Stojanovski and Department of Family and Community Services [2002] AATA 99 (18 February 2002)

Last Updated: 20 February 2002

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 99

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/863

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JORDAN STOJANOVSKI

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms J A Shead, Member

Date 18 February 2002

Place Sydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

[SGD] J A Shead

Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY - disability support pension - whether applicant has physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment - whether applicant has impairment rating of 20 points or more - relevant time-frame - whether applicant has continuing inability to work

Social Security Act 1991 - section 94

Re Sylvia and Secretary Department of Social Security (AAT 10165, 3 May 1995)

Re Pirie and Secretary, Department of Social Security (AAT 11505, 20 December 1996)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms JA Shead, Member

1. This is an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") by Jordan Stojanovski ("Mr Stojanovski") of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") dated 19 May 2000. The SSAT affirmed a decision made by a Centrelink delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services ("the Department") on 27 August 1999 to refuse Mr Stojanovski's claim for a disability support pension. This earlier decision was reviewed and affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer ("ARO") on 14 March 2000.

2. A hearing was held before the Tribunal on 28 March 2001. Mr Stojanovski gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. An interpreter competent in the Macedonian language assisted the Tribunal during the evidence of Mr Stojanovski. A departmental advocate, Mr George Lozynsky, represented the Department.

3. The Tribunal took into evidence documents submitted pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the T documents", T1 - T39). Mr George Lozynsky provided the Tribunal with the Department's Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 15 January 2001. A medical report by Dr David Keen, Health Services Australia Senior Medical Adviser, dated 12 October 2000, was also tendered to the Tribunal (Exhibit R1).

4. In accordance with the Tribunal's request, a report of Trauma Orthopaedics specialist Dr Vijay Maniam, dated 22 August 2000, was submitted to the Tribunal on 4 September 2001 and no further submissions were received.

5. By way of background, the Tribunal extracts the history of the matter from the SSAT decision dated 19 May 2000 (T2):

"1. On 3 August 1999, Mr Stojanovski lodged a claim for disability support pension. On 27 August 1999, he was assessed by Dr Phillips, A Medical Adviser from Health Services Australia, as having a restriction of one quarter range of movement in his lower back and pain and was assigned an impairment rating of 10 points. He was considered fit for light process or bench work.

2. A file review was then conducted on 28 February 2000 by Dr H Brown, a Medical Adviser from Health Services Australia, after Mr Stojanovski provided a Workcover Medical Certificate, dated 1 October 1991, and a report on a whole body bone study, dated 9 November 1999, from Dr Monaghan of St George Nuclear Imaging. After considering these, Dr Brown decided that they contained no additional medical evidence which would change the impairment rating of 10 points.

3. Following a telephone conversation with Dr Z Kolmancic, Mr Stojanovski's treating doctor, and consideration of a report from Dr V Maniam to Dr Kolmanic, dated 10 November 1999, the authorised review officer wrote to Mr Stojanovski on 14 March 2000 advising him that he was affirming the original decision to reject Mr Stojanovski's claim for disability support pension.

4. On 23 March 2000, Mr Stojanovski lodged an appeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal) against the decision to reject his claim for disability support pension. "

6. The SSAT did not alter that decision, for the reason set out in paragraphs 28 of its decision:

"28. Mr Stojanovski's total impairment rating is 10 points. As he does not have 20 points or more, he does not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of he Act. As Mr Stojanovski is not medically qualified to receive the disability support pension, the tribunal did not go on to consider section 94(1)(c) of the Act, that is whether he has a continuing inability to work."

7. In the Application for Review to the Tribunal for review of the SSAT decision, Mr Stojanovki's reasons for the Application were (T1):

"The decision is wrong because my specialist believes I have a higher impairment rating. I feel that my pain and inability to work are not being fully considered. I have enclosed a hearing test to be considered toward my impairment rating. The tribunal only spoke to my family doctor and took it upon themselves to determine that my hearing loss could not be assigned an impairment rating. I would like the attached medical reportto be considered toward my impairment rating. Therefore, in summary, I dispute the decision on the grounds of my impairment rating and on my inability to work."

