Blanch and Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] AATA 963

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 963

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2001/1419

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re JOHN JOSEPH BLANCH

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms S M Bullock,   Senior Member
Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date26 September 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

...............................................

Ms S M Bullock
  Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS - Entitlement - Disability Pension - Diagnosis – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - Alcohol Dependence - Reasonable Hypothesis

LEGISLATION

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 5D, 9, 13, 31, 119, 120, 120A

AUTHORITIES

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Freeman v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 576

Re Weyling and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 248

Re Powell and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 385
Re Mackay and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 483
Re Boyd and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 615
Re Symons and Repatriation Commission (2000) 63 ALD 93
Re Shooter and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 1076
Re Cranage and Repatriation Commission (2000) 63 ALD 312
Re Jackson and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 63
Re Meakin-Jones and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 662
Re Stevenson and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 130
Re Meehan and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 273
Re Burgess and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 702
Re Atkinson and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 491

Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160; (2003) 200 ALR 332

Mason v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1409

REASONS FOR DECISION

26 September 2003   Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
  Dr J D Campbell, Member   

1. This is an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") by the Applicant, John Joseph Blanch, of a decision of the Repatriation Commission ("the Commission") made on 23 February 2000 (T2, T18) as affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board (“the Board”) on 26 July 2001 (T24). The Respondent, the Commission, had decided pursuant to subsection 31(6) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to revoke the determination that the Veteran's accepted disability of post traumatic stress disorder with alcohol dependence was war-caused.  Pension was accordingly reduced from 40 per cent to 20 per cent of the General Rate with effect from 9 March 2000.

2. A Hearing was conducted in Sydney before the Tribunal on 18 December 2002. The Applicant provided oral evidence and was represented by Mr B Winship, solicitor of Rockliffs Solicitors. Oral evidence was also provided by Commodore P M Mulcare (Rtd). The Respondent was represented by Mr J Marsh, Departmental Advocate. Documents were lodged and taken into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("T Documents", T1-26). The following exhibits were also taken into evidence:

Exhibit No

  Description

             Date

A1

Applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions

9 September 2002

R1

Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions

16 December 2002

R2

Report of Dr R Lewin, Adult General and Forensic Psychiatrist

2 August 2002

R3

Report of Commodore P M Mulcare RAN Rtd, Writeway Research Services

22 June 2002

R4

Transcript of Veterans'…

Continue reading Blanch and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Blanch and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 963
Case
[2003] AATA 963
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an applicant who sought an increase in his disability pension, alleging he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol dependence. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the applicant contested the decision of the Repatriation Commission to deny his claim for an increased pension. The Commission had found that while the applicant suffered from alcohol dependence, it was not reasonably attributable to his service in the Defence Force, and therefore, not compensable under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The applicant also argued that he was entitled to a diagnosis of PTSD, which was not recognised by the Commission.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Repatriation Commission was correct in its finding that the applicant’s alcohol dependence was not reasonably attributable to his service and whether the Commission erred in not diagnosing PTSD. The court had to consider the evidence presented and the application of the statutory provisions regarding the attribution of disease or injury to service and the criteria for diagnosing PTSD.

In its decision, the court examined the evidence and found that the Commission had not erred in its reasoning. The applicant’s alcohol dependence was not reasonably attributable to his service, as the evidence did not sufficiently establish a causal link between the service and the condition. The court further held that the Commission’s decision not to diagnose PTSD was also supported by the evidence. The applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the statutory criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, dismissing the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was not entitled to an increased disability pension based on the findings regarding his alcohol dependence and the absence of a PTSD diagnosis. The Commission’s decision was upheld, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.