Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 447
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/414
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re DARRYL EDWARD BUNNEY Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr KS Levy, Member Date19 May 2005
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution thereof, determines that Mr Bunney is entitled to pension at the special rate, effective from 10 October 2002.
...................[Sgd]......................
KS Levy
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – disability support pension – application for pension at the special rate – post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse and back condition – whether applicant is precluded from undertaking remunerative work by reason of his war-caused injury or disease alone – despite existences of other considerations applicant satisfies “alone” test – decision under review set aside and substituted accordingly.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 19, 24, 28, 120
Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) FCAFC 83; (2004) 58 ALD 394
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Van Ewijk v Repatriation Commission (2004) FCA 17
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 171 ALR 131; (2000) 101 FLR 50; (2000) 58 ALD 394
Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 36 ALD 207; (1995) 129 ALR 219
Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
Repatriation Commission v Bowman (1981) 54 FLR 8; (1981) 38 ALR 650REASONS FOR DECISION
19 May 2005 Dr KS Levy, Member 1. This is an application made by Darryl Edward Bunney (“the applicant”) seeking payment of a pension at the special rate pursuant to section 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”).
2. The original claim by the applicant was made on 22 November 2002. That application was rejected by a delegate of the Commission on 23 May 2003 and on appeal, the Veterans’ Review Board upheld the delegate’s original decision on 19 April 2004. The latter decision was notified to the applicant on 23 April 2004 and he lodged an application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 4 June 2004.
3. The applicant contends that he ceased work solely as a result of his accepted conditions and particularly the condition of post traumatic stress disorder, which was only formally diagnosed following the cessation of work. He also has had surgery for the condition of intervertebral disc prolapse at L5-S1.
4. The applicant was represented by Mr Selfridge of Counsel and instructed by Sciacca’s, Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Mr Malcolm Smith.
5. This appeal is being considered under section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
6.The following documents were admitted into evidence before the Tribunal:
§Exhibit 1 T documents prepared in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975;
§Exhibit 2 Statement of Darryl Edward Bunney dated 5 August 2004;
§Exhibit 3 Medical Impairment Assessment by Dr L Fenelow dated 20 October 2003.
Background
7. The applicant was born on 9 September 1947…
Continue reading Bunney and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bunney and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 447
- Case
- [2005] AATA 447
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The AAT undertook a thorough examination of the evidence presented by Mr Bunney and the Repatriation Commission. The tribunal considered relevant case law, including Leane v Repatriation Commission, Flentjar v Repatriation Commission, Van Ewijk v Repatriation Commission, Forbes v Repatriation Commission, Chambers v Repatriation Commission, Banovich v Repatriation Commission, Cavell v Repatriation Commission, and Repatriation Commission v Bowman. The tribunal concluded that, despite the presence of other conditions, Mr Bunney satisfied the "alone" test. The AAT found that Mr Bunney’s war-caused injury or disease was the primary factor precluding him from undertaking remunerative work.
Consequently, the AAT set aside the decision under review and determined that Mr Bunney was entitled to a disability support pension at the special rate, effective from 10 October 2002. This decision recognised the significance of Mr Bunney’s war-caused injury or disease in assessing his eligibility for the special rate pension, despite the existence of other contributing factors. The tribunal’s ruling underscores the importance of a holistic evaluation of a veteran’s circumstances when determining their entitlement to pension benefits.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution thereof, determines that Mr Bunney is entitled to pension at the special rate, effective from 10 October 2002.
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.