Beasley and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

[2018] AATA 167

Beasley and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) [2018] AATA 167 (9 February 2018)

Division:VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

File Numbers:         2015/4216

2015/5619

Re:Geoffrey Beasley

APPLICANT

AndMilitary Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President K Bean

Date:9 February 2018

Place:Adelaide

1.In application 2015/4216, the decision under review is affirmed; and

2.In application 2015/5619, the decision under review is also affirmed.

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

Deputy President K Bean

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – Liability accepted for digital nerve neuroma 3/4 metatarsal space, left foot, resulting in metatarsalgia – Further claims for compensation lodged in respect of other conditions for which compensation liability denied – Whether claims precluded as outside timeframe contemplated by applicable legislation – Lengthy delay of some 46 years between suffering injuries and making the claims – Decisions under review affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930, ss 16.(1), 16.(2)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, s 7(4)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President K Bean

9 February 2018

1. The applicant, Mr Beasley, served in the Royal Australian Army between 22 November 1967 and 21 November 1970. He was discharged after reaching the end of his period of enlistment.

2. During his service, Mr Beasley was involved in a number of incidents which he says have resulted in him suffering injuries which have caused ongoing problems over the years.

3. There is no dispute that Mr Beasley also suffered from a left foot condition during his service for which he received treatment at that time, namely “digital nerve neuroma – 3/4 metatarsal space, left foot, resulting in metatarsalgia”. Liability to pay compensation for that condition was accepted on 23 June 1982.[1]

   [1]     Exhibit R1, T-Documents 2015/4216, T8/184.

4. Up until 2011, that was the only condition which had been the subject of a compensation claim by Mr Beasley.

   Application 2015/5619

5. However, in February 2011, Mr Beasley lodged a further claim for compensation in respect of the conditions “foot, also shoulder, hip, hand”.[2] He also provided a handwritten letter in which he explained the circumstances in which these injuries were sustained during his service. He said the injuries were suffered while he was “sky larking” and explained he had been riding a fully deployed parachute being towed behind a truck when the truck stopped, the canopy collapsed and he “fell from a great height”. In a subsequent compensation claim form signed on 17 August 2011 he nominated the injuries sustained in this incident as affecting his “left foot, knee, hip, shoulder, right hand, neck, spine”.[3] He claimed this incident occurred in August 1970.

   [2]     Exhibit R2, T-Documents 2015/5619, T6.

   [3]     Ibid, T8.

6. Liability to pay compensation for these injuries was denied by the delegate who made the original determination, on 5 September 2011.[4] The reasons the delegate denied liability included the fact that the injuries resulted from “serious and wilful misconduct” such that under the applicable provisions, liability was excluded.

   [4]     Ibid, T11.

7. Mr Beasley sought reconsideration of that determination, however the determination was affirmed on reconsideration. The reasons for that decision included the fact the claim was precluded because it was outside the timeframe contemplated by the applicable legislation, and there was no medical evidence to support the proposition that the injuries claimed to have been suffered by Mr Beasley were sustained in the alleged paragliding incident.

8. On 9 November 2015, Mr Beasley applied to this Tribunal for review of that decision, giving rise to application 2015/5619.

   Application 2015/4216

9. Subsequently, on 25 March 2013, Mr Beasley lodged a further claim for compensation in respect of “weeping right eye” and “extensive skeletal injuries to [his] joints, head, ribs”. He claimed these injuries also occurred during his service as a result of an “explosion while burning dump as directed”, on 6 May 1970.[5]

   [5]     Exhibit R1, T5.

10. On 27 March 2014, a delegate made a determination denying liability for the claimed injuries on the basis there was insufficient evidence that the injuries claimed were suffered as a result of the explosion.[6]

    [6]     Ibid, T18.

11. On 21 July 2015, that determination was affirmed on reconsideration. Among the reasons given for affirming the determination were that the claim was precluded by reason of the delay in making the claim, and there was insufficient medical evidence to support the proposition that the claimed injuries were related to the explosion.[7]

    [7]     Ibid, T36.

12. On 18 August 2015, Mr Beasley lodged an application for review of that decision with this Tribunal, giving rise to application 2015/4216.

    THE ISSUES

13. It follows that the main issues for me to determine are as follows:

    (a)What are the injuries and/or diseases for which Mr Beasley has sought compensation?

