Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 924
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/3829
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re ROGER BORDER Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr KS Levy RFD, Senior Member Date30 November 2009
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..................[Sgd]............
Senior Member
Veterans’ Affairs – Veterans’ Entitlements – operational service with Australian army – application of Statement of Principles – diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder, obsessive personality traits and post traumatic stress disorder – hypothesis raised to connect service and disease/illness – Statement of Principles in existence – no reasonable hypothesis raised – satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that disease/illness not attributable to service – decision under review affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 9, 85(2), 120(1), 120(3), 120(4), 120A, 196B(2)(d)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 37
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 74 ALD 366
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200
Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Cooke v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 205
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 149 ALR 721
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Mann and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 163
Repatriation Commission v Law (1981) 147 CLR 635
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 November 2009 Dr KS Levy RFD, Senior Member INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant, Roger Keith Border, made application for a condition of post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) as a war-caused disease within the meaning of s 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The claim was for medical treatment and pension for incapacity. The Repatriation Commission determined on 21 March 2007 that PTSD was not related to service. That decision was affirmed on review of the Veterans’ Review Board decision dated 5 June 2008.
2. It is noted that the basis of this claim is the same as an appeal by the applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1998 when the claim was refused. Since that time, there is further evidence of a psychiatric nature which is before this Tribunal. It is noted that at the time of filing the documents under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) in the present claim, PTSD was not recognised as a service related disability for Mr Border. However, since filing the documents, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has recognised this condition for Mr Border for the purposes of treatment only under s 85(2) of the Act. This matter was clarified in a telephone directions hearing on 12 November 2009 between the legal representatives for the parties.
ISSUE
3. The question for the Tribunal is whether the applicant has the condition of post traumatic stress disorder and whether it is war-caused within the terms of s 9 of the…
Continue reading Border and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Border and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 924
- Case
- [2009] AATA 924
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission examined the Statement of Principles concerning the relevant medical conditions and found that while such a statement existed, no reasonable hypothesis had been raised to connect the veteran's service to his disease or illness. The Commission was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the veteran's conditions were not attributable to his service. The Commission held that the decision under review was correct and affirmed the decision.
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's decision was soundly based on the evidence and the applicable principles of law. The Commission found no error in the Commissioner's application of the relevant principles or in his assessment of the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision under review was affirmed. The veteran's appeal was unsuccessful, and the decision that his conditions were not attributable to his service was upheld.
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.