74AAT DECISIONS

The Tribunal went on to say that, even if it was wrong on this point, any substantial recovery would cause extreme hardship to the applicant and her invalid pensioner daughter. (At the time of the hearing her

daughter was 16 years old and in receipt of an invalid pension due to her epilepsy.) Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the

Director-General for reconsideration with the direction that recovery should be limited to any overpayment in first pension year after the 1974 review.

Invalid pension: permanent incapacityKATSANTONIS and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/512)Decided: 29 June 1982 by R. K. Todd.Anotonios Katsantonis was born in Greece in 1936. He had ‘quite minimal schooling’ and migrated to Australia in 1962. He worked in factory labouring jobs until he qualified, through a course at RMIT, as a welder in 1975.

In May 1977 his back ‘stuck’ while pushing some heavy metal. He settled his workers’ compensation claim for around $21000 and was granted an invalid pension in 1979. In March 1981, the DSS cancelled his pension. He obtained another job (at Rocka Steel) as a welder but, after three days, his back ‘stuck’ again when he tried to lift some metal and he had not worked since then.

He applied to the AAT for review of the cancellation of his pension.The evidence: conflict resolved in applicant’s favourThe AAT found that Katsantonis suffered from spondylosis of his spine, soft tissue in­flammation and chronic muscle spasm. The The Tribunal accepted K atsantonis’ evidence that he suffered real and continu­ing pain despite the view of an orthopaedic surgeon (consulted by the DSS) that Kat­santonis was not genuine. The Tribunal said:

From the whole of the evidence and from the impression which I formed of the applicant, I believe that he would prefer to be a working man and I reject any assertion that he is mak­ing any attempt to mislead. He was previous­ly a hard working man, and I do not believe that he would choose to manufacture symp­toms for the purpose of obtaining the meagre financial benefits of the invalid pension as against the wages of the skilled tradesman that he is.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 16) Competition for jobsAs to the suggestion that he might be fit for light duties, the Tribunal heard evidence that the Richmond (Victoria) CES office had received no vacancies for a watchman’s position for the last eight months and that lift driving was not a readily available posi­tion. There were other reasons why Katsan­tonis was unlikely to obtain such work:

While unemployment owing to economic conditions is not a relevant factor as such in the context of assessing incapacity for work for the purposes of ss.23 and 24 of the Act, it is I think appropriate to note that these cir­cumstances do emphasise the ability of an employer to choose between a man who is fit and active and one who is not . . . Even if these economic circumstances be put on one side, I may still assume that the employer will be able to make such a choice.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 20)In any event, the Tribunal thought that

Katsantonis’ medical condition prevented him from undertaking that type of work (Reasons for Decision, para. 12).Workers’ compensation risk Finally, the AAT said it was relevant to consider that Katsantonis’ condition and workers’ compensation history would discourage any employer from hiring him, even for ‘light duties’:

Even were he the only applicant. . . is it con­ceivable that an employer would accept him knowing of his history? I think not. And given that he has now a history of having tried again, and having failed, and of having added a second claim for compensation, the position is even more hopeless. It all adds up, as I find, to his being permanently in­capacitated for work, the degree thereof be­ing at least 85%, and probably 100%. [TJhis has been the position at all times since the date of cancellation of pension, the job at Rocka Steel having been obtained only because the employer was ignorant of his history.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 22)Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter for recon­sideration in accordance with the direction that Katsantonis’ invalid pension be restored as from the date of cancellation.

MIHAILOV and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/109)Decided: 19 April 1982 by T. R. Morling J.Mihail Mihailov was born in Bulgaria in 1925 and migrated to Australia in 1970. He worked as a labourer and machine operator until 1974 when he stopped working because of back pains, headaches and rheumatism.

An application (in 1980) for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS. Mihailov applied to the AAT for review of this rejection.The evidenceThe AAT considered medical evidence from five doctors on Mihailov’s physical and psychiatric condition. This evidence established that Mihailov had a moderate physical incapacity in his spine and left wrist, which left him able to perform light work. However, he also had a ‘considerable obsession with his own physical disability’ which was not likely to respond to psychiatric treatment and which prevented him from working.