    (b)Are his claims for compensation, or any of them, precluded by the applicable statutory provisions relating to the time within which claims for compensation must be made?

    (c)If not, is compensation payable with respect to any of the claimed injuries/diseases, having regard to the applicable statutory provisions?

    WHAT ARE THE INJURIES/DISEASES FOR WHICH MR BEASLEY HAS CLAIMED COMPENSATION?

    Application 2015/4216

14. As I have alluded to above, in his claim for compensation dated 25 March 2013, Mr Beasley attributed the following injuries to the explosion:

    -    Weeping right eye; and

    -Extensive skeletal injuries including to his “joints”, “head” and “ribs”.

    Application 2015/5619

15. Determining what conditions are the subject of this application is less straightforward.

16. The reconsideration delegate made reference to claims lodged on 14 February 2011, 17 August 2011, and also a letter dated 23 January 2011 which accompanied the first claim. Having looked carefully at each of those documents, together with Mr Beasley’s subsequent letter of 24 September 2011, I note that, taken together, they refer to the following conditions or body parts:

    -Shoulder;

    -Hip;

    -Knee;

    -Right hand;

    -Neck;

    -Arthritis;

    -Unspecified injuries secondary to altered gait due to the foot injury;

    -Spine;

    -Left foot;

    -Lung disease;

    -PTSD;

    -Alcoholism; and

    -Stress.

17. The reconsideration delegate addressed only a sub‑set of these conditions, namely left shoulder, hip, knee, neck, spine and right hand, on the basis that the claim related to injuries sustained to those body parts in the paragliding incident. However, she noted that “the lungs and stress (alcoholism) are separate claims”.[8]

    [8]     Exhibit R2, T28/73.

18. After the hearing, the respondent supplied additional information about those claims and the decisions made in relation to them. This included a copy of the reconsideration decision of 19 July 2012 in respect of Mr Beasley’s claims for stress and alcoholism, which denied liability for those conditions, and a separate reconsideration decision of the same date which denied liability for a lung condition. As these conditions have been the subject of separate decisions which Mr Beasley has not asked the Tribunal to review in the context of the current applications, it follows I do not have jurisdiction with respect to them. I should add I also regard the PTSD claim as encompassed by the reconsideration decision relating to “stress”, and I note Mr Beasley’s concession at the hearing that he does not suffer from PTSD in any event.

19. Accordingly, I consider that the conditions to which this application relates are those listed above, but excluding stress, alcoholism, PTSD and lung disease.

    TO WHAT EXTENT ARE MR BEASLEY’S CLAIMS PRECLUDED BY REASON OF DELAY?

    Relevant Legislation

20. As all of the direct physical injuries claimed by Mr Beasley were sustained prior to 1971, the Act which applies to determining liability for those injuries is the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 (the 1930 Act).

21. As to the time within which claims were required to be made under that Act, s 16 of the 1930 Act relevantly provided as follows:

    16.(1)   The Commissioner shall not admit a claim for compensation under this Act for an injury unless notice of the accident has been served upon him as soon as practicable after it has happened, and before the employee has voluntarily left the employment of the Commonwealth, and unless the claim for compensation has been made-

    (a)    within six months from the occurrence of the accident; or

    (b)in the case of death – within six months after advice of the death has been received by the claimant;

    Provided always that-

    (i)the want of or any defect or inaccuracy in the notice shall not prevent consideration of the claim by the Commissioner if he finds that the Commonwealth is not prejudiced by the want, defect or inaccuracy, or that the want, defect or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake, absence from Australia or other reasonable cause; and

    (ii)the failure to make a claim within the period above specified shall not prevent consideration of the claim by the Commissioner if he finds that the failure was occasioned by mistake, absence from Australia or other reasonable cause.

    16.(2)   Notice in respect of any injury to which this Act applies shall contain the name and address of the person injured, and a statement in ordinary language of the cause of the injury and the date at which the accident happened.

    …

    Consideration

22. I have no hesitation in accepting the respondent’s submission that it is prejudiced in investigating and considering Mr Beasley’s claims by the lengthy delay of some 46 years between Mr Beasley suffering his injuries and making the claims. The evidence before me does not suggest that Mr Beasley was absent from Australia at any relevant time, or that the delay in making his claims was due to mistake. The next issue which arises therefore is whether there is an “other reasonable cause” for the delay in Mr Beasley making the claims referred to above, noting there is no evidence that he gave written notice of the relevant incidents before making his claims.

