Administrative law Mid-Term Assessment Task

Instructions:

Group work component

• This task requires you to form groups of two. If you need help finding a partner, see the forum post on Moodle.
  • As a pair, you will complete a submission to the AAT (‘Task 1: Written Component’) due XXXXX and a moot (‘Task 2: Moot Component’) which will take place against another team in Week XXXXX

Tasks:

Each group must complete the following two tasks in relation to their client:

1. Task 1 (Written Component) (10 marks): Prepare a written submission to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This task is completed as a group and is awarded a group mark. Senior Counsel makes 1 submission on behalf of the group on Moodle by date

• Task 2 (Moot Component) (30 marks): Participate in a moot against another team in an Administrative Appeals Tribunal setting. This task is completed via a live Zoom session at a date/time in Week XXXXX. Senior and Junior Counsel will each present on an administrative law issue (detailed below). This component is marked individually.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:

This assessment will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Identification of issues, rules and principles
• Critical analysis and application
• Communication
• Collaboration and Teamwork

See the end of this task sheet for full rubric.

REF: 2022/2305
DATE: 6 August 2021

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to matter 2022/2305 involving Stephen Adams (Applicant) and the Department of Disability Services (Respondent). I understand that you have recently been engaged as Counsel in this matter. By way of background, Mr Adams was recently injured in a workplace accident and applied for a disability pension as he is no longer able to work. His application has been rejected by the Department, and he would like our help in determining his next steps.

Mr Adams’ situation

• Mr Adams works in the mines just outside of Mt Isa as a mechanical engineer. He has been a miner his entire working career.
• In March 2022, Mr Adams was injured when a piece of machinery he was working on fell on him. He suffered spinal injuries and a collapsed lung in the accident.
• Initially, doctors were optimistic that Mr Adams might make a full recovery. However, between March and June, Mr Adams went to several specialists who concluded that Mr Adams would no longer be able to work due to his injuries.
• In June 2022, Mr Adams applied for a disability pension. At the same time, he submitted a Freedom of Information request seeking documents related to the Department’s handling of spinal injury claims.
• On 1 July 2022, Mr Adams attended a further medical examination, at the request of the Department.
• On 30 July 2022, Mr Adams received a letter from the Department advising that his application has been rejected.

Your task

The Tribunal will conduct a moot to determine the issues listed at Task 2 below. The date and time scheduled for your moot is available at [link]. Your matter will be heard by Tribunal Member XXXX.

Before the moot, the Tribunal would like you to address some preliminary issues, detailed at Task 1 below.

Task 1 (Written Component) (10 marks): The Tribunal directs Counsel to provide a written submission on the following issues:

• Applicant: Is Mr Adams eligible to apply for merits review from the Tribunal?
• Respondent: Was the decision to reject Mr Adams’ application made by an authorised decision-maker?

Counsel is also invited to include a brief summary of their arguments to be presented at the moot.

Make one submission for the team. Submissions should be no more than 1000 words, plus a 10% allowance, including footnotes.

Task 2 (Moot Component) (30 marks): Counsel will moot on the following issues:

• Senior Counsel: Merits review of the decision to reject the Freedom of Information application
• Junior Counsel: Merits review of the decision to reject the disability pension application.

Each team member will have approximately 5 minutes to present, including to answer questions asked by AAT Member.

Please note the following extra pieces of information in preparing your answer:

• You only need to consider the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) provided in this file (i.e., you do not need to look up the Social Security Act. I have tweaked some of the provision to fit the needs of the assessment, so looking beyond this document will only lead you astray).
• You do, however, need to refer to legislative provisions and case law covered in-class in Weeks 2, 3 and 4 (e.g., the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Those relevant pieces of legislation are not provided here.
• You can assume that Mr Adams meets any eligibility requirements for the disability pension, other than those raised in the Department’s letter (i.e., you can assume that Mr Adams meets any income tests, residency, etc, but your answer will need to address the concerns raised about Mr Adams’ medical eligibility).
• You can assume that Mr Adams’ medical assessments by Dr Grey and Dr Pavir are accurate, and that Drs Grey and Pavir are appropriately qualified.
• You can assume that Mt Isa Hospital is run by the Commonwealth Government (i.e., you can ignore the reality that hospitals fall under state jurisdiction).
• You do not need to address other areas of law in your answer, including whether Mr Adams could make a WorkCover claim.
• Several relevant documents are included in this file. Carefully examine these documents in order to complete the two tasks. Included:
  • Mr Adams’ application for disability pension
  • Medical report from Dr Susan Grey
  • Medical report from Dr Ajay Pavir
  • Interview transcript with Rob Roberts, Minister for Disability Services, on ABC 7.30 program
  • Letter from Department of Disability Services to Mr Adams
  • Relevant provisions from the Social Security Act 1991(Cth)

