Wheatley and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2020] AATA 2658
•5 August 2020
Wheatley and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 2658 (5 August 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:2019/5141
Re:Mr Rodney Wheatley
APPLICANT
Secretary, Department of Social ServicesAnd
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:B. Pola, Senior Member
Date:5 August 2020
Place:Brisbane
The decision under review is affirmed.
...................................[SGD].........................................
Senior Member B.Pola
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – DSP – whether condition is fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised – whether 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the Qualification Period - decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth)
CASES
Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; (1979) 46 FLR 409
Easterbrook and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 810
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALDA 133; [2014] AATA 447
Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541
Harris and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404
REASONS FOR DECISION
B. Pola, Senior Member
5 August 2020BACKGROUND
On 6 October 2017[1] the Applicant, Mr Rodney Wheatley, signed an application for the Disability Support Pension (‘DSP’), which was received by the Department of Human Services (the ‘Agency’).
[1] Exhibit 1, T40, pages 183 to 214.
On 21 June 2018[2], the Applicant was advised by the Agency that their claim for the DSP was rejected. The decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP was again affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’) after an internal review by the Agency on 21 December 2018[3].
[2] Exhibit 1, T45, pages 229 to 230.
[3] Exhibit 1, T46, pages 231 to 237.
The Applicant applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division (‘SSCSD’) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) to review the Agency’s decision to reject the claim for the DSP, and on 12 July 2019 the SSCSD of the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP[4].
[4] Exhibit 1, T2, pages 4 to 8.
The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a second review of this decision on 12 August 2019[5].
[5] Exhibit 1, T1, pages 1 and 3.
JURISDICTION
This is an application to review a decision of the SSCSD of the Tribunal which affirmed a decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP.
The Applicant’s claim of 6 October 2017 has been reviewed in accordance with s135 of the Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth) (the ‘Administration Act’) by an ARO, and subsequently reviewed by the SSCSD of the Tribunal.
In accordance with s179(1) of the Administration Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s DSP claim of 6 October 2017.
ISSUES
The issue before the Tribunal for consideration is whether the Applicant was qualified to receive the DSP in relation to their claim lodged on 6 October 2017, and ending 13 weeks later on 5 January 2018[6].
[6] The Qualification Period is discussed in later paragraphs of these reasons.
For the purposes of this application and the evidence submitted and provided orally to the Tribunal, it is clear the Applicant had impairments during the Qualification Period in accordance with s94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Indeed, the Respondent accepted that the Applicant had impairments for the purposes of s94(1)(a) of the Act[7].
[7] Exhibit 2, page 6, paragraph 36.
The issue for the Tribunal to resolve in respect of the Applicant’s claim for the DSP is:
(a)whether the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables contained within the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (‘the Determination’) within the Qualification Period; and
(b)if so, did the Applicant have a continuing inability to work?
RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
The medical qualification criteria regarding eligibility for the DSP are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of s94(1) of the Act:
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; and
…
To be medically qualified for a DSP, a person must therefore have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment that has a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and a continuing inability to work which, in some circumstances, includes participation in a program of support (‘PoS’).
Section 26(1) of the Act provides that “[t]he Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine tables relating to the assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension”.
It is the Tribunal’s role to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker[8] and determine whether the decision was the correct or preferable one on the material before the Tribunal[9]. Given this, the Tribunal must make its decision in accordance with the Determination which came into effect from 1 January 2012. The following paragraphs outline key sections of the Determination.
[8] Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541 [27].
[9] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; (1979) 46 FLR 409, 419 per Bowen CJ and Deane J.
Section 6 of the Determination provides that “[t]he impairment of a person must be assessed on the basis of what the person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for the person”[10]. Further, the Impairment Tables in the Determination may only be applied to a person’s impairment after the person’s medical history, in relation to the condition causing the impairment, has been considered[11].
[10] Section 6(1) of the Determination.
[11] Section 6(2) of the Determination.