23. In the course of his oral evidence, Mr Beasley addressed the delay and the reasons for it in a number of different ways. At one stage during his evidence he indicated that he had “given up” on “DVA” in around 1980 and decided not to pursue claims for any of the relevant injuries. However, around Christmas 2010 he said he decided to get back in contact with the DVA, as he was having continuing and increasing physical problems. He also acknowledged that he had made a claim for his left foot condition in May 1980, and said his intention at that time had been to “get my left foot in the door” and, once that was accepted, make claims for the other injuries. Although he acknowledged retaining a lawyer in 1983, who received correspondence advising the left foot claim had been accepted in June 1982, Mr Beasley maintained that he never became aware of this correspondence, and did not become aware that liability for his left foot condition had been accepted until 2012.

24. Mr Beasley acknowledged never having made written claims related to either the explosion or the paragliding incident before January 2011. He further acknowledged having made a conscious decision not to pursue compensation between 1983 and 2010, when his physical problems became more severe. Under questioning during his oral evidence he also said that immediately after leaving the Army, he was not having a lot of trouble with any of his injuries, and in any case was inclined to “soldier on” rather than pursue compensation.

25. In his application for review in matter 2015/4216, Mr Beasley stated as follows:

    My original claim for injuries was made to DVA was made by me in 1979/80. Before the end of 1980 I had given up on DVA because of the way I was treated by them resigned to suffer in silence. Until the Xmas period 2010/11 after continual problems and some increasing problems because of my injuries, I restarted my claim against DVA.[9]

    [9]     Exhibit R1, T1/3

26. Earlier, in correspondence to the respondent dated 23 January 2011, he also made reference to being examined by a medical specialist “during the 1980s”:

    after ongoing problems with this same injury I contacted the Department of Defence/Army and I was sent to see a medical specialist at North Adelaide, he examined me and told me he would send a report to Canberra and I would hear back from them. After quite a while and having heard nothing I rang Keswick Barracks. The clerk I spoke to told me to hold the line while he rang Canberra. When he came back on the line he told me I had been sent documentation to attend a medical board in Canberra sometime before. I told him I had never received or seen any such documentation and I still haven’t to this day.[10]

    [10]    Exhibit R2, T4/11‑12.

27. He gave a similar account in correspondence to the respondent of 30 March 2015:

    In 79/80 I made a claim for L/foot and other injuries L/foot was being actioned I thought that would do for a start – I was sent to see orthopaedic surgeon Mr Sorby‑Adams at North Adelaide, he examined me, he had all my Army record to refer to and he made a report to govt/DEF/Army/DVA. After some time when I inquired what was going on DVA denied all knowledge of the Sorby‑Adams’ diagnosis and still do to this day. Before the end of 1980 I had given up on DVA. Sick of being stuffed about.[11]

    [11]    Exhibit R1, T35/93.

28. In correspondence to the Tribunal dated 10 January 2016, Mr Beasley also stated:

    Mr Sorby‑Adams was I believe a Proffessor [sic] of Orthapedic [sic] surgery during a long consultation he not only examined my left foot injury but also my spine and other injurys [sic] I was having trouble with as a result of my Army service.

    Mr Sorby‑Adams showed me my full Army service and medical records, – the first time I had ever seen them – which were on the desk in front of him, he of course would have sent these records along with his medical report back to D.V.A.

    Despite repeated requests from myself and my advocate D.V.A. refuse to hand over the Sorby‑Adams diagnosis.[12]

    [12]    Applicant’s Letter to the Tribunal dated 10.1.16, pp 1‑2.

29. In later notes dated 7 December 2016, Mr Beasley also stated:

    In my memory after being refused after I asked for a copy of the Dr Sorby‑Adams report in 1980 I gave up on dealing with or trying to deal with DVA in disgust, until I restarted my claim in January 2011.[13]

    [13]    Applicant’s Notes for AAT Conference dated 7.12.16, pp 1‑2.