An employment officer from the CES told the AAT that it would be ‘extremely difficult’ to find employment for Mihailov. This was due to several factors: his physical and psychiatric problems, his age and the deflated state of the labour market. ‘Incapacity’: are non-medical factors relevant?The AAT endorsed the views expressed in

Panke, (1981) 2 SSR 9, Bowman v Repatriation Commission (1981) 34 ALR 556, that ‘incapacity for work’ must be assessed by looking at the types of paid work available in the community which the applicant could reasonably perform.

This meant that the AAT must consider Mihailov’s employment prospects. The DSS argued that these prospects were poor because of Mihailov’s age (56), lack of education and skills and long absence from the work force. Because his poor prospects were partly based on these factors, so the DSS argument went, he did not have an ‘in­capacity for work’ within s.24 of the Social Services Act. He was not qualified for in­valid pension, the DSS argued, only for unemployment benefit.

The AAT did not resolve the critical issue raised by this argument (that is, the relevance of non-medical factors in deter­mining incapacity). The Tribunal simply said that the DSS argument did not give ‘full weight to the medical evidence in the case’. The Tribunal concluded:

In my opinion that evidence demonstrates that the applicant’s physical and psychiatric problems effectively and permanently deprive him of the capacity to find an employer who is prepared to employ him. They render him unable to earn a living by gaining employ­ment in the only labour market which is open to him.

(Reasons for Decision, p.15)Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Director-General with a direction that Mihailov be granted an invalid pension.

MILOSAUEVIC and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/534)Decided: 14 May 1982 by A. N. Hall. Zarko Milosaljevic was born in Yugoslavia in 1933 and migrated to Australia in 1959. He was employed on construction work, boiler making, painting, casual restaurant work, security work and truck driving. In 1977 he fell and injured his back and in 1980 he aggravated this injury. His claim for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS.Conflicting evidence: applicant believedThere was some conflict in the medical evidence given to the AAT. The AAT ac­cepted the views of Milosaljevic’s doctors that his back injury disabled him from any work involving bending, lifting or main­taining a fixed position. They rejected the opinion of an orthopaedic surgeon called by the DSS, that Milosaljevic was not ge­nuine and could undertake a variety of jobs. This rejection was largely based on the AAT’s belief that Milosaljevic was a truthful and industrious person.

SOCIAL SECURITY REPORTER

AAT DECISIONS75

An employment officer from the Geelong CES said there was an extremely tight and competitive labour market for manual work, that employers were very resistant to people with back injuries. He said that 50% of the people who were disadvantaged in the labour market and who registered with the CES carried back injuries: ‘This was the most competitive area in which to find suitable employment for disabled workers’. What is ‘suitable’ work?The AAT found that Milosaljevic was ‘unable to do any ordinary class of work which would require consistent application throughout a normal working day’. The DSS argued that Milosaljevic was able to work as a cashier. The AAT said that ‘capacity for work’ in the Social Services A ct meant capacity for work suitable to the applicant:

27. The question as to what work is ‘suitable’ to be undertaken by a person must include a consideration of the characteristics in employees which employers normally seek for particular jobs available in the workforce. Thus, if it be the case that positions of check­out operators in major supermarkets or stores are normally filled by female operators and frequently by teenage girls, can it be said that such a job is ‘suitable’ for a middle aged man with limited English having had no previous experience in that type of work (and leaving aside for the moment the fact that he is carrying a back injury)? If such a person were to apply for unemployment benefits on the basis that the work which he had been seeking was as a cash register check-out operator in a supermarket, would the Director-General be satisfied . . . that the person was willing to undertake paid [suitable] work . . . and that he had taken . . . reasonable steps to obtain such work? (see s.107 of the Act).

The AAT also referred to the reluctance of any employer to hire a worker who would be a bad risk for sick leave and workers’ compensation, and concluded that he was permanently incapacitated for work within ss.23 and 24 of the Social Services Act.The formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and granted Milosaljevic an invalid pension from the date of his application.

