Decision making and review

123 views 9:59 am 0 Comments July 18, 2023

SAP103 Tutorial activity Week 3: Decision making and reviewHuman Computer Interaction

 

Case Study 1 – Michael – Compensation Preclusion Period

Michael received a lump sum compensation payment after being injured at work which resulted in him losing both hands. Michael has a history of traumatic brain injury and bipolar disorder. After receiving his lump sum payment, he incurred another brain injury after an assault and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

After a few years, as the money was running out, he applied for Disability Support Pension (DSP) but was rejected because of his compensation preclusion period. He appealed this decision to a Centrelink Authorised Review Officer who recognised his financial hardship but did not have any evidence to prove this. Michael contacted the Welfare Rights Centre Victoria to request support/assistance after he had served almost 80 per cent of his compensation preclusion period

Additional Relevant Facts

Michael was not in the right physical or mental position to find employment or manage his compensation lump sum.

His decision-making capacity was greatly affected by his most recent brain injury.

Michael left home at age 15 and does not have any family or close friends to support him.

He was financially exploited by people close to him and his expenditure reflected his need for security and safety.

Questions

Why was Michael’s application for DSP initially rejected?

Michael requested a review of the decision – what type of review was initially undertaken?

Do you think Michael has the right to a further appeal and if so what might be the next stage in the appeals process?

What information might be sought to support further appeals?

Which part of the legal system might deal with external appeal?

How might you provide support to Michael in managing these processes?

 

 

 

Case study 2 – Cara

 

The client was an 18 year old girl born in Ethiopia and now studying Year 11 in Australia. She and her twin sister were thrown out of the family home of her adopted father and stepmother on Christmas Day and told not to come back.

The client lodged a claim for Youth Allowance at the Unreasonable to Live at Home (UTLAH) rate on line with Centrelink on 30 December 2013 as she had no means of support. She had approached her adopted father about returning home, however her step mother said that she was not permitted to. She also approached community members to intervene and make approaches to her parents but there was refusal on their part.

She was referred to the Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service by the Department of Human Services (DHS) when her application for payment at the UTLAH rate had been unsuccessful. Her request for review of the decision by a DHS Authorised Review Officer had also been unsuccessful and there had been a refusal to consider third party verification.

Questions

What might be the next stage in appealing the decision not to grant Cara the Youth Allowance at the UTLAH rate – that is where might an appeal be lodged?

What information might be submitted to the panel?

What might a likely outcome be for Miss Cara if she was without support or unable to access the appeals system?

 

Exercise using the AASW Code of Ethics.

Identify and discuss the principles of Administrative Law reflected in the AASW Ethics Code 2020 (see page 11 Ethical Decision Making). Refer to Week 3 Lecture power point slide 17 for the key principles of Administrative Law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,