Kind regards,

Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Department of Disability Services

Claim for Disability Support Pension

Name	Stephen Evan Adams
Date of Birth	08/03/1982
Address	15 Bluebird Street, Mt Isa
Application date	13 June 2021

Reason for application:

Continuing inability to work

Limited ability to work under wage-supported program

Temporary inability to work

Type of impairment:

Physical

Intellectual

Psychiatric

Provide details of impairment and points per Impairment Tables (min. 20 points):

• Impairment Table 2: Severe functional impact on activities using lower limbs (20 points)
• Impairment Table 4: Severe functional impact on activities involving spinal function (40 points)
• Impairment Table 1: Severe functional impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina (20 points)

Evidence of impairment:

Please include assessment conducted by certified medical practitioner

– Report by Dr Susan Grey (attached)

– Report by Dr Ajay Pavir (attached)

Signed:

S Adams

Stephen Adams                                                                                   Mt Isa Spinal Clinic

15 Bluebird St                                                                                     881 Main Road

Mt Isa                                                                                                  Mt Isa

Dear Mr Adams,

RE: Clinical Assessment – Spine Function

Thank you for attending our clinic last week. I have now completed my report, which you will be able to use as part of your disability pension application. I am sorry to say that the tests confirmed the suspicions I raised during your appointment, both in relation to the impact of your injury and its likely permanence. Please contact our office to arrange an appointment where we can discuss your treatment plan and management of your injury.

Report

On 21 May 2021, Mr Stephen Adams attended our clinic for an assessment following a spinal injury sustained on 20 March 2021. I confirm that I am a certified medical practitioner and am qualified to conduct this assessment.

Method

As part of the assessment, Stephen completed a number of standard tests designed to measure spine function, range of motion and core strength. These tests were supported by a CT scan and x-ray.

Results

The CT scan and x-ray revealed significant damage to the spinal cord. In my experience, injuries of this type never heal. Further, during testing I observed:

• Stephen was unable to remain seated for longer than 5 minutes at a time
• Stephen required assistance from another person to walk, even when using a walking stick.

Impairment Assessment

I have consulted the relevant Impairment Tables referred to in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and have assessed Mr Adams’ level of impairment as follows:

Table	Impact of Impairment	Points
Table 2 (Lower Limbs)	Severe functional impact on activities using lower limbs: requires assistance to move around using walking aids	20
Table 4 (Spinal)	Severe functional impact on activities involving spinal function: unable to remain seated for at least 10 minutes	20
		Total: 40

Kind regards,

Dr Susan Grey

Stephen Adams                                               Mt Isa Respiratory and Physiotherapy Centre

15 Bluebird St                                                                                                 52 Health Ave

Mt Isa                                                                                                                          Mt Isa

Dear Mr Adams,

RE: Assessment – Respiratory function following collapsed lung

Thank you for attending the Centre recently. At your appointment, we discussed the ongoing healthcare issues and treatments following your collapsed lung injury. This letter confirms that appointment for your records, and may be used in support of a disability pension application if required – I am appropriately qualified and approved to make this assessment.

Following your injury in March, you have reported ongoing issues resulting from your collapsed lung, namely shortness of breath, dizziness and fatigue. These are unfortunately common ongoing symptoms from this type of injury. I conducted a medical examination, and assessed that you would have difficulty sustaining work-related tasks, even of a sedentary nature, for longer than 2 hours in a shift.

We discussed that, with ongoing treatment and physiotherapy, these symptoms can be improved and alleviated. However, given that you have also sustained spinal cord damage, in my professional opinion such a treatment program would difficult to implement.

