, his general state of wellbeing and quality of life are impacted by these impairments.
However, during the qualification period there is only one of his conditions which met the requirement of being fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised; that of his spinal condition. When assessed against the relevant Impairment Table the correct rating for this impairment is 5 points.
As this is below the required threshold of 20 points the Applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.
The failure at this hurdle renders it otiose to consider the third limb of that section (paragraph 94(1)(c)) regarding the “continuing inability to work” test.
There is no limit on the number of times an applicant can apply for the DSP and it may well be that the Applicant’s current position, with some of his conditions now more actively managed than they were in 2018/2019 would render a different outcome on a new application. The Tribunal cannot in any way speculate on that; it would be a matter for fresh assessment. It is however an option open to the Applicant to consider.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 74 (seventy -four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

.....................................[sgd]...................................
Associate
Dated: 21 September 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 8 September 2021

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms B Dzang

Date(s) of hearing:	8 September 2021
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms B Dzang