30. Mr Beasley gave a similar account in his handwritten notes for the hearing, which were received into evidence:

    Back in the 70s I had moved into the Royal Arms Hotel Pt Adelaide at 74/77. Another bloke Olly had a room at the hotel he was a merchant seaman and Pt Adelaide was his home port. Olly was an ex R.A.N. and was on a D.V.A. part pension. He advised me, becase [sic] he knew I was having problems with my injurys [sic]. To claim for my L/foot injury because the army had operated on it twice, the D.V.A. would have to accept it, and as soon as my foot was in the door, I then add the other injurys [sic] I was having real trouble with and the army incidents that caused the injurys [sic]. Olly was not a advocate, just a friend giving advice and I followed that advice.– After I claimed for my L/foot injury D.V.A. then proceeded to stuff me around. By not answering my request for information on my claim, and then when I phoned them saying they know nothing about it, and when they put me through to another delegate the same thing again. There were long periods of me waiting for answers they said were coming but never did. I would re engage them again and get the same thing again – I have had terrible trouble with my army injurys [sic] for decades trying to do often hard labouring work and having to leave jobs because the pain from my multiple army injurys [sic] spine neck shoulders and joints all over my body would almost totally imobilise [sic] me with pain and I could not continue that work at that time. After another bad period of pain having sworn myself off D.V.A. I wrote to Gen Gillespie Chief of Army Jan 2011. A major factor in me giving up on D.V.A. was that they sent me to see a orthapedic [sic] surgeon Dr Sorby‑Adams who I had a lengthy consultation with at his rooms Nth Adel that involved much more than L/foot injury. They D.V.A. would not give me a copy of the Sorby‑Adams report and never have to this day despite repeated requests from my self and my advocate.[14]

    [14]    Exhibit A5, pp 3‑4.

31. I note that the documentary evidence provided by the respondent indicates that Mr Beasley was examined at the request of the Commonwealth in May 1981 by a general surgeon, Dr Peter Byrne, whose rooms were in North Adelaide.[15] However, I understand the respondent has not located any record of Mr Beasley being examined by a doctor with the surname “Sorby‑Adams”.

    [15]    Exhibit R3.

32. On the evidence before me, it appears the reasons for the delay between the incidents during his Army service and Mr Beasley’s compensation claims of 2011 and 2013 are as follows:

    -With respect to the period between 1970 and 1980, the evidence suggests that Mr Beasley was suffering little in the way of physical effects from the two incidents during this period, and was able to cope with such effects as he did have;[16]

    -With respect to the period commencing in 1980, it appears that Mr Beasley decided to take the advice of his friend “Olly” and first submit a claim for his left foot condition. Once liability for that condition was accepted, his intention was to make claims for his other conditions. As it transpired, liability for that condition was accepted in 1982, however he did not become aware of this until 2012. Aside from having formed an intention to make subsequent claims for his other conditions in about 1981, and instructing a solicitor in 1983, it appears that Mr Beasley took no concrete steps toward actually making claims for his other injuries until 2011. He has referred to being examined by “Mr Sorby‑Adams”, however the evidence before me suggests that the relevant examination was undertaken by Dr Byrne in the context of Mr Beasley’s claim for his left foot condition lodged in 1980.

    [16]    Exhibit R1, T36.

33. In light of Mr Beasley’s evidence that he was well aware of having sustained the claimed injuries and the impact of them upon him, and his awareness that he could claim compensation in respect of these injuries (as he did for his foot in 1980), there is very little explanation as to why Mr Beasley did not lodge claims for compensation for any of the relevant conditions before 2011.

34. In the decade or so after he left the Army, it appears that Mr Beasley was suffering little in the way of ongoing effects from the two incidents, and was able to work. Subsequently, in about 1983, he simply decided not to pursue compensation for any of his conditions, despite their impact upon him and his understanding that it was open to him to seek compensation. I accept he did not become aware of the acceptance of his left foot condition until 2012. However, I do not regard that as a reasonable explanation for his failure to make claims for the other conditions earlier.

35. I have concluded accordingly that Mr Beasley has not established an “other reasonable cause” for his failure to give notice of the incidents or make claims for the relevant conditions, either during the period within which he was required to give notice and make a claim by s 16, or at any time subsequently. It follows that his claims in respect of the direct physical injuries allegedly sustained in the two incidents cannot be admitted and there is no need to consider them further. I note those injuries are the following:

    -Left foot;

    -Right eye;

    -Skeletal injuries including to “joints”, “head” and “ribs”;

    -Shoulder;

    -Hip;

    -Spine;

    -Knee;

    -Right hand; and

    -Neck.