MANN and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. Q81/138)Decided: 28 May 1982 by R. K. Todd, B. E. Fleming and A. H. Marsh.George Mann was born in 1927 and worked as a mechanic in the United Kingdom and Australia until 1976 when degenerative changes in his spine forced him to give up work.

He was granted an invalid pension in 1976 but the DSS cancelled this pension in September 1981. He applied to the AAT for review of the cancellation.

The Tribunal found, on the medical evidence, that Mann suffered from degeneration of the spine, which excluded bending or lifting; diabetes; varicose veins; headaches; and a gastric disorder. In com­bination, these problems meant that, through any day, he needed frequent breaks for food and rest. These problems were

permanent.Part-time workThe AAT said the real question was whether Mann could hope to hold down a job. He could not do anything other than light work and even that work would be subject to many frequent interruptions. Even working as a cashier at a self-service petrol station could not be on a ‘nine-to- five’ or full-time basis.

The AAT thought that Mann could not undertake full-time work (as ‘understood by ordinary Australians’):

[A]nd as a matter of law, we consider that when the Act speaks of a man being in­capacitated ‘for work’, that ‘work’ must have the connotation that what we are speaking of there is full-time work, because the pension is to support the man full-time, and while there is a small level of earnings permitted, it would, we think, be quite unrealistic and quite wrong to contemplate that because a man can do two, three or four hours work a day that he is to be regarded as being ade­quately capacitated ‘for work’. If we may say so, Mr Cunliffe’s tentative answer to the question he was asked by the Tribunal in argument about this point should be regarded as plainly correct, namely that if only a part- time job can be obtained and held by the per­son in question, the appropriate degree of capacity is not reached in order to support a finding that he is not incapacitated for w<3tk.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 22)The AAT concluded that Mann was

‘really very close to being incapacitated to the degree of 100 per cent’. Reasons for Decision, para. 24.Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Director-General for reconsideration in ac­cordance with the direction that Mann’s in­valid pension be restored from the date of cancellation.

FOLINO and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/363)Decided: 9 July 1982 by W. Prentice, D. J. Howell and R. A. Sinclair.Maria Folino was born in Italy in 1953 and migrated to Australia in 1970. She married in 1971 and had three children. She lived on a tobacco farm (in which she was a partner) near Myrtleford, Victoria; and, in 1976, she began to suffer back pain which prevented her from working on the farm.

Her application for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS.

The AAT was asked to review this rejec­tion and it considered evidence from seven medical practitioners—none of whom could offer any medical explanation (physical or psychiatric) for Folino’s symp­toms of pain and restricted movement. They suggested that she could well respond to treatment.

The AAT concluded that, while Folino was suffering from some pain and was wor­ried by her limited capacity to work on the farm, neither of these problems was likely to last indefinitely—they could not be regarded as permanent. In addition, her in­capacity for work did not amount to 85%, ‘either for work in regard to the farm and

household duties or indeed for such light process work as may be available from time to time in the area’.Formal decisionThe AAT confirmed the decision under review.

HADFIELD and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. Q81/45)Decided: 23 April 1982 by J. B. K. Williams.Peter Hadfield, aged 41, had worked as a labourer until 1977, when he aggravated an earlier neck injury. In August 1980 he claimed an invalid pension. The DSS rejected this claim.

At the AAT review of this rejection, Hadfield presented no medical evidence; and he agreed that he could, with some limitations, perform clerical work.

Medical evidence produced by the DSS showed that Hadfield was physically disabl­ed from performing heavy work; was physically fit for clerical work; but suffered a psychiatric condition which called for long-term rehabilitation and made it ‘quite unlikely’ that Hadfield would take up clerical work.

The AAT said it could not conclude that Hadfield was 85% permanently in­capacitated for work, because there was no physical basis for any disability, only a psychiatric problem which ‘may well’ res­pond to ‘proper psychiatric counselling’. Formal decisionThe AAT affirmed the decision under review.[Comment: The AAT seems to have given less emphasis to Hadfield’s psychiatric con­dition than it did in Tsimiklis and Andreopoulos: (1982) 7 SSR 70. Hadfield seems to have been handicapped, before the AAT, by two factors: he was not represented and he called no medical evidence. His psychiatric disability emerged in evidence given by a neurologist for the DSS—but the AAT did not follow up that evidence.]

