Bassett and Repatriation Commission
[2006] AATA 562
•28 June 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 562
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/1437
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re DENNIS BASSETT
Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly and Member, Dr Max Thorpe Date28 June 2006
PlaceSydney
Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.
[sgd] Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ APPEALS – operational service in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve – Applicant seeking conditions of glaucoma, diplopia and alcohol abuse to be accepted as war caused – Applicant suffers from glaucoma, diplopia and alcohol abuse –no hypothesis connecting glaucoma and diplopia to service - the Statement of Principles for alcohol abuse is not satisfied and thus it is not connected to service – Applicant seeking an increase in pension rate from previously accepted conditions – Applicant not entitled to special or intermediate rate of pension as not ceased working due to war caused conditions alone – Applicant not entitled to Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate as medical impairment rating is less than 70 points – decisions under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 s 9, 22, 23, 24, 120 120ACASELAW
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 66 ALD 285
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 71East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Byrnes and Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564.
REASONS FOR DECISION
28 June 2006 Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly and Member, Dr Max Thorpe Introduction
1. Mr Dennis Bassett served in the Royal Australian Air Force between April 1956 and February 1958. He is a veteran because he served in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve from May to October 1957, and consequently is receiving a pension at 100% of the General Rate for various conditions which the Repatriation Commission has accepted as being war-caused.
2. Mr Bassett claims that he also has the war-caused conditions of Diplopia (double vision), bilateral open-angled glaucoma (“Glaucoma”) and alcohol dependence/alcohol abuse, and that he is entitled to a higher rate of pension. At the hearing, the Repatriation Commission conceded that Mr Bassett does have Glaucoma, but did not concede that it was war-caused.
3. Mr Bassett represented himself. We understood him to argue that if he is unsuccessful in relation to his new claimed conditions, he is still entitled to a higher rate of pension based on the conditions that have already been accepted.
Issues
(1) Does Mr Bassett suffer from Diplopia and/or alcohol dependence/ alcohol abuse?
(2) Are the conditions that he suffers “war-caused”?
(3) Is Mr Bassett’s pension rate correctly determined at 100% of the General Rate?
The Reviewable Decisions
4. The issues arise out of the following reviewable decisions which were affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 22 July 2005:
(1) The decision of 23 June 2004 in which the Commission assessed Mr Bassett’s pension at 100% of the General Rate,
(2) The decision of 20 January 2005, in which the Commission refused Mr Bassett’s claims for diplopia, bilateral open-angled glaucoma and alcohol dependence/ alcohol abuse, and assessed the rate of pension at 100% of the General Rate.
The Law applicable to determine whether a disease is “war-caused”
5. The first two issues arise from the question whether the conditions Mr Bassett claims are “war-caused”. His service in Malaya and the Far East Strategic Reserve is “operational service”. Any injury or disease he contracted as a result of that service will be “war-caused” (the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1988 (“the Act”), s 9). We use the word “condition” in this decision for convenience, to include both “injury” and “disease” as defined in the Act.
6. Mr Bassett made his claim after 1 June 1994. Therefore, to decide whether a condition he claims is “war-caused”, sections 120 and 120A of the Act apply. Those provisions, as interpreted in various decisions require the following analysis to be done:
(1) Decide on the “balance of probabilities” whether Mr Bassett suffers diplopia and/or alcohol abuse (s 120(4), Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711, Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307, Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 66 ALD 285).
(2) Then, in relation to each disease we find that he suffers, and glaucoma (which has been conceded), consider:
(a) all the evidence and determine, without making any findings of fact, whether it points to a hypothesis connecting the condition with Mr Bassett’s service in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve;
(b) If there is an hypothesis, whether there is an applicable Statement of Principles (“SoP”) in force for the condition;
(c) If there is an applicable SoP, whether the hypothesis is consistent with it; and
(d) Where the hypothesis is consistent with an SoP, or if there is no applicable SoP, where the hypothesis is reasonable, decide whether we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the condition was not connected with service.
(Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82), as qualified by Hancock and Bull v Repatriation Commission 66 ALD 71; Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517, and Byrnes and Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564.)
Does Mr Bassett have Diplopia and/or Alcohol dependence / alcohol abuse?
Diplopia
7. Ms Harry who appeared for the Commission, argued that the evidence of Dr Irvine, ophthalmologist, supported a finding that Mr Bassett does not suffer from Diplopia.
8. We do not understand Dr Irvine’s opinion in that way. He does not say that Mr Bassett does not suffer from that condition. He recorded Mr Basset’s history of intermittent double vision which “he says comes and goes and is associated with loss of balance” and which was first noted in March 2002. Dr Irvine said that no Diplopia was present on examination, and continued:
“It is possible however that there is an old fourth nerve palsy present causing some intermittent vertical diplopia but this is hard to establish in the presence of the very poor vision in the left eye”.
9. His summary was that Mr Bassett has:
1. Mild cataracts
2. Glaucoma
3. Left macular scarring secondary to old central retinal vein occlusion
4. Possible vertical muscle imbalance due to old fourth nerve palsy.
10. In May 2002, Dr Polgar, neurologist, reported that Mr Bassett had had four episodes of vertical diplopia, three on 18 March 2002 and the fourth in early April. They all seemed to relate to his assuming the upright posture. Following investigations, Dr Polgar sent a further report to Mr Bassett’s general practitioner, in July 2002. The doctor recorded three episodes of vertical diplopia on 5 June 2002 and another on 21 June 2002. There was no accompanying dizziness or blurred vision during the June and July incidents.
11. We accept the evidence of Dr Polgar, which we consider is supported by that of Dr Irvine. We find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Bassett suffers from Diplopia.
Alcohol dependence/ alcohol abuse
12. Ms Harry argued that we should accept the opinions of Dr Haik, psychiatrist, and Professor Mattick, psychologist, and find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Bassett does not suffer from alcohol dependence/ alcohol abuse. Dr Haik concluded that Mr Bassett had a history of alcohol excess but said that it was difficult to determine how much he had consumed and he did not conform to the SoP criteria.
13. Professor Mattick is a registered psychologist. In his opinion, Mr Bassett did not have alcohol abuse as he did not meet the diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV, which sets out criteria for diagnosis of psychiatric conditions, or the relevant SoP. He does not believe that drinking heavily equates with alcohol abuse as the criteria are quite specific.
14. Given the reference by Dr Haik and Professor Mattick to the SoP, it is relevant to note that diagnosis of a disease under the Act does not depend on the criteria in a SoP (see Budworth) The SoP is relevant to a later step in the analysis, that is, to determine whether a hypothesis is reasonable. It is the case that sometimes the criteria in a SoP are the same as used for diagnosis by medical practitioners outside the realm of the legislation with which we are concerned. Although neither doctor specified the situation here, it is the case that the SoP adopts the DSM-IV criteria for both alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse. DSM-IV is generally accepted as setting out criteria for diagnosing psychiatric conditions.
15. We prefer the opinion of Dr Dinnen on this issue. He took a detailed history, reviewed service records and other material, and saw Mr Bassett’s former wife. She told him that after their divorce which was in about 1976, she had to work 80 to 100 hours a week to support the children because of Mr Bassett’s drinking and gambling.
16. Dr Dinnen said that the information about Mr Bassett’s alcohol dependence or abuse was “somewhat inconsistent”. However, on the balance of probabilities he considered that the diagnosis of alcohol abuse is warranted. He also diagnosed personality disorder not otherwise specified by reference to the criteria in 301.9 of DSM IV.