Impairment Assessment

I have consulted the relevant Impairment Tables referred to in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and have assessed Mr Adams’ level of impairment as follows:

Table	Impact of Impairment	Points
Table 1 (Functions requiring physical exertion and stamina)	Severe functional impact on activities requiring physical exertion or stamina: has or likely to have difficulty sustaining work-related tasks of a clerical, sedentary or stationary nature for a continues shift of at least 3 hours	20
		Total: 20 points

Kind regards,

Dr Ajay Pavir

ABC 7.30

Transcript – interview with the Hon. Rob Roberts MP, Minister for Disability Services

12 May 2021

Interviewer (I): Good evening Minister, thank you for joining us.

Rob Roberts (RR): My pleasure.

I: I’d like to dive right in, Minister, and begin by asking you to address rumours of a dramatic policy shift in your Department. Is it true you are working to slash the number of people receiving a disability pension?

RR: I don’t like to buy into gossip, you know that. But to take your question at face value, we are undertaking a serious review of the kinds of applications we are approving. The disability pension is there for people who need it, but it is not a hand-out for anyone who asks.

I: So it’s true that you’re cutting people off from the disability pension?

RR: I think a better way of putting it is that we are making sure that only people who deserve the pension are receiving it.

I: And who isn’t deserving? What kinds of applications are you knocking back that you weren’t previously?

RR: Oh, it’s a review right across the board, we’re paying much closer attention –

I: Just one example.

RR: One example? Back pain is a big one. Back pain is often used by people trying to cheat the system. It’s very hard to disprove back pain, you see, so people will just claim they have a bad back, and then line up with their hands out, happy to take taxpayers’ hard-earned money. So I’ve instructed the Department to reject any disability pension claims involving “back pain”, “spinal cord injury”, all of that nonsense. It’s dishonest and I’m not standing for it any longer.

I: What evidence is there? What is the factual basis for claiming that people who say they have a spinal cord injury are lying?

RR: My Department has done a lot of research, a lot of consultation with the medical profession, and a lot of surveillance of individuals claiming the disability pension, and put together a new report, Bad Back Cheats. It’s got all the evidence I need to make this call.

I: And when will you be releasing this report?

RR: We won’t be. I’m very concerned you spin doctors in the media will twist the findings out of context and misinterpret it.

…

[The rest of the interview is not relevant to this file]

[FOI Request]

Dear Mr Adams                                                                                              30 July 2021

I am an authorised officer of the Department of Disability Services. I refer to your recent application for a disability pension, dated 13 June 2021. Under section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) I am authorised to approve applications for disability pensions, or reject them if they do not meet the required criteria. Unfortunately, in your case I have determined that you do not meet the required criteria and are therefore ineligible to receive a disability pension. I have therefore decided to reject your application.

Evidence relied upon

• The Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
• Your application, including a report by Dr Susan Grey
• The Bad Back Cheats report, prepared by the Department of Disability Services
• Your hospital records from Mt Isa Hospital

Findings of Fact

• You were injured in a workplace accident in March 2021
• When you were injured, doctors at Mt Isa Hospital said you would make a full recovery
• You claim to suffer a bad back
• Evidence from the Bad Back Cheats report shows that 80% of disability pension applications involving claimed spinal injuries are made fraudulently and the applicant has no lasting impairment.

Based on these findings, your application is rejected.

Kind regards,

Emily Jones

Authorised Officer,

Department of Disability Services

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 (Cth)

Section 3: Object

The object of this Act is to provide for the payment of certain pensions, benefits and allowances, and to regulate these payments in the best interests of the Australian community.

…

Section 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 severe; and

                     (c)  one of the following applies:

                              (i)  the Secretary is satisfied that the person has a continuing inability to work; or

                             (ii)  the Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system; and

                     (d)  the person has turned 16;

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

                     (a)  the diagnosis and/or medical assessment of the person by appropriately qualified medical professionals;

                    (b) the nature of the work the previously engaged in by the person;

                    (c) public health data available to the Secretary, including demographic indicators, socioeconomic factors and population trends.

…

(3B)  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.

Example 1: A person’s impairment is of 30 points under the Impairment Tables, made up of 20 points under one Impairment Table and 10 points under another Impairment Table. The person has a severe impairment.

Example 2: A person’s impairment is of 40 points under the Impairment Tables, made up of 20 points under one Impairment Table and 20 points under another Impairment Table. The person has a severe impairment.

Example 3: A person’s impairment is of 20 points under the Impairment Tables, made up of 10 points each under 2 separate Impairment Tables. The person does not have a severe impairment.