Number 8 August 1982

76AAT DECISIONS

HOFFMAN and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/461)Decided: 7 July 1982.Dallas Hoffman, a 50-year-old man, had worked as a heavy truck driver for about 24 years until he developed back pain and eventually stopped work in December 1980. His claim for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS.

The AAT accepted evidence from Hoff­man’s medical advisers that he had a degeneration in his spine which would com­pletely incapacitate him in his work as a transport driver. The Tribunal preferred that evidence to the more optimistic views of specialists consulted by the DSS.

The AAT noted that Hoffman was ‘tied as a practical matter by his housing situa­tion’ to the Portland (Victoria) district, that he had worked most of his life in a heavy labouring job and that rehabilitation was not likely. The AAT said:

We consider it would require the lucky con­junction of a compassionate employer and the availability of a possibly part-time, cer­tainly light, unskilled job which did not restrict movement and posture for more than periods like half-an-hour, before the appli­cant might gain and keep employment.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 8)Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and granted Hoffman an invalid pension from the date of his original claim.

TAYLOR and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/191)Decided: 18 May 1981 by W. Prentice, D, J. Howell and R. A. Sinclair.John Taylor, aged 56 years, had worked as a house painter for 37 years. He lived in Wangaratta, Victoria. He began to suffer severe neck and back pains. On medical ad­vice he gave up his job. Two doctors, in­cluding a Commonwealth Medical Officer, advised him that his spine had degenerated and that he was permanently incapacitated for work. They recommended that he be granted an invalid pension. However, the DSS rejected his claim for this pension, arguing that he could still carry out some painting work.

In its review of this rejection, the AAT found that Taylor was permanently in­capacitated from performing the full range of work expected of a painter. The Tribunal concluded

that it would be extremely unlikely the appli­cant could find a charitable and tolerant employer who would allow him to work at the only trade he knows, in a selective manner that would allow him to do only such jobs as would not cause him pain of a possibly in­tolerable character. We are satisfied that his disability is such as to render, as a practical matter, his labour unsaleable in any market reasonably accessible to him . . .

(Reasons for Decision, para. 7)Given the shortage of other work in the

Wangaratta area, the AAT said that Taylor’s only chance of earning ‘would be in the exception of his finding special

employment of an unusual kind’ and that he was qualified to receive an invalid pension.Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Director-General with a direction that the applicant be granted an invalid pension from the date of his claim.

BRADBURY and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. N81/73)Decided: 7 May 1982 by W. Prentice. Robert Bradbury, aged 52 years, had work­ed at a variety of jobs until several com­plaints obliged him to stop working in 1980. His claim for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS.

Before the AAT, a variety of medical evidence was presented. On this evidence, the Tribunal found that Bradbury had ‘a moderate anxiety state allied to cervical spondylosis, frozen left shoulder, hiatus hernia, obesity, navel hernia and arthritis of the back [and] tenosynovitis of right lower arm’. Taken together, these disabilities rendered Bradbury unemployable:

[I]t would require the extremely remote chance of the conjunction of the applicant with a sympathetic, friendly and tolerant employer who happened to have available an extremely light job which could be done by a man with a minimal grip and tactile efficien­cy, a bad back and posture intolerance, as well as other troubles; to see Mr Bradbury ever back in the work force.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 7)Formal decisionThe AAT directed that invalid pension be paid to Bradbury from the date of his claim in June 1980.

RAHME and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. N81/125)Decided: 8 July 1982 by W. Prentice, M. Glick and M. McLelland.Khalil Rahme was born in Lebanon in 1938 and migrated to Australia in 1967, where he worked as a labourer and process worker. He began to develop pains and loss of movement and feeling in his arms and hands; and he gave up work in 1977. His application for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS.