8. Annexed to that Application was a report dated 16 February 2000 of Dr G Fowler concerning Mr Stojanovki's hearing.

9. In his opening remarks, and in response to the Tribunal's question as to why he disagreed with the decision, Mr Stojanovski reiterated the grounds of his Application and stated that he suffered back pain most of the time, and that he suffered headaches related to his back.

10. On behalf of the Department, Mr Lozynsky advised the Tribunal that for the purposes of subsection 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act") it was conceded that Mr Stojanovski had loss of a quarter range of movement in his lower back. However, it was contended that Mr Stojanovski did not have an impairment rating of 20 points or more and consequently failed to satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

11. The issues in this matter relate to whether or not Mr Stojanovski is qualified to receive a disability support pension, and in particular:

* whether Mr Stojanovski has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and if so

* whether Mr Stojanovski has an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables in Schedule 1B of the Act, as required by subsection 94(1)(b) of that Act; and if so,

* whether Mr Stojanovski has a continuing inability to work as required by subsection of 94(1)(c)(i) of the Act.

12. To qualify for a disability support pension all three subsections of section 94 of the Act must be satisfied. Also, pursuant to section 100 of the Act, the Tribunal has to consider Mr Stojanovski's conditions on the day on which his claim was lodged and for a period of three months starting immediately after the day on which his claim was lodged.

LEGISLATION

13. The legislation relevant to the Tribunal's determination of this matter is section 94 of the Act, which sets out the qualification for a disability support pension. It relevantly provides:

"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;

...

(2) A person has a 'continuing inability to work' because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(a) the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work within the next 2 years; and

(b) either:

(i) the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person form undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training during the next 2 years; or

(ii) if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training - such training is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work within the next 2 years.

Note: For 'work' see subsection (5).

(3) In deciding whether or not a person has a 'continuing inability to work' because of an impairment, the Secretary is not to have regard to:

(a) the availability to the person of educational or vocational training or on-the-job training; or

(b) if subsection (4) does not apply to the person - the availability to the person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.

(4) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), if a person has turned 55, the Secretary may, in considering whether educational or vocational training is likely to enable the person to do the work, have regard to the likely availability to the person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.

(5) In this section:

"educational or vocational training" does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments;

"on-the-job training" does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments;

"work" means work:

(a) that is for at least 30 hours per week at award wages or above; and

(b) that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market...."

14. In general terms, the impairment rating is determined under Schedule 1B of the Act and the "continuing inability to work" is determined by reference to subsections 94(2), (3) and (5) of the Act.

15. Section 100 of the Act (effective at the time of the original decision), deals with the commencement day for disability support pension and relevantly states:

"100. Early claim

...

(3) If:

(a) a person lodges a claim for a disability support pension; and

(b) the person is not, on the day on which the claim is lodged, qualified for a disability support pension; and

(c) the person becomes qualified for a disability support pension sometime during the period of 3 months that starts immediately after the day on which the claim is lodged;

the person's provisional commencement day is the first day on which the person is qualified for the pension and is an Australian resident and in Australia."

EVIDENCE

16. Mr Stojanovski was born 8 August 1940. He first arrived in Australia in August 1965 and returned in 1971. He had been employed full-time as a linesman by Telstra from 15 July 1971 to 30 June 1999. He attributed his back condition to two work injuries which occurred in about 1990 and 1992. He stated he had retired because of his disabilities (T3, page 49). He had not tried to obtain work because his back "wasn't good" and was painful.

