|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 6, 2016 9:14:09 GMT 7
I thought this was unusual, the guy gets knocked back by the ARO, wins his SSAT then loses his pension in the AAT after Centrelink appeals. Definitely shows a hardening of attitude. INTRODUCTION
Darryl St Clair is the respondent in this proceeding. He lodged a claim for disability support pension (“DSP”) on 17 June 2013.
The original decision-maker rejected the respondent’s claim and an authorised review officer (“ARO”) affirmed the original decision. On review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) the decision of the ARO was set aside.
The SSAT found that the respondent satisfied all of the qualification criteria in s 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“Act”) and he qualified for DSP. The applicant (“Centrelink”) applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision of the SSAT.
At the hearing, Centrelink was represented by Mr C Visser (Department of Human Services) and Mr St Clair was represented by Ms M Riley (from the Welfare Rights Centre). www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2016/640.html |
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Sept 6, 2016 13:07:04 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 13:41:28 GMT 7
In the past Clink were often reluctant to let things go as far as the AAT, in my case they folded and granted me the pension just prior to it going that far. Whether the AAT has been coached or what is going on I have no idea but it looks like Clink will be more inclined to fight people all the way now.
Give an inch and they take a mile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 6, 2016 15:34:32 GMT 7
I'd say that there's considerable pressure from the minister's office to keep new people off the DSP. People who know me here would agree I'd never suggest anyone play a part to get the DSP but by God, if you've got a story you'd better stick to the plot. |
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Sept 6, 2016 18:40:31 GMT 7
Interesting case.
|
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Sept 7, 2016 17:05:13 GMT 7
I thought this was unusual, the guy gets knocked back by the ARO, wins his SSAT then loses his pension in the AAT after Centrelink appeals. Definitely shows a hardening of attitude. INTRODUCTION
Darryl St Clair is the respondent in this proceeding. He lodged a claim for disability support pension (“DSP”) on 17 June 2013.
The original decision-maker rejected the respondent’s claim and an authorised review officer (“ARO”) affirmed the original decision. On review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) the decision of the ARO was set aside.
The SSAT found that the respondent satisfied all of the qualification criteria in s 94(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“Act”) and he qualified for DSP. The applicant (“Centrelink”) applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision of the SSAT.
At the hearing, Centrelink was represented by Mr C Visser (Department of Human Services) and Mr St Clair was represented by Ms M Riley (from the Welfare Rights Centre). www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2016/640.htmlOkay I may have missed it but who was the Dr Tschirn guy that the tribunal put so much faith in his medical report that was completed 2 years after the initial application? |
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Sept 7, 2016 17:23:04 GMT 7
Again, weight is given to a Dr Oates (who the hell was he) medical report done almost a year later after her original claim while also quoting "A claim for the DSP must be assessed as at the date of the claim or within 13 weeks after that date". Over 12 times does this Tribunal member mention the "relevant period". Is it that Centrelink can introduce assessments outside of the "relevant period" but the person appealing can't? Let's get a doctor to agree with the original decision so the Tribunal can rubber stamp the original assessment? Damn !! |
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Sept 7, 2016 18:14:47 GMT 7
I understood Oates was commissioned by Dockerty, given his high scoring of her condition -- something Satanlink's quacks rarely do: he gave her 20 points on the hand, only to reduce it when Centrelink showed him the damning video during his evidence, when he reassessed on the spot to 10 points. There goes her claim.
At first I was surprised that Centrelink would check a Facebook page -- I presumed a tip-off -- but these days I suppose it's on their checklist when they receive an appeal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 5:15:28 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Sept 8, 2016 6:01:25 GMT 7
I knew someone years ago who worked in internal federal fraud (ie federal employees)... I recall her telling me that, after pulling phone records, the next place they looked was Facebook. |
|