An Impairment Rating may only be assigned to an impairment if[12]:
(a)the person’s condition causing the impairment is permanent; and
(b)the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[12] Section 6(3) of the Determination.
Further, for a condition to be considered permanent under s6(3)(a) of the Determination, the condition must also[13]:
·be fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and
·be fully treated; and
·be fully stabilised; and
·be more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[13] Section 6(4) of the Determination.
When considering whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether the condition has been fully treated, the following is also to be considered[14]:
(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.
[14] Section 6(5) of the Determination.
A condition is considered fully stabilised if[15]:
(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.
[15] Section 6(6) of the Determination.
Reasonable treatment is a treatment that[16]:
(a)is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; and
(b)is at a reasonable cost; and
(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional capacity; and
(d)is regularly undertaken or performed; and
(e)has a high success rate; and
(f)carries a low risk to the person.
[16] Section 6(7) of the Determination.
Section 6(8) of the Determination provides that “the presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean that there will be an impairment to which an Impairment Rating may be assigned”. While s6(9) of the Determination sets out circumstances to be considered in relation to pain.
Sections 7 through to 11 of the Determination provide guidance as to how Impairment Tables should be used to assess information and evidence, and how to assign Impairment Ratings.
In particular, s8(1) of the Determination provides that “symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence”.
While s11(1)(c) of the Determination provides that in assigning an Impairment Rating “if an impairment is considered as falling between 2 Impairment Ratings, the lower of the 2 ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied”.
Continuing inability to work
As previously detailed in paragraph 11 of this decision, s94(1)(c)(i) of the Act states that in order to qualify for DSP, a person must have a “continuing inability to work”. Section 94(2) of the Act requires that:
(2)A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(aa)in a case where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection (3B) or the person is a reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starter who has had an opportunity to participate in a program of support—the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C), and the program of support was wholly or partly funded by the Commonwealth; and
(a)in all cases—the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and
(b)in all cases—either:
(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years; or
(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity—such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years.
A severe impairment is defined in s94(3B) of the Act:
A person’s impairment is a severe impairment if the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which 20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table.
Section 94(3C) of the Act states that:
A person has actively participated in a program of support if the person has satisfied the requirements specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.
The Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth) (the ‘Participation Determination’) came into effect from 3 January 2015, and sets out the requirements for active participation for those people required to demonstrate they have actively participated in a PoS.
QUALIFICATION PERIOD
Schedule 2, Part 2, clause 4(1) of the Administration Act outlines that the Qualification Period for a social security payment occurs within the 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made. Where a person subsequently becomes qualified after the lodging of the claim, the commencement date for DSP is the date on which the claimant becomes qualified[17].
[17] Schedule 2, part 2, clause 4(1)(d) of the Administration Act.
For the purposes of this decision, the day which the Applicant’s claim for the DSP was registered with Centrelink was 6 October 2017[18], and concluded 13 weeks after that day. The Tribunal finds the 13 week period ended on 5 January 2018.
[18] Exhibit 1, T40, pages 183 to 214.
This means that for a claim to be successful, the person must be qualified for the DSP during this Qualification Period, noting that changes in medical conditions which occur later are not relevant to this claim, but may be relevant to a separate future claim. Further evidence (medical or other) provided outside the Qualification Period may be considered, however only if it is referable to the Applicant’s condition during the Qualification Period[19].
[19] Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 [34]; Harris and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 [1]; Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALDA 133; [2014] AATA 447 [31].
CONSIDERATION
The application was heard in Brisbane on 7 July 2020, with the Applicant, and the Respondent (represented by Mr Chris Murphy) both appearing by telephone. The Tribunal considered oral submissions made by the Applicant and Respondent, in addition to submitted written evidence, as outlined in the Exhibit Register (Annexure 1).
Section 94(1)(a) of the Act (physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment)
The Tribunal is satisfied after review of the evidence before it that the Applicant suffered impairments during the Qualification Period in terms of s94(1)(a) of the Act, a point which was accepted by the Respondent[20]. On review of the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds the following impairments relevant to this application:
(a)Lower limb condition; and
(b)Mental health condition.