17. On 28 July 1999 Mr Stojanovski had lodged a claim for a disability support pension for incapacity from "sore back - lower back pain - sometimes my back is so twisted that I cannot walk with a straight torso; cramps in the arms; aching knees; lower spine problems" (T3, p42). On 26 July 1999 Dr Kolmacic, Mr Stojanovski's local medical practitioner since 1985, diagnosed those conditions as L3-L4 and L4-L5 disc herniation (T4). Dr Kolmacic stated that the clinical features "since 11 years ago has been suffering from progressive low back pain, accompanied by sciatica. CT scan showed disc herniation L2-L4, L5-S1" (T4, p53). He took Digesic for pain. Dr Kolmacic also stated that Mr Stojanovski would be unable to return to any kind of full time work within two years and that he would not benefit form vocational (work) training or rehabilitation.

18. In relation to his personal circumstances, Mr Stojanovski has a wife, who was born in 1951, and their daughter, who is aged in her mid twenties, lives with them.

19. In evidence as to how the back condition affected him, Mr Stojanovski told the Tribunal that he spent his days sitting around and lying down. He stated that he could not sit or stand for more than 15 minutes at a time before he had to move about. In accordance with his doctor's advice he went for walks, however he had to have a break after walking about 10 minutes because of pain in his back. It affected his sleeping and he could not sleep more than a few hours. He had lost about 10 kgs in weight. He sometimes drove his wife to and from the nearby train station and to the shopping centre. He only had to wash up his coffee cup as his wife had historically attended to all domestic activities. His wife did the gardening and his nephew mowed the lawns.

20. In relation to the work ability report of Health Services Australia Medical Adviser Dr Phillips, Mr Stojanovski disagreed with Dr Phillips opinion that he could persist at tasks for between 20 and 90 minutes at a time. The Tribunal put to Mr Stojanovski that Dr Phillips opined that Mr Stojanovski was suitable for light process or bench work. Mr Stojanovski told the Tribunal that that meant he would be on his feet or sitting for more than 20 minutes at a time and he could not do that.

21. In response to Mr Lozynsky's questions, Mr Stojanovski did not recall telling Dr Phillips that he did not take painkillers. He stated that during that examination the interpreter had been running late and that upset him. He stated that he had taken painkillers since he injured his back. He did not recall telling the SSAT that about the time he lodged his claim for disability support pension he mowed the lawn and that by the time of the SSAT hearing he could not mow the lawn. He stated that he used the rails to move up and down the stairs of his two-storey house. He could use public transport but that he had problems with stairs.

22. Mr Stojanovski described that on a typical day, first thing of a morning he felt sick with nausea and if on his own during the day he felt like crying. If he went out, he went to his neighbour's and talked with his neighbour. He did not seek out friends. He stated that before 1999 his social life revolved around interaction such as talking or joking with his fellow workmen at work. He disagreed that he was capable of work and that he lacked motivation and he said words to the effect: "No it's not motivation. It is a problem with my back not that I don't want to work. Staying at home is like a disease." He told the Tribunal that he was depressed.

23. Mr Stojanovski had physiotherapy treatment for his back. His medication included Celebrex 100 mgs twice a day, Zoloft and Panadol.

24. Mr Stojanovski agreed that because of his back condition he had been made redundant, but he did not know whether he would still have been working if he had not been made redundant. He doubted, having regard to his condition, that anyone would give him work.

SUBMISSIONS

25. Mr Stojanovski did not make any further submissions in support of his Application for Review.

26. On behalf of the Department, Mr Lozynsky submitted that the impairment rating for Mr Stojanovski's condition was insufficient to satisfy eligibility under sections 94(1)(b) and 94(1)(c) of the Act for disability support pension. Mr Lozynsky noted that Mr Stojanovski had raised the conditions of hearing loss, headaches and depression during the hearing. However, Mr Lozynsky contended that these conditions had not been diagnosed at the time Mr Stojanovski lodged his claim for DSP or within three months of that lodgement, so no rating could be assigned to them. On behalf of the Department, Mr Lozynsky noted that the Respondent accepted Mr Stojanovski has a lower back condition, and contended that a rating of 10 points under Table 5.2 of Schedule 1B was appropriate for the loss of quarter range of movement in the lower back.

