84 A contention that the panel is not entitled to assume that a person in the position of the applicant would actually take increased dosages of his present medication or alternative medications and so is obliged to determine that a present psychiatric condition will not thereby be abated, is hardly compelling in terms of logic or authority. In Re Croser, as indicated above, Olsson AUJ and Murray J accepted that the uncertainty as to what the future might hold beyond a 2 -5- year period was hardly consistent with a finding that the diagnosed psychiatric condition was permanent. Plainly, the availability of medications that, in the ordinary course of events, are likely to optimise a person's condition, is relevant to the assessment to be made whether the condition is permanent or temporary. If, by adopting available and appropriate forms of medication or other treatment, a condition may be alleviated, it can hardly be concluded that the condition will be an enduring one. Once that position is arrived at, it is open to a panel to conclude that the condition is "temporary". To so find, of course, says nothing about the person's present, or long term, capacity for work. A person may have, for example, a temporary medical condition and a present total inability to work or a present partial capacity for work.