    THE ARTHRITIS CLAIM

1. Mr Beasley’s claim for “arthritis” involves consideration of different issues from those which arise in the context of his claims for direct physical injuries.

2. It is not entirely clear when Mr Beasley first sought treatment or suffered impairment as a result of “arthritis”. However, the records suggest he sought treatment for this as early as 2004.[17] As arthritis is a “disease”, having regard to the relevant provisions of the current Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (the SRC Act),[18] it is likely that the applicable “date of injury” for this condition is during the currency of the SRC Act, with the consequence that the provisions of that Act apply to determining the timeframe within which Mr Beasley was required to lodge a claim.

   [17]    Exhibit R9,

   [18] See s 7(4).

3. In any event, however, there is very little support in the medical evidence for a causal connection between the relevant incidents during Mr Beasley’s service and his arthritis.

4. Mr Beasley’s General Practitioner, Dr Foenander, has offered some support. In a letter of 6 September 2013, he stated:

   From my reviewing his substantial medical notes, I think the only diagnoses that plausibly could have been related to his 1970 army injury is his osteoarthritis of the back and neck. But note his vertebral fractures (?from a MVA of 1987) is probably the main trigger (not his army injury) to his current back-pain. As for his neck problem, it is stretching the point (I think) to suggest that that was caused by his 1970 blast injury. Don’t forget Geoff’s age and his not so healthy lifestyle for the last few decades.[19]

   [19]    Exhibit R7.

5. In a later letter of 5 October 2016, Dr Foenander indicated he had made a mistake and there had not been an “MVA”,[20] and in a letter of 28 September 2015, he stated “I enclose some histories of Geoff’s investigative results. My earliest xray of his spine dates back Dec 2000. It showed several old mid thoracic wedging deformities. From my perusal of his notes and history, they could have been caused by the blast way back in 1970”.[21]

   [20]    Exhibit R6.

   [21]    Exhibit R5.

6. However, the respondent relies on the report of Dr Tschirn, Occupational Physician, dated 26 September 2016. Dr Tschirn examined Mr Beasley on 25 August 2016 and has also reviewed the available medical information. In addition to providing a report he gave oral evidence at the hearing.

7. In his report, Dr Tschirn concluded that Mr Beasley suffered widespread “pains corresponding to his clearly demonstrated widespread degenerative disease”.[22] However, with the exception of Mr Beasley’s ongoing left foot problems, Dr Tschirn concluded that he could not connect Mr Beasley’s current identified conditions to his Army service.[23] Rather, he considered that Mr Beasley’s degenerative disease was associated with “non‑service related incidents and the normal aging process with the exception of the left fore-foot”.[24] Dr Tschirn’s oral evidence was consistent with his report.

   [22]    Exhibit R8, p 9.

   [23]    Ibid, p 10.

   [24]    Ibid, p 11.

8. Having regard to the medical evidence available to me and the report and oral evidence of Dr Tschirn in particular, I am not positively satisfied that any of the osteoarthritis currently suffered by Mr Beasley has been contributed to by either the explosion incident or the paragliding incident. Regardless of whether Mr Beasley has complied with the applicable time requirements with respect to this claim, I have therefore concluded that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to Mr Beasley in respect of “arthritis”.

   THE ACCEPTED FOOT INJURY AND RELATED INJURIES

9. In the letter of 23 January 2011 which accompanied his first claim, Mr Beasley made reference to “a foot injury I received during recruit training at Kapooka”.[25] From his description of it, I understand this to be the same injury for which liability was accepted on 23 June 1982. In his first compensation claim, Mr Beasley also referred to a “stress foot injury” sustained during “recruit training Kapooka”.[26] Again, I understand this to be a reference to the injury for which liability has already been accepted.

   [25]    Exhibit R2, T3/11.

   [26]    Ibid, T6/24.

10. In his second claim, as well as contending that he injured his left foot in the paragliding incident, he also made reference to this same stress injury, and in his letter of 24 September 2011 he added:

    I have heard of Medical opinion that a foot injury such as mine causes a lot more than just, if you can call it JUST foot pain, but rather a change of gait to avoid or lessen pain in the injured area thereby putting extra stress on the rest of the body, ankle to the knee to the hip, spine all the skeletal frame and the organs within. I can vouch for it if not treated and corrected.”[27]

    [27]    Ibid, T12/44-46 (emphasis in original).

