Armstrong and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 180

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 180

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/1062

VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re RODNEY JAMES ARMSTRONG

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Member SC Fisher

Date4 March 2005  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal decides to affirm the decision under review.

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

S C Fisher
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – war caused injury during operational service – post-traumatic stress disorder – Whether post-traumatic stress disorder is war-caused – Event experienced not a severe stressor – Tribunal not satisfied that applicant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder – decision under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s174-176

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy, Federal Court, 29 June 1998, 809/98. 
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472 Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
Hillier v Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321,
Hillier v Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 365
Ahrens and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 943
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82.
Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Re Ahrenfeld and Repatriation Commission (1992) 28 ALD 921
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283
O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 March 2005   Member SC Fisher  

Introduction and background

1.      Mr Rodney James Armstrong (the Applicant) served in the Australian Regular Army from 19 July 1996 to 19 February 1995, during which period he served in South Vietnam from 24 March 1969 to 18 March 1970.

2.      On 29 October 2002 the Applicant submitted a claim to the Department Veterans’ Affairs for “nerves” on the basis that this condition was related to his South Vietnam service. The Repatriation Commission (the Respondent) decided to treat his claim as a claim for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). On 22 May 2003, the Respondent decided that the PTSD of the Applicant was not related to service.

3.      On 24 June 2003 the Applicant appealed to the Veterans’ Review Board for review of the Respondent’s decision of 22 May 2003. On 4 September 2003, the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed the 24 June 2003 decision of the Respondent.

4.      On 19 December 2003, the Applicant appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the 22 May 2003 decision of the Respondent, as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board that his PTSD was not related to his service.

Jurisdiction

5.      This appeal is governed by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Tribunal has jurisdiction in this appeal by virtue of sections 174 - 176 of the Act. In…

Continue reading Armstrong and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Armstrong and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 180
Case
[2005] AATA 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an applicant, Armstrong, and the Repatriation Commission, where the central issue was whether the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was caused by war during operational service, entitling him to a disability pension. This case was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal was required to decide whether the events experienced by the applicant were severe enough to cause PTSD and, if so, whether the applicant indeed suffered from this condition. The Tribunal needed to review the decision made by the Repatriation Commission and determine whether it was legally sound.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the applicant, including his service records and medical assessments, and reviewed relevant case law. The Tribunal found that the events experienced by the applicant, while distressing, did not meet the criteria of a severe stressor as required by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant suffered from PTSD, affirming the decision of the Repatriation Commission that the applicant was not entitled to the disability pension. The reasoning was based on the lack of a severe stressor and insufficient evidence to support a PTSD diagnosis.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Repatriation Commission, affirming that the applicant was not entitled to the disability pension. The decision was based on the Tribunal's finding that the events experienced by the applicant did not constitute a severe stressor and that the applicant did not suffer from PTSD. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the applicable statutory provisions and relevant case law, ensuring a thorough and legally sound outcome. The Tribunal's affirmation of the Repatriation Commission's decision concluded that the applicant's claim for a disability pension was not substantiated.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal decides to affirm 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.