27. On behalf of the Department, Mr Lozynsky referred to medical reports that did not support Mr Stojanovski as having a loss of half range of movement which would have resulted in a rating of 20 points under Table 5.2. Those were Dr Maniam's report dated 10 November 1999 (T20), Dr Phillips' medical assessment report dated 27 August 1999 (T9) and that of Dr Keen (Exhibit R1). Also, it was noted that Health Services Medical Adviser Dr Bun (T31), after reviewing a whole body scan report, did not alter the impairment rating.

28. In relation to the submissions concerning subsection 94(1)(b), the written Statement of Facts and Contentions on behalf of the Department stated in part as follows:

"5. A Medical Report has been provided by the applicant subsequent to SSAT decision [sic], from Dr Maniam, an orthopaedic surgeon, dated 22/8/00, further to his previous report of 10/11/99, with imaging/scan report from Dr's Roberts (23/2/00), Monaghan (9/11/99) and North (14/7/99). Dr Fowler reported his degree of hearing loss, 16/2/00.

6. Dr Fowler's assessment specified 6.6% right and 11.7% left hearing loss. 7. Dr Maniam's assessment was that he had 60 (of 90 maximum) degrees flexion (that is, a loss of 1/3 of the maximal range of movement) and 20 (of 30 maximum) degrees extension (that is, a loss of 1/3 of the maximal range of movement). Lateral flexion and rotation were normal. Dr Maniam posited that this constituted a loss of half of the normal range of movement of the lumbar spine - as well as back pain with physical activities. .8. Dr Keen of HSA on 12/10/00 reviewed all medical information on the file, including Dr Maniam's 22/8/00 report and Dr Fowler's 16/2/2000 report. Dr Keen clarified that Dr Fowler's assessment amounted to a binaural hearing loss of 7.62% (0 on T12); and Dr Maniam's assessment amounted to a 1/3 loss of range of lumbar spine movement ie at least ¼ loss of ROM with pain on activities. 20 points on Table 5.2 - a loss of a half of the normal range of movement in the lumbar spine, with pain - is not substantiated. The combined rating was 10 points.

9. The applicant lodged a new claim on 4/10/2000, with a Treating Doctor's Report from Dr Kolmacic, dated 26/9/2000. The applicant's current conditions as stated by Dr Kolmacic are lumbar disc protrusion, industrial deafness and anxiety and depression. He was assessed as unlikely to be able to work in the next two years, and unable to benefit from retraining or rehabilitation.

10. In respect to the new claim, Dr Brown, of HAS, examined the applicant on 23/10/00. A loss of half the normal range of thoraco-lumbar spine movement is now assessed, with pain on activities, rating 20 points on Table 5.2. No rating for hearing loss given, as Dr Brown did not have an audiology report, and depression assessed as temporary.

11. The applicant suffers from lumbar disc protrusion, which is degenerative and appears to be gaining contact with a nerve root, as advised by Dr Maniam, on 22/8/2000. On 27/8/99 examination, he had a loss of ¼ of the normal range of movement. On 10/11/99 examination, he had a loss of 1/3 of the normal range of movement. On 23/10/2000 examination, he had a loss of ½ of the normal range of movement. During the intervening period, as he advised the SSAT, he has spent his days talking, sitting lying down, whereas previously he was working as a linesman. His lumbar spine function has apparently become more limited.

12. As such, the respondent contends that the applicant's impairments at the relevant time, were appropriately assessed at a total of 10 points (Table 5.2)."

29. During the course of the submissions, Mr Lozynsky relied upon the report of Dr Keen at Exhibit R1, which referred to a later report dated 22 August 2000 of Dr Maniam. The Tribunal required that later report to be produced. From the time that report became available, the Tribunal granted both parties a further 28 days to make written submissions, if necessary.

