Case Study 1 - Michael - Compensation Prectusion Period Michael received a lump sum compensation payment after being injured at work which resuited 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 posttrau m atic stress disorde r. 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 supportfassistance after he had served almost 80 per cent of his compensation preclusion period Additionai 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 1. Why was Michael's application for DSP initially rejected? 2. Michael requested a review of the decision what type of review was initially undertaken? 3. Do you think Michael has the right to a further appeal and if so what might be the next stage in the appeals process? 4. What information might be sought to support further appeals? 5. which part of the legal system might deal with external appeal? I5. How might you provide support to Michael in managing these processes