17. We also found the evidence about Mr Bassett’s drinking to be inconsistent. He has written various statements about the quantity and frequency of his drinking and the kinds of alcohol he drank and sometimes given differing histories to various doctors. An example of inconsistency is the report of Dr Burns, thoracic specialist in 2000 who reported that Mr Bassett said he was a heavy drinker over the years, beginning in Malaya, and was coping better with that problem now and “does not have so much”. That was in contrast to what Mr Bassett told Dr Vickers and Associate Professor Breslin around the same time. Dr Dinnen records that in an alcohol questionnaire Mr Bassett completed in 1997 he stated that there is variance and sometimes I drink very little other times I do as I have done before and continue along with peers. Dr Dinnen also records that in a letter in 1998 to the Veterans’ Affairs Board, Mr Bassett said that after his service he worked in isolated parts in Australia and elsewhere where alcohol was not available. Other evidence shows that he was drinking heavily while in those areas, for example, when he returned to a homestead from outlying areas.
18. We find that Mr Bassett drank heavily in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve and afterwards when in worked in various jobs until he retired. Those jobs included working on cattle stations in remote areas of Australia; on a copra plantation and working on a boat in islands to Australia’s north; working on oil rigs, and as an investigator. His heavy drinking has continued since his retirement. At times he has been a binge drinker, and at other times he has drunk alcohol every day.
19. Dr Dinnen’s opinion is supported by the opinions of two other psychiatrists: Dr Barnes, whose report was not in evidence but was referred to by Dr Dinnen, and Dr Barnard. Dr Barnard saw Mr Bassett twice. He diagnosed: Substance Abuse – Alcohol and Schizoid Personality Disorder.
20. Other evidence which supports our conclusion is that of doctors who were not psychiatrists and who saw Mr Bassett for other reasons. Dr Vickers, Consultant Surgeon, Gastroenterologist and Specialist in Liver Disorders diagnosed chronic gastritis in 2000 and said that a cause could be related to alcohol or other factors. He recorded a daily intake of 60-70 gms of alcohol a day. Dr Vickers also wrote a letter in December 2005 at Mr Bassett’s request, setting out his drinking pattern which in summary was heavy daily drinking.
21. Associate Professor Breslin, consultant thoracic physician recorded a history of heavy binge drinking in 2000.
22. Dr Polgar wrote in a letter to Mr Bassett’s general practitioner, stating that Mr Bassett wanted to discuss with his general practitioner ways and means of solving his alcohol problem.
23. Dr Irvine commented: In view of his significant alcohol intake “he would like him to have investigation of any possible vitamin deficiency”.
24. We find that Mr Bassett suffers from alcohol abuse.
Are the conditions of Glaucoma, Diplopia and/or Alcohol Abuse “war-caused”?
Glaucoma
(a) Does the evidence point to a hypothesis connecting Glaucoma with Mr Bassett’s service in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve?
25. The only evidence that might be considered to have any relevance to connecting Mr Bassett’s service with Glaucoma, was his comment when asked by the Tribunal how it was related to service. He said that it may have been assessed by Captain Dalton in Malaya. There is no other evidence that Captain Dalton assessed it. No medical practitioner linked Glaucoma with his service.
26. Considering all of the material before us, we consider that no hypothesis is pointed to connecting Mr Bassett’s service with the Glaucoma which he suffers. Glaucoma is not war-caused.
Diplopia
(a) Does the evidence point to a hypothesis connecting Diplopia with Mr Bassett’s service in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve?
27. Having considered all the material before us, we conclude that it does not point to an hypothesis connecting Diplopia with Mr Bassett’s service. The only evidence that could be considered to relate to this question was Mr Bassett’s answer to a direct question from the Tribunal asking how Diplopia was connected to his service. He described refuelling an aircraft in extreme heat, while wearing shorts, a hat and no shirt. He became aware he had no balance which could have been a result of the fuel fumes. He had a loss of sight temporarily at the same time. There is no evidence to suggest that such a loss of sight has any relationship to Diplopia.