30. It was also contended that at the time of Mr Stojanovski's claim, he was capable of undertaking full-time light work. It was emphasised that he had been performing light duties when he was made redundant, and that Telstra Corporation had stated that his employment had been terminated due to "shortage of work or redundancy" (T7). It was also noted that on 13 March 2000 the ARO had stated (T33):

"In discussing Mr Stojanovski's case, Dr Kolmacic indicated that Mr Stojanovski would be able to do light work which did not involve any lifting. Dr Kolmacic qualified this statement in saying that she thought that due to his age, Mr Stojanovski would never work again."

31. While it was acknowledged, on behalf of the Department, that Mr Stojanovski was not fluent in English and he had little education, making retraining difficult, it was contended that having regard to the assessment of Dr Phillips, Mr Stojanovski's impairment level would not have prevented him from undertaking retraining.

32. In conclusion, Mr Lozynsky summarised that Mr Stojanovski's impairment did not warrant 20 points under Schedule 1B of the Act. As such, at the time of his claim for disability support pension, or within 3 months of the claim, Mr Stojanovski did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act, in that he had not reached the requisite 20 points.

33. It was further submitted that the definition in section 94(2) only permits the impairment to be considered in examining his inability to work. It excludes other factors which are not related to his impairment. The definition of continuing inability to work involves the satisfaction of both subsections 94(2)(a) and 94(2)(b). Mr Stojanovski was restricted to light work at the relevant time. It was contended that his impairment did not at the relevant time prevent him undertaking light full-time work such as light process or bench work. Therefore, on behalf of the Department, it was contended that subsection 94(2)(a) was not satisfied.

34. Even if subsection 94(2)(a) were found to be satisfied, it was acknowledged that Mr Stojanovski's non-fluent English and limited education combined with his age would make retraining difficult. However, it was submitted that he would not have been prevented from participating in educational, vocational or on-the-job training at the time, and as such would not satisfy subsection 94(2)(b).

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

35. The Tribunal has reached a decision in this matter, taking into account the oral and documentary evidence, the submissions and the legislation.

36. Mr Stojanovski gave evidence and was cross-examined. The Tribunal considered him to be a credible witness.

37. The Tribunal is only able to consider the condition disclosed in Mr Stojanovski's original claim for disability support pension. The Tribunal was reasonably satisfied that Mr Stojanovski has other medical conditions, namely hearing loss, headaches and depression. In respect of those conditions, there are however no medical reports either giving a diagnosis or opining as to their effect on Mr Stojanovski's workability. In view of the lack of consideration of them in the decision under review and the absence of medical evidence concerning those conditions, the Tribunal is unable to accept that those conditions should be considered as being present from the date of lodgement of the claim for disability support pension. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered only the low back condition.

38. Having regard to the reports of Dr Kolmacic (T4) and Dr Phillips (T9), the Tribunal is well satisfied that Mr Stojanovski suffers from intervertebral disc protrusion at L5/S1and L4/5. Therefore Mr Stojanovski satisfies subsection 94(1)(a) of the Act in that he has a physical impairment. To satisfy subsection 94(1)(b), Mr Stojanovski's condition must attract a combined impairment rating of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables in Schedule 1B of the Act. The Tribunal turned to consider the level of impairment as follows.

39. The Tribunal considers that Mr Stojanovski's back condition has worsened since his claim and accordingly it was for the Tribunal to consider the time frame imposed by section 100(3) of the Act with respect to Mr Stojanovski's claim for disability support pension lodged on 3 August 1999. The Tribunal noted Re Sylvia and Secretary Department of Social Security (AAT 10165, 3 May 1995) where "there was no evidence of any change in the circumstances within three months of the claim", and Re Pirie and Secretary, Department of Social Security (AAT 11505, 20 December 1996), where Deputy President Forgie emphasised at paragraph 64 that:

" ...The Secretary must decide the question of a person's qualifications on the day on which the claim is lodged. If the person is not qualified on that day, the effect of sub-section 100 (3) is that his or her qualification may be considered during the three month period immediately following the lodgement of the claim."