Section 94(1)(b) of the Act (Is a person’s impairment 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables)
[20] Exhibit 2, page 6, paragraph 36.
The Tribunal will consider each impairment identified in the abovementioned paragraph in accordance with s94(1)(b) of the Act, in particular whether they meet the relevant provisions contained within the Determination.
(a) Lower limb condition
Evidence before the Tribunal indicates the Applicant was involved in a motor bike accident on the way to work on 17 April 1980, resulting in an injury to their left leg, causing “a moderate amount of permanent functional disability from the injury”, as reported by Dr Bruce Trevitt, Orthopaedic Surgeon, on 8 September 1980[21].
[21] Exhibit 1, T5, pages 71 and 72.
More recent medical evidence submitted before the Tribunal regarding the Applicant’s lower limb condition included a Medical Report dated 29 September 2017, completed by Dr Nicholas Johns, a registrar for Orthopaedic Specialist Dr Puri. In this report Dr Johns diagnosed the Applicant with “Lower limb pain following compound tib/fib #1980, Chronic Ulcer Left Achilles”. Dr Johns provided that current treatment included “Ankle foot orthosis”, with current symptoms described as “pain in left leg”, and the impact on the ability to function being described as reduced mobility[22].
[22] Exhibit 1, T39, pages 172 to 182.
Additional medical evidence was provided by Dr Johns on 16 March 2018, when a phone call was made by a Job Capacity Assessor in relation to the evidence submitted by Dr Johns in the Medical Report dated 29 September 2017. Notes from the conversation between the Job Capacity Assessor and Dr Johns record the following in relation to the Applicant’s condition[23]:
[23] Exhibit 1, T43, pages 219 and 220; and T44, page 224. The Tribunal notes that whilst the supplementary evidence of Dr Johns post dates the Qualification Period, his supplementary evidence relates to a report which was drafted by him prior to the Qualification Period, and it is on this basis the additional evidence was accepted by the Tribunal. Refer to Easterbrook and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 810 (16 November 2011) [28].
“Dr Johns believes the condition is reasonably treated, no further surgical interventions are being considered. Rodney should remain physically active, consult physiotherapy, review orthotics and remain under care of his GP.
…
Condition will persist for more than 24 months with symptoms of flactuating pain in the left leg impacting mobility.
…
No need for walking aids, independent in ADL’s [Activities of Daily Living] and personal care. Some difficulties on stairs, uneven grounds or standing for longer than 10 min. Does not requires assistance from another person to function or access public facilities or transport independently. Overall, Dr Johns advised that there is no reason why Rodney shouldn’t be back at work.
…
Dr Johns indicated no need for walking aids, and confirmed that [the Applicant] is independent in ADL’s, personal care and accessing transport. Overall, Dr Johns advised there is no reason why [the Applicant] shouldn’t be back at work as he does not require assistance from another person to function, access public transport and facilities independently.”
[sic]
[Tribunal insertion’s for clarity]
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the opinion of Dr Johns that the Applicant’s lower limb condition was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised prior to the Qualification Period in accordance with the Determination.
During the course of the hearing the Applicant sought to discount the opinion of Dr Johns in his Medical Report of 29 September 2017, and his further comments of 16 March 2018 on the basis that the preferred opinion regarding the Applicant’s lower limb condition was that of Dr Puri, as Dr Johns was subordinate to Dr Puri at the time his opinion was given. The Applicant submitted that Dr Puri agreed with him, although there is no submitted evidence from Dr Puri to this effect before the Tribunal. Given this, the Tribunal has not given weight to the uncorroborated claims of the Applicant[24].
[24] Transcript, page 7, line 25 to 45; and page 8, line 5 and line 30.
The Tribunal is required to determine an Impairment Rating for the Applicant’s lower limb condition.
Section 10(3) of the Determination provides:
Single condition causing multiple impairments
(3) Where a single condition causes multiple impairments, each impairment should be assessed under the relevant Table.