…

Section 149: Tribunal review powers

• An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision of the Secretary or a delegate of the Secretary under the Social Security Act 1991 by, or on behalf of any person who is affected by the decision.
  • Section 28(1AAA) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 has no effect in relation to a review of a decision made under this Act.

(2)  Applications for review of a decision under subsection (1) must be made within 28 days of the date on which notice of the decision is received.

(3)  If a person applies to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision under the Social Security Act 1991, the Tribunal must either:

1. affirm the decision; or
2. set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or
3. set aside the decision and return the matter to the chief executive with directions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
4. In substituting another decision, Administrative Appeals Tribunal has the same powers as the Secretary or delegate of the Secretary. If the Tribunal substitutes another decision, the substituted decision is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be the Secretary’s decision.
5. In reviewing a decision under the Social Security Act 1991, the Tribunal’s hearing is to be de novo.

Marking Rubric

Written Task (10 marks)

	HD	D	C	P	F
Identification of issues and relevant rules / legal principles (5 marks)	Written submission successfully identifies all the legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law, demonstrating strong insights into administrative law.	Written submission successfully identifies all the legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.	Written submission identifies most of the legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.	Written submission identifies the main legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.	Written submission identifies misses key legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.
Critical analysis and application (3 marks)	The argument is presented clearly and defended throughout. The submission demonstrates a balanced and very high level of detailed knowledge of core concepts by providing a very deep level of analysis. It provides significant insight into the area of interest.	The argument is presented clearly and defended throughout. The submission demonstrates a balanced and high level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a deep level of analysis.	The argument is generally presented clearly and defended throughout. The submission demonstrates a balanced and good level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a moderate level of analysis.	The argument could be better developed and more clearly presented and defended. The submission demonstrates some knowledge and understanding of core concepts by providing a limited level of analysis.	The argument is absent altogether or poorly presented and defended. The submission demonstrates little, if any, knowledge or understanding of the core concepts with extremely limited, if any, analysis.
Communication (2 marks)	Written communication is of an exceptionally high standard. Grammar, spelling and punctuation are all accurate. Referencing is accurate.	Written communication is of a high standard. Very few errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Referencing is mostly accurate.	Written communication is of a good standard. Few errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Referencing is accurate.	Written communication is of a reasonable standard. Some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Referencing is adequate.	Written communication is of an unsatisfactory. Errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Referencing is not adequate.

Moot Task (30 marks)

	HD	D	C	P	F
Identification of issues and relevant rules / legal principles (5 marks)	Oral submission successfully identifies all the legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law, demonstrating strong insights into administrative law.	Oral submission successfully identifies all the legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.	Oral submission identifies most of the legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.	Oral submission identifies the main legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.	Oral submission identifies misses key legal issues and relevant rules, statutes and case law.
Critical analysis and application (12 marks)	The argument is presented clearly and defended throughout. The submission demonstrates a balanced and very high level of detailed knowledge of core concepts by providing a very deep level of analysis. It provides significant insight into the area of interest.	The argument is presented clearly and defended throughout. The submission demonstrates a balanced and high level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a deep level of analysis.	The argument is generally presented clearly and defended throughout. The submission demonstrates a balanced and good level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a moderate level of analysis.	The argument could be better developed and more clearly presented and defended. The submission demonstrates some knowledge and understanding of core concepts by providing a limited level of analysis.	The argument is absent altogether or poorly presented and defended. The submission demonstrates little, if any, knowledge or understanding of the core concepts with extremely limited, if any, analysis.
Communication (8 marks)	Oral communication is of an exceptionally high standard. Presentation is confident and very clear. Adapts to and answers questions exceptionally well.	Oral communication is of a high standard. Presentation is confident and clear. Adapts to and answers questions very well.	Oral communication is of a good standard. Presentation is clear. Adapts to and answers questions well.	Oral communication is of a reasonable standard. Presentation is mostly clear. Adapts to and answers questions reasonably well.	Oral communication is of an unsatisfactory standard. Presentation is not clear. Adapts to and answers questions poorly.
Collaboration and teamwork (5 marks)	Evidence of exceptional collaboration and synergy between team members.	Evidence of very good collaboration and synergy between team members.	Evidence of good collaboration and synergy between team members.	Evidence of reasonable collaboration and synergy between team members.	Little or no evidence of collaboration and synergy between team members.

Get expert help for Administrative law Mid-Term Assessment Task and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!