If Mr Stojanovski was not qualified on the day he lodged his claim, the effect of subsection 100(3) is to consider his qualification during the three months immediately following the lodgement of his claim.

40. On 27 August 1999 Dr Phillips examined Mr Stojanovski and reported Mr Stojanovski had a loss of ¼ range of movement (T9). On 10 November 1999 Dr V Maniam reported (T20):

"The lumbar spine exhibited a diminished lordotic curve, to examination and muscles were spasmodic. There was only minimal tenderness, the pelvis being in the neutral position and there being no listing or scoliosis in the spine. Movements were restricted, forward flexion managed to 60 degrees, extension to 20 degrees, lateral flexion and rotation being normal range. Straight leg raising was limited to 70 degrees bilaterally, but the neurological signs were intact."

41. On 12 October 2000 Health Services Medical Adviser Dr D Keen reviewed Mr Stojanovski's file and reported (Exhibit R1):

"...

2. Lumbar disc disorder

Two aspects need consideration for impairment rating of this. Firstly, that of any restriction in movement. In August 1999 as HSA Medical Adviser found Mr Stojanovski to have lost ¼ movement. In a subsequent report of 10/11/99 Dr Maniam noted him to have flexion of 60 degrees (as against a maximal expected flexion of 90 degrees) and extension of 20 (with a maximum expected of 30 degrees). The expected figures of 90 and 30 degrees are in fact applicable to young adults, and can be normally expected to decrease to some extent with ageing, and so are regarded as maximal rather than absolute. Lateral flexion to left and right were found to be normal, as was rotation both to the left and right. Thus, Dr Maniam found 1/3 loss of movement in 2 planes (albeit the most important), and no loss of movement in the other 4 directions. On an overall assessment this equates to ¼ loss of movement range, and not the ½ loss proposed by Dr Maniam. Dr Maniam's additional report of 22/8/00 refers to the same examination findings as that of his 10/11/99 report, and does not alter this finding.

The second aspect to consider is that of possible referred pain and lower limb functional loss, as in one report Mr Stojanovski complains of intermittent leg pain. However, the various investigation and scan reports reveal no evidence of nerve root compression, and Dr Maniam reports normal clinical neurological findings. Thus, the appropriate rating for Mr Stojanovski's back condition is 10 under table 5.2 (1997 tables)."

42. In the absence of any instructions or notes in Table 5 of Schedule 1B, the Tribunal was assisted by Dr Keen's opinion and understands from Dr Keen's report that a global assessment is based on the measurement and average movements in all planes. Also, in regard to the lumbar spine, functionally the most important movement is the forward flexion with an "average" or "normal" value of 90 degrees. Further, the Tribunal understands that estimates of range of movement are to the nearest quarter of normal full range of movement. That being said, the Tribunal accepts Dr Keen's opinion and agrees that, in the time frame limited by section 100(3) of the Act, Mr Stojanovski's back condition warranted 10 points from Table 5.2.

43. The Tribunal's determination in relation to Mr Stojanovski's 1999 claim is that at that time Mr Stojanovski did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act in that his back condition did not reach the requisite 20 points. In such circumstances, as one of the requirements to satisfy section 94 of the Act was not met, the section as a whole was not met. Therefore, the Tribunal determines that Mr Stojanovski was not qualified for a disability support pension at the time of his claim.

CONCLUSION

44. The Tribunal's determination in relation to Mr Stojanovski 's claim is that at the time of the claim for disability support pension he did satisfy the requirements of subsection 94(1)(a), however he did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 94(1)(b) of the Act.

45. Accordingly, in all the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal determines that the decision under review is affirmed. This means that the decision under review is unchanged.

I certify that the 45 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms JA Shead, Member.

Signed: .....................................................................................

Associate

Date of Hearing 28 March 2001

Date of Decision 18 February 2002

Representative for the Applicant Self

Advocate for the Respondent G Lozynsky