Before the AAT, which was asked to review this rejection, medical evidence was given by several doctors, including an or­thopaedic surgeon, Dr B, called by the DSS. Dr B found no objective signs to sup­port Rahme’s symptoms. But the AAT dis­counted Dr B’s evidence because he had not taken account of many symptoms noted by Rahme’s treating doctors.

The AAT accepted the evidence of Rahme’s general practitioner, Dr N, that he suffered from hypertension, gout, cervical spondylosis, anxiety neurosis and depres­sion and that he was unfit for manual or clerical work. The AAT found that Rahme was at least 85% permanently incapacitated for work:

[W]hen we consider the physical and mental

aspect of the applicant’s condition now (and as we believe deteriorating into the future) alongside his work history, limited abilities and presentation as a job prospect; we believe that it would clearly require the unlikely con­junction of a tolerant employer with an easy part-time job to hand, a job which must allow postural changes frequently—before the possibility of the applicant’s obtaining employment would come up.

(Reasons for Decision, para. 10)Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and directed that invalid pension be paid from the date of application.

KANE and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/147)Decided: 19 April 1982 by G. D. Clarkson. George Kane, a 53-year-old man, had worked in semi-skilled engineering jobs in Scotland and Australia until 1979, when he suffered a stroke. His claim for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS.

In its review of that rejection, the AAT accepted evidence of Kane’s treating doc­tors that he was ‘at least 85% incapacitated for any work situation’, because of fatigue which devleoped after about an hour of effort.

The AAT discounted the contrary opi­nion of two specialists consulted by the DSS because they had only seen Kane for brief periods (when the fatigue could not be ex­pected to show up).Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and granted Kane an invalid pension from the date of his application on 8 August 1980.

MELIER and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No W81/22)Decided: 23 April 1982 by J. O. Ballard.Jean Melier, a 56-year-old man, had work­ed as a carpenter in Australia since his migration from Mauritius (in 1973). In 1978 he was injured at work, but worked until he \ was dismissed (because of his physical ■ disabilities) in May 1980. In June 1980 he j claimed an invalid pension, but this claim. ] was rejected by the DSS. j

There was a sharp conflict of opinion \ between Melier’s psychiatrist and a | psychiatrist called by the DSS, over the ex- J tent of complications caused by Melier’s I mental condition. But the AAT did not I resolve this conflict. |

The AAT accepted the opinion of the 1 medical co-ordinator of the clinic which I Melier attended, th a t Melier ‘was I unemployable except as a watchman or 1 caretaker’. The Tribunal said that his lack 1 of English and of education prevented him I from taking up those jobs. |Formal decision |The AAT set aside the decision under |review and remitted the matter to the 1Director-General with the direction that the aplicant be granted an invalid pension from j: January 1981. j

SOCIAL SECURITY REPORTER

AAT DECISIONS77

LUKE and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. V81/363)Decided: 7 May 1982 by W. Prentice.Noel Luke had injured his back while work­ing as a builder’s labourer in 1968, when he was 25 years of age. He was then placed on workers’ compensation for total incapacity for work. He was still receiving this com­pensation at the time of the AAT decision. In 1974 he was granted an invalid pension.

In 1980 the DSS reviewed Luke’s pen­sion, rejected a Commonwealth medical of­ficer’s recommendation and cancelled the pension.Conflicting evidence: applicant believedOn review of this decision before the AAT, conflicting medical evidence was presented by several doctors and evidence was given by Luke and by a CES officer (as to employment prospects).

The AAT preferred the evidence given by Luke’s treating doctors to the evidence given by a specialist consulted by the DSS and found that Luke had ‘a bad back which caused continually, and causes, genuine restriction of movement, pain on move­ment, pain on maintaining an attitude for more than fifteen minutes’ and pain when driving or riding on public transport.

(The Tribunal seems to have been strong­ly influenced by its observation of Luke at the hearing—‘he gave the impression of

sincerity and candour’, the AAT said.)The AAT found that Luke was unfit for

any heavy or repetitive work and that he was not likely to find other work because of his work history, his low level of education, his back injury and other disabilities and the shortage of suitable jobs in the area where he lived. He was, therefore, per­manently incapacitated for work to a degree in excess of 85%.Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and granted Luke an invalid pension from the date of its cancellation.