28. As we have found there is no hypothesis, Diplopia is not war-caused.
Alcohol abuse
(a) Does the evidence point to a hypothesis connecting alcohol abuse with Mr Bassett’s service in Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve?
29. No argument was specifically put to the Tribunal on behalf of the Commission on this question. It simply argued that the diagnosis ought not be made. However, having found the diagnosis, we must address the question.
30. Following is a summary of the relevant evidence.
31. Mr Bassett stated at various times that he did not drink at all before he went to Malaya and the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve. He told Professor Mattick that he began drinking when based at Richmond while he was training as there was a hotel opposite the airport.
32. His service records contained the following information. Upon entry to the RAAF his alcohol habit was recorded as “slight”. He did not enjoy his technical training and was rejected for aircrew. He became progressively depressed and got drunk as an outlet. He threatened criminal behaviour if he was not discharged. He was diagnosed with psychopathic personality and discharged on that basis. In response to the question in November 1957: “in what battles or active operations did you take part?”, Mr Bassett stated: “terrorist Campaign, Malaya” . His alcohol habit was recorded as “heavy” in an inpatient record dated 28 October 1957. However, on 30 October 1957 there is a record “Alcohol moderate – no real interest, depends on company and boredom”.
33. Dr Haik said that Mr Bassett denied that he had ever been in a situation that had caused intense fear, helplessness or horror because “I’m not the person that frightens easily”. He also denied ever being exposed to the possibility of serious injury or death during his RAAF service. Mr Bassett did tell Dr Haik that he was involved in some activity “across the causeway” but his Advocate told him not to discuss that information because that will cause all sorts of problems for me. He told Dr Haik that he had begun drinking in Malaya and that the volume had increased after he left the RAAF.
34. Dr Haik also referred to Dr Barnes’ report and in addition to information given to Dr Dinnen, which is set out later, Mr Bassett told Dr Barnes that he did not see any action and denied any distressing experiences in the RAAF.
35. Mr Bassett told Professor Mattick that he worked as a guard of a warehouse for five or six months, was never wounded and saw no combat. He said: “Nothing frightened me … I don’t have that nature to be frightened”. He also told that doctor that he was involved in locating terrorist movements and was not injured. Professor Mattick noted that Mr Bassett was “reportedly” fired on by terrorists, and returned fire. Mr Bassett denied any problems arising from that incident, but was worried that he killed four terrorists. He saw them drop dead.
36. In coming to his diagnosis of Substance Abuse-Alcohol and Schizoid Personality Disorder, Dr Barnard said: “his period of service was injurious to Mr Bassett’s psychiatric and physical health on account of his exposure to these substances in a containing, socialised and structured environment, given his clearly vulnerable personality, viz Schizoid Personality Disorder.”
37. Mr Bassett told Dr Dinnen that although the Malayan Emergency was coming to an end, there was concern that there could be terrorist activity. He worked long hours and had quite a bit of leave. He was guarding modern weaponry contained in crates.
38. Dr Dinnen quoted from Dr Barnes’s report. Dr Barnes recorded that Mr Bassett denied any distressing experiences in the RAAF; he just realised he was in a dead end and wanted to get out. While diagnosing alcohol abuse, Dr Barnes could see no connection with service.
39. Mr Bassett told us that a psychiatrist, maybe Dr Dinnen, recently found out following an injection, that he had an overt job and a covert job and that he led a jungle patrol.
40. Mr Bassett told Dr Vickers that he was encouraged to drink alcohol during service by its free availability, boredom, and no counselling service was offered to him to stop his drinking habit before it became entrenched.
41. Reference has been made earlier to the evidence about his drinking after service.
42. There are several hypotheses that are pointed to by the material before us.
(1) Mr Bassett’s drinking was exacerbated by his disappointment when he was not chosen for aircrew, his boredom with the work he was doing, and the availability of alcohol.