11. In a letter of 27 April 2012, Mr Beasley also stated:

    As you can see from the REPAT radiology report the pain in my L foot causes a change of gait to avoid pain. That causes stress on other parts of my body and makes worse other injurys (sic) …”.[28]

    [28]    Ibid, T26/69 (emphasis in original).

12. I also note a medical imaging report undertaken at the Repatriation General Hospital on 23 April 2012 reported with respect to Mr Beasley’s left foot:

    There is a large third intermetatarsal bursa with echogenic contents and associated tenderness, in keeping with bursitis. No Morton’s neuroma is identified. There is no evidence of adventilist bursitis at the level of metatarsal heads, but there is hyperaemia of the fat pad more medially which is probably reactive to altered biomechanics weight-bearing given the aforementioned bursitis. The 3rd and 4th MTP plantar plates appear intact.

    The radiologist commented “3^rd intermetatarsal bursitis. No Morton’s neuroma is identified at this level”.[29]

    [29]    Ibid, T25/68.

13. I note further that Dr Tschirn also reported that the records indicated Mr Beasley had suffered from inter‑metatarsal bursitis in his left foot, although Dr Tschirn indicated in his oral evidence that he would not relate this to Mr Beasley’s service or to altered foot mechanics secondary to the compensable neuroma.

14. This issue was not explored in any detail at the hearing, and nor was it dealt with in the relevant reviewable decision of 26 July 2012.

15. Mr Beasley has provided no medical evidence to support the proposition that altered gait caused by his compensable neuroma has led to problems other than bursitis, and therefore that contention does not need to be dealt with further. The medical evidence does raise the possibility that the bursitis in his left foot may be in some way related to the neuroma or the surgery undertaken on this during his service.[30] However, this issue has been referred to by Mr Beasley in the context of application 2015/5619, in which the second compensation claim was lodged in August 2011. As that claim form did not refer to bursitis and there is nothing before me which suggests that Mr Beasley was suffering from bursitis in his left foot at that time, should he wish to pursue compensation for this condition, it will be necessary for him to lodge a further claim in relation to that condition.

    [30]    See T46/117.

    CONCLUSION

16. As outlined above, the claims which are currently before me relate to the following direct physical injuries allegedly sustained either in the explosion or the paragliding incident: right eye, joints, head, ribs, extensive skeletal injuries, shoulder, hip, knee, right hand, neck, spine, left foot. Aside from the left foot neuroma for which liability has already been accepted, I have concluded that Mr Beasley’s claims for these injuries were not made within the timeframe required by the applicable legislation, and cannot be admitted.

17. Mr Beasley has also made a claim for “arthritis”, to which a different and longer timeframe applies. However, with respect to that claim, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the condition was contributed to by any injury sustained during Mr Beasley’s service and it follows that the condition is not compensable in any event.

18. In addition, Mr Beasley has made reference in his claim documentation to secondary physical consequences flowing from altered gait and/or foot mechanics secondary to his compensable neuroma. With respect to this aspect of his claim, while there is no medical evidence which would support a connection between the neuroma and any other condition aside from bursitis, I have concluded there is some evidence to suggest there may be a causal connection between the neuroma or treatment for it and the bursitis which has developed in the same area of his foot. As I have explained however, should Mr Beasley wish to pursue compensation for that condition, he will need to lodge a further claim in relation to it.

19. Mr Beasley has also made reference in the context of these matters to the conditions of lung disease, PTSD, alcoholism and stress. However, as I have explained above, those conditions have each been the subject of separate reviewable decisions which are not currently before me. It follows that I do not have jurisdiction with respect to those conditions.

20. In light of these conclusions I have decided to affirm both of the decisions under review.

    DECISION

21. In application 2015/4216, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

22. In application 2015/5619, the decision under review is also affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 57 (fifty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President K Bean

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

Administrative Assistant

Dated: 9 February 2018

Date(s) of hearing:	1 and 2 June 2017
Date final submissions received:	16 June 2017
Applicant:	In person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr B Krupka
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr M La Vista Australian Government Solicitor