Alexander and Repatriation Commission

[2004] AATA 476

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 476

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/428

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		HUBERT JOACHIM ALEXANDER

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr B J McCabe, Senior Member

Date14 May 2004

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

(a)     The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board of 1 February 2000.

(b)     The Tribunal sets aside the decisions of the Veterans’ Review Board of 21 June 2000 and 4 February 2001 and in substitution decides the applicant, Hubert Joachim Alexander, is entitled to pension payable at the special rate with effect from 10 October 2000.

.................(Sgd).........................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – special rate of pension – date of effect of decision to pay applicant at the special rate of pension

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Re Alexander and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 575
Repatriation Commission v Alexander [2003] FCA 399

REASONS FOR DECISION

14 May 2004 Mr B J McCabe, Senior Member  

1.      This is an application for review of decisions of the Veterans’ Review Board that the applicant is entitled to pension payable at 100% of the general rate with effect from 11 December 1998.  Prior to the hearing of this matter, the parties agreed between themselves that the applicant was entitled to pension at the special rate.  The only issue remaining in dispute is the date the decision to pay pension at the special rate should take effect.  This issue is to be resolved on the basis of the written submissions prepared by the parties, the section 37 documents and other documentary material on the Tribunal’s file.

2.      Briefly, the background of the case is as follows:

(a)On 11 March 1999, the applicant lodged a claim for disability pension in respect of a range of disabilities. On 25 May 1999, the Repatriation Commission determined the following conditions were war-caused:

(i)bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus;

(ii)chronic bronchitis and emphysema;

(iii)gastro-oesophageal reflux disease;

(iv)depressive disorder; and

(v)claustrophobia;

and rejected the applicant’s claims for the following conditions:

(i)localised osteoarthrosis of the knees, right ankle and foot;

(ii)migraine;

(iii)lumbar spondylosis; and

(iv)atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease.

Further, the respondent determined that a pension was payable to the applicant at 100% of the general rate with effect from 11 December 1998.

(b)The applicant sought a review of this decision and, on 1 February 2000, the Veterans’ Review Board (“the Board”) decided the claims for atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease in both legs should be accepted as war caused.  The Board rejected the applicant’s claim in relation to the other non-accepted conditions, and adjourned the issue of the assessment of rate of pension payable to the applicant.  The applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision (AAT file number Q2000/458).

(c)On 21 June 2000, the Board decided to amend the diagnosis of the applicant’s psychiatric disorder from depressive disorder to post traumatic stress disorder and confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to pension at 100% of the general rate.  The…