(2) On the basis of Dr Barnard’s opinion, Mr Bassett’s service was injurious to his psychiatric and physical health on account of his exposure to alcohol in a containing, socialised and structured environment, given his clearly vulnerable personality, viz Schizoid Personality Disorder.
(3) In respect of each of the above hypotheses, no counselling service was offered.
43. As Mr Bassett was not represented, it is appropriate that we comment on the evidence about his shooting terrorists. We do not consider that it gave rise to a hypothesis because even if it is considered to fall into the category of severe stressor, there is no evidence that Mr Bassett reacted to it by beginning to drink or by increasing his drinking habit.
(b) Is there an applicable Statement of Principles (SoP) in force for the condition?
44. The applicable SoP is No. 76 of 1998. It defines “alcohol abuse”. The factors in clause 5 that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting alcohol abuse with the circumstances of a person’s relevant service are:
(a) suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse
(b) experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse
(c) suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical worsening of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse
(d) experiencing a severe stressor within two years immediately before the clinical worsening of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse
(e) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse. .
(c) Is the hypothesis consistent with the SoP?
45. Dr Haik and Professor Mattick said that Mr Bassett’s alcohol habit did not conform to the SoP criteria.
46. Dr Dinnen said: “it could not be said that he was suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of onset of alcohol abuse or that he had experienced a severe stressor”. He could not connect the strict criteria in the SoP with Mr Bassett’s alcohol abuse.
47. We conclude that the SoP is not satisfied and address each hypothesis in turn.
48. The first hypothesis does not satisfy any factor in the SoP. The second hypothesis also does not satisfy any of the factors of the SoP. Dr Barnard did not suggest that Mr Bassett’s Schizoid Personality Disorder was caused by his service and there is no evidence of the date of clinical onset or clinical worsening of alcohol abuse to satisfy the SoP factors (a) or (c).
49. The third hypothesis also fails because there is again no evidence of the date of clinical onset or worsening of alcohol abuse which would satisfy factor (e) of the SoP.
50. As the SoP is not satisfied, Mr Bassett’s alcohol abuse is not war-caused.
(3) Is Mr Bassett’s pension rate is correctly determined at 100% of the General Rate?
51. There are three possible pension rates higher than the General Rate that may apply to Mr Bassett. They are the Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate (s 22), the Intermediate Rate (s 23), and the Special Rate (s 24). A determination of the rate of pension is on the balance of probabilities (s 120(4) of the Act).
52. The focus of these proceedings was on the new claims, dealt with earlier in this decision. Consequently, little attention was give by either party to the question of the appropriate rate of pension if Mr Bassett did not succeed on any of those claims. The Commission referred only to the Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate. However, as that rate only applies where a veteran does not qualify for either the Intermediate or Special Rate, it is necessary for us to consider them first.
The Intermediate and Special Rate
53. In general terms, the Special Rate is payable to a veteran who has at least 70% incapacity from war caused injury or disease and is totally and permanently incapacitated for paid work of more than 8 hours per week due to that incapacity alone, and is consequently suffering a loss of earnings.
54. Veterans who have turned 65 years of age must also have been working beyond 65 and have worked for at least 10 continuous years in their last paid work. They must have commenced their last paid work before turning 65.
55. The criteria for the Intermediate Rate are similar. The veteran need only be restricted to part-time work, that is less than half the normal hours of the position or less than 20 hours per week. The incapacity in relation to this rate of pension is not described as total and permanent.
56. Mr Bassett was born on 28 March 1937. He turned 65 years of age on 28 March 2002. He claimed Alcohol Dependence/ Alcohol Abuse, Diplopia and Loss of Sight on 11 August 2004. That is after he was 65 years old. His claim for Hypertension was made on 15 March 2002, just before he turned 65.
57. We find on the evidence that Mr Bassett has been retired since about 1998 (see reports of Associate Professor Breslin (T16), Dr Vickers 11 February 2000 (T15), and a questionnaire Mr Bassett filled out in November 2004 where he wrote that he stopped working about 6 ½ years ago because of “ill-health” (T35).
