Adams and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 684

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 684
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2001/1054

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re RONALD KEITH ADAMS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr O Rinaudo, Member
Date30 June 2004
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor decides that the applicant’s PTSD is accepted as war-caused with effect from 6 June 1999.

....................(Sgd).................
O Rinaudo
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – pension – alcohol dependence or abuse and post traumatic stress disorder – applicant witnessed an event that involved death and experienced feelings of intense helplessness and horror – severe stressor – PTSD caused by his war service – clinical onset of alcohol abuse or dependence not within two years of severe stressor – not war caused – decision set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120(3)
Re Slattery and Repatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 90
Stoddard v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 293
Re Potts and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1126
Re Bolton and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 584
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
REASONS FOR DECISION

30 June 2004 Mr O Rinaudo, Member

Decision Under Review
1.      The applicant seeks review of decisions made by the Repatriation Commission on 5 July 2000 rejecting the applicant’s claim for alcohol dependence or abuse, hypertension and depressive disorder on the basis that the conditions were not war-caused and further rejecting the applicant’s claim for anxiety/post traumatic stress disorder on the grounds that the diagnoses could not be confirmed.
2.      The Veterans’ Review Board varied the decision under review on 11 October 2001 by including a diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder and deleting the diagnosis of depressive disorder. The Board otherwise affirmed the decision under review and found that the conditions of generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence/abuse and hypertension were not war-caused.
3. The applicant seeks a determination that his traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse/dependence, depression and hypertension are war-caused within the meaning of sections 9 and 70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”).
4.      The applicant served in the Royal Australian Navy from 6 March 1964 to 5 March 1984. He has the following periods of operational service:
§25 April 1966 to 6 May 1966
§25 May 1996 to 9 June 1966

5.      The applicant also rendered eligible defence service from 7 December 1972 to 5 March 1984.
6.      The applicant has bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss with tinnitus as a condition accepted as service-related.
Hearing
7.      At the hearing of this matter the applicant gave evidence as did Mrs Adams, Lieutenant Commander Beamish, Mr Don Beer, Commodore Mulcare, Mr Straczek, Associate Professor John McCarthy, Dr Scott Jenkins, Dr David Alcorn and Ms Yvonne Hare. In addition, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Adams and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 684
Case: [2004] AATA 684
Decision Date: 30 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) involved an applicant who sought a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission regarding his eligibility for a war-caused pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The applicant contended that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was caused by his service in war, and he also suffered from alcohol dependence or abuse. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant’s PTSD and alcohol dependence or abuse were related to his service and whether the clinical onset of his alcohol abuse or dependence occurred within two years of experiencing a severe stressor related to his service.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant’s PTSD and alcohol dependence or abuse were caused by his war service. The Tribunal had to assess the evidence presented and decide if the applicant's PTSD was war-caused and if the clinical onset of his alcohol dependence or abuse was within two years of the severe stressor related to his service. The relevant statutory provisions, particularly sections 9 and 120(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, guided the Tribunal's determination. Additionally, the Tribunal considered relevant case law, including Re Slattery and Repatriation Commission, Stoddard v Repatriation Commission, Hill v Repatriation Commission, and others.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had witnessed an event involving death and experienced intense helplessness and horror during his service, which qualified as a severe stressor. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s PTSD was caused by his war service and was war-caused. However, the Tribunal determined that the clinical onset of the applicant’s alcohol dependence or abuse did not occur within two years of the severe stressor. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision and determined that the applicant’s PTSD was war-caused with effect from 6 June 1999, but his alcohol dependence or abuse was not accepted as war-caused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor decides that the applicant’s PTSD is accepted as war-caused with effect from 6 June 1999.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.