Example: A stroke may affect different functions, thus resulting in multiple impairments which could be assessed under a number of different Tables including: upper and lower limb function (Tables 2 and 3); brain function (Table 7); communication function (Table 8); and visual function (Table 12).
(4)When using more than one Table to assess multiple impairments resulting from a single condition, Impairment Ratings for the same impairment must not be assigned under more than one Table.
Therefore, the Tribunal is required to assess each impairment associated with the Applicant’s lower limb condition under the relevant table, but is not able to assign an Impairment Rating under more than one table.
The Determination specifically requires that any reported symptoms by the Applicant in relation to their condition, must only be taken into account when there is corroborating evidence, as per s8(1) of the Determination:
Information that must not be taken into account in applying the Tables
(1)Symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence.
Further, s9 of the Determination requires the Tribunal to assess the Applicant’s impairment when they are using any aids, equipment or assistive technology that the person has and usually uses:
Use of aids, equipment and assistive technology
A person’s impairment is to be assessed when the person is using or wearing any aids, equipment or assistive technology that the person has and usually uses.
Noting the above, the Tribunal finds the relevant Impairment Tables within the Determination to be Table 3 – Lower Limb Function (in relation to the Applicant’s compound fracture of the tibia/fibula); and Table 14 – Functions of the Skin (in relation to the Applicant’s chronic ulcer on the left Achilles).
With respect to Table 3 – Lower Limb Function within the Determination, the medical evidence before the Tribunal from Dr Johns is that the Applicant has, “No need for walking aids, independent in ADL’s and personal care. Some difficulties on stairs, uneven grounds or standing for longer than 10 min. Does not requires assistance from another person to function or access public facilities or transport independently. Overall, Dr Johns advised that there is no reason why Rodney shouldn’t be back at work”[25]. [sic]
[25] Exhibit 1, T43, page 220.
The Applicant gave evidence before the Tribunal that at the time of the application they were[26]:
(a)able to stand for 20 to 30 minutes, and that this could be extended for 1 hour to 1.5 hours;
(b)not using any walking aids;
(c)independent with all activities of daily living (including cooking and cleaning); and
(d)had some difficulty using stairs.
[26] Transcript, page 11, line 35 to page 12, line 25.
Based on the medical evidence before the Tribunal and the submissions of the Applicant, the Tribunal is of the view that the Impairment Rating applicable to the Applicant in accordance with Table 3 – Lower Limb Function would be a “mild” functional impairment, which has been transposed below for reference:
Points
Descriptors
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.
The Tribunal is mindful to avoid double counting even though consideration can be given to the application of both Table 3 – Lower Limb Function and Table 14 – Functions of the Skin, consistent with subsections 10(3), 10(4), 10(5), and 10(6) of the Determination.
The Tribunal notes the submissions of the Applicant that footwear causes abrasions to their skin, making it difficult for them to wear enclosed footwear.[27] The Tribunal found no corroborating medical evidence relating to the functional impact of the Applicant’s chronic ulcer on their left Achilles.
[27] Transcript, page 8, lines 15 to 20; and page 9, line 25.
The Tribunal also notes a lack of corroborating evidence in relation to the Applicant’s skin condition, prior to or during the Qualification Period for this application, which indicates a prognosis; confirmation of whether the condition was permanent; whether the condition was more likely than not to exist for more than two years; or whether the condition was stabilised.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that an Impairment Rating can be considered in relation to the Applicant’s chronic ulcer on their left Achilles in accordance with Table 14 – Functions of the Skin, due to the lack of corroborating medical evidence.
The Tribunal notes that s8(1) of the Determination and the introduction to Table 14 – Functions of the Skin, both stipulate that there must be corroborating evidence of the person’s impairment.
In summary, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s lower limb condition met the descriptor for a “mild” Impairment Rating in accordance with Table 3 – Lower Limb Function within the Determination prior to the Qualification Period for this application. Accordingly, the Tribunal assigns the Applicant 5 points in accordance with s94(1)(b) of the Act.
