Editors --- "Maternity payment: time limit for making application; whether extension of time in which to apply should be granted" [2007] SocSecRpr 34; (2007) 9(3) Social Security Reporter, Article 8

• SECRETARY TO THE DFaCSIA and CARTY
• Background
• The issues
• Discussion
• Formal decision

---

Maternity payment: time limit for making application; whether extension of time in which to apply should be granted

SECRETARY TO THE DFaCSIA and CARTY

(2007/1287)

Decided: 2nd May 2007 by R. Perton

Background

Carty gave birth to a son on 18May 2005. Seven months later she lodged an application for maternity payment with Centrelink. Her application was refused because the claim had not been made within 26 weeks of the birth of the child.

Carty sought review of this decision and was successful before the SSAT. The SSAT had found that she suffered a severe illness associated with the birth of her child and, in the circumstances, that an extension of time in which to lodge the application should be granted.

The Secretary sought a review of the SSAT’s decision by the AAT.

The issues

The issue for determination by the AAT was whether Carty was suffering from a severe illness associated with the birth of her child which prevented her from making a claim within 26 weeks of the birth of the child.

Discussion

Carty told the AAT that she had had a difficult caesarean section birth, and that she required considerable medical and other assistance post-birth. Her evidence was that she suffered an infection and the healing process following the caesarean section birth was very slow. She provided medical evidence to the AAT to support these contentions.

Further, Carty contended that, although she had not been medically diagnosed, she had been suffering from post-natal depression following the birth of the child, which resulted in her having difficulty leaving the house and lead to difficulties coping with her child. She provided evidence from her treating doctor and a social worker (a friend/work associate of Carty) confirming that she suffered a reduced mood following the birth of her child.

She further informed the AAT that she had noticed, after the birth, a lump on her face. She was required to undergo various tests before the lump eventually disappeared. The treating doctor confirmed that she had suffered from this condition and had been required to attend surgical and oncology specialists on seven occasions to exclude haematological malignancy. She had also attended his surgery for consultations, investigation and management of the condition.

Carty’s treating doctor provided a report stating that the investigation of the lump, in combination with the demands of the baby, prevented Carty from lodging her application for maternity payment within the prescribed time.

The AAT referred to a written statement made by Carty to the SSAT wherein she stated that her accountant had advised her on 23 December 2005 of the necessity to lodge the claim with Centrelink within the prescribed time. In the statement, Carty said: ‘There is no doubt had I known this I would have applied sooner...’.

Carty agreed that she had made this statement and said that she had believed she could make the claim for maternity payment through the tax system at the end of the financial year.

The AAT noted that, pursuant to section 39(3) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Act), the time in which to lodge a claim for maternity payment can only be extended if the Secretary is satisfied that the claimant was unable to make the claim in normal circumstances because of severe illness associated with the birth of the child.

In relation to the claim that she had been suffering from post-natal depression, the AAT concluded that, as Carty had not received any medical treatment for the condition, the condition was not a severe illness.

In relation to the lump discovered on Carty’s face, the AAT found that there was no persuasive medical or other evidence that this condition was connected with the birth of the child.

The AAT also observed that Carty’s medical conditions had not prevented her from attending to other administrative tasks (such as registering her son’s birth with Medicare) during the six months following the birth of her child.

The AAT found that, whilst Carty faced many difficulties during the six months after the birth of her child, she was not prevented from lodging her claim within the prescribed timeframe due to a severe illness associated with the birth of the child. In the circumstances, the AAT found that the time limit for lodging the claim for maternity payment should not be extended.

Formal decision

The AAT set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision that maternity payment was not payable to Carty.

[S.O.]