[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-200744-105":53,"doc-detail-200744-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","what-causes-harm-the-onerous-and-burdensome-nature-of-proving-disability-part-b-stories-from-people-with-disability","What Causes Harm - The Onerous and Burdensome Nature of Proving Disability - Part B - Stories from People with Disability","","The text presents lived stories showing how proving disability for the Disability Support Pension can cause serious harm through delays, complex evidence requirements, and assessment failures. It documents cases including suicide while waiting, continued administrative processing after death, and rejection where co-morbid conditions were not captured in impairment tables. It also describes obstacles to obtaining medical reports, gaps in formal cognitive assessment, and how inadequate assessment can deny access to secure income that supports health and recovery.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/what-causes-harm-the-onerous-and-burdensome-nature-of-proving-disability-part-b-stories-from-people-with-disability/200744/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/what-causes-harm-the-onerous-and-burdensome-nature-of-proving-disability-part-b-stories-from-people-with-disability/200744.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Jiven","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-09-23","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"Why did John experience extreme harm while waiting for DSP?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"John had a manifest impairment but did not receive DSP immediately. During processing delays and administrative issues, his condition deteriorated and he died shortly after his application was lodged.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How can complexity across conditions affect DSP impairment-table assessments?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Mary’s impairments stemmed from interacting comorbidities, but the DSP Impairment Tables did not capture that combined complexity. The claim was rejected, requiring appeal, where the tribunal accepted rating on the mental health table for both conditions.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What evidence and assessment barriers can prevent access to DSP for cognitive disabilities?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The text describes outcomes where lack of formal cognitive assessment or neuropsychology evidence left causes “unknown,” making Centrelink unable to assess eligibility. In other cases, further neurocognitive assessment was not pursued despite evidence of ongoing impairment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},200744,1788511770,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":25,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":47},1099513958607,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002390cf8733938c?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1778829742770036399","Disability Support Pension: The Impact of Institutional Abuse and Neglect on People with Disability \u000b\u000bPart B: Stories from People with Disability and Lived Experience of the Application and Review Process of the Disability Support Pension\u000bCoordinated by AFDO Expert Advisor on Social Security Natasha Thomson\nAugust 2021\nWhat Causes Harm: The Onerous and Burdensome Nature of Proving Disability\nJohn: Passed away while waiting for DSP\nJohn had terminal bowel cancer. When he was discharged from hospital, he had no income and was behind in rent payments as he waited for his DSP application to be processed. As John’s condition was considered a ‘Manifest impairment’, he should have received the DSP immediately. An Advocate assisted John with an application for Newstart to ensure he had some income. When John was told it would take up to two of the six months he had left to process his DSP application, he attempted suicide.\nTwo months after being discharged, John was in a vegetative state, of which his Social Worker advised Centrelink. The Advocate advised the Social Worker to insist on a Manifest grant of the DSP. The following week, there was a request from Centrelink for John to attend a Job Capacity Assessment. The Centrelink Social Worker advised the Manifest grant was still outstanding and that the Manager of DSP assessments had written a report and that it still lies with the Quality Team.\nJohn passed away 54 days after his DSP application was first lodged. Unfortunately, the Centrelink processing issues continued following John’s death. Despite notifying Centrelink that he was deceased, Centrelink managed to continue paying DSP. On receipt of the Death Notice Centrelink advised that John’s estate would now have a debt to Centrelink due to an overpayment.\nMary: Complexity doesn’t fit in Impairment Tables\nMary is diagnosed with mental health conditions and ASD. It is difficult to know which condition primarily causes Mary’s functional impairment. For example, due to Mary’s ASD she finds it difficult to engage in social interactions and understanding social cues which causes her anxiety and is exacerbated by her mental health symptoms. Consequently, the interaction of these comorbidities is not captured in the DSP Impairment Tables. Mary’s DSP claim was rejected and she sought assistance from a Disability Advocate to appeal this decision. At the AAT hearing it was apparent the complexity this caused. Further submissions were needed to investigate if both conditions should be assessed on the same Impairment Table. The Tribunal accepted that both conditions could be rated on the Mental Health Table which was considered an inconsistent approach by some Tribunal members.\nJane: Took 3.5 years and 7 applications to access DSP\nJane has lived with recurrent severe depression and applied for the Disability Support Pension 6 times in a 3 year period.  Jane was referred to a Disability Advocate through a Mental Health program supporting people to wellness. The client’s Psychiatrist refused to provide written reports to the client for Centrelink purposes; however they kept the client’s Doctor up to date through correspondence.  For DSP applications for a Mental Health impairment a diagnosis must be made by a Psychiatrist or Clinical Psychologist. It was not until Jane obtained a copy of the Psychiatrist report from her GP and a new DSP application was made, that a successful outcome was achieved.\nThe secure income of the DSP has significantly reduced Jane’s distress, which in turn has helped improve her mental health. This stability has allowed Jane the capacity to attempt to build new friendships and participate in volunteering.\nAmanda: Living on savings and process “too stressful”\nAmanda is 43 and currently living on Workcover and super income (total $310 a week). Amanda has mental health and physical health issues. Amanda focused on her mental health issues in her DSP application as she has a good mental health team around her and was conf","cbCaidDll3fVyPCc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidDll3fVyPCc","docx",64000,"English","# What Causes Harm: The Onerous and Burdensome Nature of Proving Disability\n## Part B: Stories from People with Disability and Lived Experience of the Application and Review Process of the Disability Support Pension\n## John: Passed away while waiting for DSP\n## Mary: Complexity doesn’t fit in Impairment Tables\n## Jane: Took 3.5 years and 7 applications to access DSP\n## Amanda: Living on savings and process “too stressful”\n## Rebecca: Lack of access to medical assessment\n## Diane: Cognitive disability not fully assessed\n## Lara: Claiming DSP was a traumatic experience","[{\"question\":\"Why did John experience extreme harm while waiting for DSP?\",\"answer\":\"John had a manifest impairment but did not receive DSP immediately. During processing delays and administrative issues, his condition deteriorated and he died shortly after his application was lodged.\"},{\"question\":\"How can complexity across conditions affect DSP impairment-table assessments?\",\"answer\":\"Mary’s impairments stemmed from interacting comorbidities, but the DSP Impairment Tables did not capture that combined complexity. The claim was rejected, requiring appeal, where the tribunal accepted rating on the mental health table for both conditions.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence and assessment barriers can prevent access to DSP for cognitive disabilities?\",\"answer\":\"The text describes outcomes where lack of formal cognitive assessment or neuropsychology evidence left causes “unknown,” making Centrelink unable to assess eligibility. In other cases, further neurocognitive assessment was not pursued despite evidence of ongoing impairment.\"}]","What Causes Harm - The Onerous and Burdensome Nature of Proving Disability - Part B - Stories from People with Disability | DOCX"]