Ah Gee and Repatriation Commission

Case [2010] AATA 1008

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 1008

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/4201

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re HAYDN AH GEE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member K S Levy RFD and
Dr G J Maynard, Brigadier (Rtd), Member

Date15 December 2010

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.............[Sgd].................................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements - claim for Generalised Anxiety Disorder arising from a previously accepted condition – claim for alcohol dependence arising from Generalised Anxiety Disorder - causation – decision under review affirmed

Veterans entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 70, 119, 120, 120A, 120B
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 55, 103, 106

Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271
Bushell and Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Hunter v Repatriation Commission (2010) FCA 145
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Mann and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 163
Nicholls v The Queen; Coates v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196
Parrotte and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 536
Re Ahrenfeld and Repatriation Commission (1992) 28 ALD 921
Re Lee and Repatriation Commission (1986) 11 ALD 56
Re Myors and Repatriation Commission (1998) 53 ALD 253
Re Norton and Repatriation Commission [2010] AATA 298
Re Robinson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Re Sharkey and Repatriation Commission (1988) 15 ALD 782
Repatriation Commission v Bendy (1989) 18 ALD 144
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius (2002) 69 ALD 250
Repatriation Commission and Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission and Milenz [2007] FCA 50
Repatriation Commission v Warren [2008] FCFCA 64
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115

Stoddart and Repatriation Commission (2003) FCA 334

REASONS FOR DECISION

15 December 2010 Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member           

Dr G J Maynard, Brigadier (Rtd), Member          

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Haydn Ah Gee, served in the Royal Australian Navy (“RAN”) from 10 July 1966 to 25 January 1974.  In this period, he served for varying periods on HMAS Melbourne (a training ship), HMAS Sydney and HMAS Derwent (a destroyer).  He also served at HMAS Melville in Darwin.  In this period, he had operational service on HMAS Derwent in South Vietnamese waters from 10 February 1969 to 18 February 1969 (a nine day period); and had eligible defence service as prescribed by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”) for the period 7 December 1972 until his discharge on 25 January 1974.

2.      Mr Ah Gee applied for recognition of the condition of ‘pleural plaques’ as being defence-caused.  The Repatriation Commission granted this application with effect 27 February 2003.  He subsequently sought to have recognised a disability for post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse.  That claim was rejected by the Repatriation Commission on 23 November 2006 and on review was rejected by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) on 5 August 2008.

3.He now appeals that decision to this Tribunal.

4.As part of the original claim,…

Continue reading Ah Gee and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ah Gee and Repatriation Commission [2010] AATA 1008
Case
[2010] AATA 1008
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ah Gee against the Repatriation Commission was brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The appellant, Mr Ah Gee, sought to have his claims for Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and alcohol dependence, both allegedly arising from his previously accepted condition, recognised as service-related. The Commission had rejected his claims, a decision which Mr Ah Gee sought to overturn.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Mr Ah Gee's GAD and subsequent alcohol dependence were causally linked to his previously accepted condition, and if so, whether they were service-related. The Tribunal had to consider the medical evidence, the nature of Mr Ah Gee's service, and the applicable legislative framework governing veterans' entitlements. The key question was whether the Commission's findings on causation and the relatedness of the conditions to military service were supported by the evidence.

The Tribunal meticulously reviewed the medical evidence and the Commission's reasoning. It found that the Commission's decision was well-reasoned and supported by substantial evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the Commission had correctly determined that Mr Ah Gee's claims did not meet the criteria for service-relatedness, as required by the legislation. The evidence did not convincingly establish a causal link between the claimed conditions and Mr Ah Gee's military service.

The Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decision, rejecting Mr Ah Gee's appeal. The reasoning and evidence supporting the rejection of Mr Ah Gee's claims were deemed sufficient, and the decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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.