58. We are not satisfied that the extent of Mr Bassett’s incapacity associated with his service related disabilities has prevented him from continuing to engage in remunerative employment as required by s 23 or 24.
59. The evidence does not address this issue in any helpful way. Dr Blom filled out forms in relation to Mr Bassett’s Asthma (T4), claimed Anxiety Disorder and Gastrointestinal disease. Relevantly he noted that Mr Bassett was not working and “currectly received DVA aged pension”. He made no other comments about Mr Bassett’s capacity to work.
60. Dr Saunders provided medical diagnoses and medical impairment assessment for various conditions in November and December 1998 (T8) but was not required by the forms he filled out to address work capacity. That doctor filled out similar forms about various conditions in December 1999 (T13), March 2002 (T20), August 2004 (T30) and again the forms did not require assessment of capacity to work in relation to particular conditions.
61. There were also audiology and spirometry reports in evidence.
62. Other doctors whose evidence was before us, including Dr Vickers, Associate Professor Breslin, Dr Burns, Dr Polgar, Dr Irvine and Dr Barnard, were concerned with diagnoses and sometimes treatment, and not capacity to work in relation to accepted conditions. Given that Mr Bassett was retired at the time, that is understandable, however it does not assist the Tribunal.
63. We find that Mr Bassett does not qualify for a pension at the Special or Intermediate Rate. Therefore, we must consider whether he qualifies for the Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate.
Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate
64. The criteria necessary to qualify for the Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate are that the person is at least 65 years of age, has a degree of incapacity of 100% and medical impairment rating for accepted disabilities of at least 70 points and lifestyle rating of at least 6 points.
65. Mr Bassett is 65 years old and there is no dispute on the evidence that he has 100% incapacity. The questions for consideration are does he satisfy the 70 points medical impairment and lifestyle rating of 6 points.
66. Relevantly, Mr Bassett lodged a claim for hypertension which was received on 15 March 2002 (T20), just before he turned 65. He filled out a Lifestyle questionnaire on 9 May 2002 (T21).
67. A Combined Impairment Report was prepared dated 1 June 2004 (T29). It included Asthma but not hypertension. It determined a total impairment of 60 points and lifestyle rating of 5 points, which combined gave a 100% degree of incapacity.
68. After acceptance of Hypertension, the impairment rating was increased to 65 on 23 June 2004 (T2) . The lifestyle component remained at 5.
69. Mr Bassett filled out a further lifestyle questionnaire dated 5 November 2004 (T35). On 20 January 2005 a further assessment was made (part T2). The decision-maker determined an impairment rating of 55 points and a lifestyle rating of 5, which combined to give 100% degree of incapacity.
70. In addition to the evidence we have just summarised, we have considered the decisions in relation to this issue, the medical reports submitted, Mr Bassett’s statements in various documents he submitted to the Department and to the Tribunal, and his oral evidence. On the basis of all the evidence, we find that his medical impairment rating is 55 points, as found in the most recent determination. As 70 points are required to qualify for an Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate of pension, Mr Bassett has been unsuccessful.
Conclusion
71. In summary we find that Mr Bassett does suffer from diplopia and alcohol abuse. However we find that his diplopia, alcohol abuse and glaucoma are not war-caused. We also find that the appropriate rate of pension is 100% of the General Rate. Mr Bassett is not entitled to the Special, Intermediate or Extreme Disablement Adjustment Rate of pension. Accordingly the decisions under review are affirmed.
Decision
72. The decisions under review are affirmed.
I certify that the 72 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member,
Mrs Josephine Kelly and Member, Dr Max ThorpeSigned: Miss Sacha Keady
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 1 June 2006
Date of Decision 28 June 2006
Applicant Representative Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent Department of Veterans' Affairs
0
11
0