Bedson and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 124

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 124
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1295

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re FRANKLYN JOHN BEDSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Member
Date10 February 2004
PlaceSydney

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[Sgd] Ms N Bell Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – Disability Pension – whether dysthymic disorder, depressive disorder and/or anxiety disorder are war-caused within the meaning of section 9 – whether veteran suffers from a condition – whether appropriate diagnosis – application of relevant Statement of Principles - whether applicant experienced severe psychosocial stressor during his operational service – standard of proof – whether reasonable hypothesis – clinical onset of condition – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 sections 6D, 9, 20, 119, 120 and 120A
Statement of Principles No. 58 of 1998 – Depressive Disorder
Statement of Principles No. 1 of 2000 – Anxiety Disorder
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398
REASONS FOR DECISION

10 February 2004 Ms N Bell, Member

1.      This is an application by Mr Franklyn Bedson for review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission that refused his claim for anxiety disorder and assessed the Disability Pension payable to the Applicant at 60 percent of the General Rate.. The decision was dated 27 February 2002. That decision was reviewed and affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 15 August 2002. The Applicant lodged an application for review with this Tribunal on 5 September 2002.
2.      At the hearing before the Tribunal the Applicant was represented by Mr Brian Winship, solicitor and the Respondent was represented by Mr Stephen Modder. The Applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal as did Drs Dinnen and Haik, in a concurrent evidence session. The following documentary evidence was before the Tribunal :

Exhibit

Description

Date

TD1

T1-16, pp1-121

10/10/2002

A1

Applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions

6/02/2003

A2

Report of Dr Dinnen

29/11/2002

A3

Sketch of the Applicant

Not dated

R1

Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions

28/03/2003

R2

Veterans' Review Board transcript

15/08/2002

R3

Clinical Notes of Dr Nabil Loutfy

Various

R4

Report of Dr Haik

23/01/2003

R5

Writeway report of Commodore Mulcare

12/01/2003

Issues and Legislation
3.      A central issue in this application is the correct diagnosis of the Applicant’s condition. The Applicant asserts that he suffers from anxiety disorder and the Respondent asserts that the Applicant suffers from dysthymic disorder. There is also dispute as to whether the Applicant’s condition, however properly diagnosed, is war caused. The question of the date of clinical onset of the Applicant’s psychiatric condition is a feature of this issue. There is also dispute as to whether both of the relevant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bedson and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Bedson and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 124
Case: [2004] AATA 124
Decision Date: 10 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bedson and the Repatriation Commission, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to consider whether the veteran, Mr Bedson, was entitled to a Disability Pension for certain mental health conditions. The dispute centred on whether Mr Bedson's dysthymic disorder, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder were caused by his operational service during his time in the armed forces. This was determined by assessing whether these conditions were war-caused within the meaning of section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The case hinged on the interpretation of relevant Statements of Principles and the application of these to Mr Bedson's circumstances.

The court needed to decide whether Mr Bedson's conditions met the criteria outlined in the Statements of Principles No. 58 of 1998 and No. 1 of 2000. Specifically, the court examined if Mr Bedson had experienced a severe psychosocial stressor during his operational service, and whether there was a reasonable hypothesis that this stressor was connected to his current mental health conditions. The standard of proof required for such claims was also scrutinised, along with the timing of the clinical onset of Mr Bedson's conditions. The court further considered if the decision of the Repatriation Commission to deny the claim was appropriate, given the evidence and the applicable legal framework.

Upon review, the court found that the Repatriation Commission had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and evidence to its decision. The court affirmed that Mr Bedson's claims did not satisfy the necessary criteria for war-caused conditions, as per the applicable Statements of Principles. The clinical onset of his conditions and the evidence provided did not sufficiently establish a causal link to his service. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to deny the claim was upheld. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The Federal Court of Australia affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, denying Mr Bedson's claim for a Disability Pension. The court found that the Commission had appropriately assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal standards, resulting in a decision that was both justified and legally sound. The veteran's claim for compensation was thus dismissed.

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.

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		FRANKLYN JOHN BEDSON

Exhibit	Description	Date
TD1	T1-16, pp1-121	10/10/2002
A1	Applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions	6/02/2003
A2	Report of Dr Dinnen	29/11/2002
A3	Sketch of the Applicant	Not dated
R1	Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions	28/03/2003
R2	Veterans' Review Board transcript	15/08/2002
R3	Clinical Notes of Dr Nabil Loutfy	Various
R4	Report of Dr Haik	23/01/2003
R5	Writeway report of Commodore Mulcare	12/01/2003