Bradley and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Bradley and the Repatriation Commission concerning the Applicant's claim for veterans' entitlements. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder, and if these conditions were war-caused. The Applicant sought review of a decision made by the Veterans' Review Board.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if the Applicant suffered from PTSD and alcohol use disorder, and crucially, whether these conditions were war-caused. This required the Tribunal to assess whether a reasonable hypothesis had been raised connecting the Applicant's war service with these alleged diseases, and if so, whether the Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no sufficient ground for making such a finding.

The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's evidence regarding an electrocution incident during his service, finding him to be an honest and reliable witness despite the passage of time. Expert evidence from the Applicant's treating psychiatrist, Dr. James Fellows-Smith, supported the diagnosis of PTSD, attributing it to the electrocution incident. The Tribunal found Dr. Fellows-Smith's longitudinal perspective and the Applicant's trust in him led to a more accurate history and diagnosis compared to the Respondent's expert. The Tribunal applied the four-step process outlined in *Deledio*, concluding that the Applicant suffered from PTSD which, in turn, led to his alcohol use disorder. The Tribunal was satisfied that a reasonable hypothesis connecting the Applicant's service with these conditions had been raised and was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the conditions were not war-caused.