ZIEBARTH and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES (No. Q81/132)Decided: 9 July 1982 by E. Smith.Walter Ziebarth, born in 1926, had been educated to primary school standard, and had worked in a variety of semi-skilled oc­cupations. In 1980 he was dismissed from his job as a ‘seed-grader’ (a job he had held for 17 years), apparently because of alcoholism.

He claimed to be unfit for work because of a knee injury and peripheral neuritis. However, his claim (in October 1980) for an invalid pension was rejected by the DSS and this rejection was confirmed by an SSAT in September 1981.Conflicting evidence: applicant believed

At its review of this rejection, the AAT found that Ziebarth’s continuing disability was peripheral neuritis which had been caused by his alcoholism. The condition was static, because Ziebarth had not drunk alcohol for nine months. There was no pro­spect of improvement; but, if he resumed drinking the condition would get worse. At present, the neuritis affected his balance, caused continual pain in his feet and legs and made standing and lifting difficult. (The Tribunal based its assessment of Ziebarth*s symptoms on his evidence: it found him to be ‘a truthful man’, of ‘great strength of character’; it preferred his evidence on the symptoms to that given by a specialist physician who was consulted by the DSS.)

An officer from the CES said that Ziebarth’s prospects of finding suitable employment were very limited, if he ‘was unable to stick at a task for any length of time’.

The AAT found that Ziebarth was ‘unable to hold down a full-time job for which he was otherwise fitted’ and was at least 85% permanently incapacitated for work within ss.23 and 24 of the Social Services Act.Formal decisionThe AAT set aside the decision under review and granted an invalid pension from the date of Ziebarth’s application.

Sickness benefit: incapacity for workWILLIAMS and DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY (No. Q81/56)Decided: 9 July 1982 by E. Smith.William Williams, now aged 58, had in­jured his left hand and was granted sickness benefit from 7 November 1977. The benefit was cancelled in October 1980 in response to a medical report suggesting the applicant was malingering. The applicant appealed to the AAT from this decision.

Section 108 (1) provides that a person is qualified for sickness benefit if that ‘person satisfies the Director-General that . . . he was incapacitated for work by reason of sickness or accident (being incapacity of a temporary nature)’ and that he has lost income because of that incapacity.

The applicant claimed that his left hand was basically useless. Conflicting medical evidence was presented to the Tribunal. The two psychiatrists called by the applicant stated that Williams was suffering from an hysterical conversion reaction and was not malingering. An orthopaedic surgeon ap­pearing for the Director-General confirmed that the symptoms had no physical basis and suggested the applicant clearly had an emotional weakness which should not be compensated. The Tribunal noted that this latter comment was outside the surgeon’s field of competence and should be disregarded.A question of credibilityThe T rib u n a l observed th a t the psychiatrists’ evidence was based almost completely on what the applicant had told

them and their validity therefore depended on his truthfulness.

The applicant claimed his left hand was basically useless. The Tribunal then viewed a film, produced (after a summons from the AAT) by the Queensland Workers’ Com­pensation Board. (The applicant also was involved in proceedings for reinstatement of workers’ compensation payments.) The film showed a person performing various tasks with his left hand. The Workers’ Compensation inspector who had taken the film positively identified the person in the film as the applicant. The car shown in the film also belonged to the applicant.

The applicant denied it was him, agreeing that his car had been at the site but the work had been done by an itinerant worker who had left the area and whose full name was unknown. His friend, whose fence was be­ing built, supported his story but the Tribunal found that she ‘gave her evidence in a most unconvincing manner’.

The Tribunal did not accept Williams’ denial of the film evidence. The AAT found he was ‘not to be believed in respect of . . . vital matters’. The Tribunal could not ac­cept the account of his disabilities which he gave to his psychiatrists or of the film and accordingly found ‘that the applicant is not, and was not when his sickness benefit was cancelled, incapacitated for work within the meaning of s. 108 (1) of the Social Security A c t’: Reasons for Decision, para. 39.Formal decisionThe decision under review was affirmed.

Number 8 August 1982