(b) Mental health condition
Table 5 – Mental Health Function of the Determination expressly stipulates that the diagnosis of a mental health condition (or 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)” [28]. [Tribunal emphasis added]
[28] The Determination, pages 22 to 27.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has a mental health condition that was fully diagnosed as Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’) prior to the Qualification Period of their application for DSP, based on the following submitted Medical Report of Ms Mavis Derman, Clinical Psychologist, of 3 May 2015, which states[29]:
“It is suggested here that [the Applicant] be treated for Complex PTSD. This entails regular weekly therapy that is long term; such therapy could employ imagery rescripting and reprocessing techniques. At present, [the Applicant] may be against any form of psychotropic drug but I feel that, if he should become overwhelmed with anxiety and/or depression, he could come to accept that these drugs could be therapeutic.
It is imperative that [the Applicant] attend psychological therapy sessions where, amongst other supportive and reconstructive elements, he be subjected to psycho-education; psycho-education would explain the benefits that [the Applicant] would derive from being psychiatrically assessed and treated.”
[Tribunal insertions for clarity, underlining in original]
[29] Exhibit 1, T30, pages 138 to 141.
Following the diagnosis from Ms Derman of 3 May 2015, there is no corroborating evidence before the Tribunal which verifies that the Applicant had followed up their diagnosis of Complex PTSD with appropriate treatment as prescribed by their Clinical Psychologist, such as pharmacotherapy and psychological therapy sessions.
The Applicant made submissions to the Tribunal that they had engaged support from Mission Australia through their Partners in Recovery program. A letter was submitted to the Tribunal from Mission Australia dated 27 February 2017, which states[30]:
“This letter is to kindly inform you that [the Applicant] was an active participant with PIR: Partners in Recovery (Far North Queensland) from February 2015 to February 2017.
During this time [the Applicant] connected with specific clinical support, as well as a Clinical Psychologist Assessment being funded to better support his need to link in with a Disability Service Provider, and moreso for a Disability Support Pension application and approval being sought.
As currently acknowledged, any further recovery assistance by PIR will not improve [the Applicant’s] capacity (regarding his physical need(s) &/or job capability), nor able to effectively promote his health/wellbeing needs where needed.”
[Tribunal insertions for clarity]
[30] Exhibit 1, T35, page 163.
The Tribunal notes that the letter of 27 February 2017 from Mission Australia outlines that the Applicant had connected with “specific clinical support” during their time in the Partners in Recovery program with Mission Australia. However, this letter is insufficient to establish that the Applicant had undertaken “reasonable treatment” in accordance with s6(7) of the Determination for their mental health condition prior to or during the Qualification Period for their application.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s mental health condition was not fully treated and not fully stabilised during the Qualification Period in accordance with the Determination. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have authority to assign an Impairment Rating for the Applicant’s mental health condition.
Summary
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s impairments do not attract more than 20 points under the Impairment Tables during the Qualification Period, and therefore the Applicant does not satisfy s94(1)(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, there is no need to consider whether the Applicant met the requirements of s94(1)(c) of the Act.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B. Pola
……………[SGD]………………
Associate
Dated: 5 August 2020
Date of hearing: 7 July 2020
Applicant: Mr Rodney Wheatley (telephone)
Solicitor for Respondent: Mr Chris Murphy (telephone)
(Department)“ANNEXURE 1 – EXHIBIT REGISTER”
Exhibit
Number
Description
1
Section 37 T Documents, pages 1 to 297, received 18 September 2020.
2
Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, pages 1 to 13, contains Annexure A, received 18 May 2020.
3
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension), Determination 2011, Table 14, received 5 December 2019.
4
Email from Applicant to Tribunal, 2 pages, received 22 April 2020.
5
Centrelink Medical Report, pages 1 to 11, received 18 October 2019.
6
Bundle of photos from Applicant, received 18 October 2019.
7
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension), Determination 2011, Table 3, received 18 October 2019.
0