Byrne and Repatriation Commission - [2011] AATA 875

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 875
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/4872

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re MICHAEL BYRNE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Brigadier C Ermert (Retd), Member
Date9 December 2011
PlaceMelbourne

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

. . . . . . . . [signed]. . . . . . . . . . .
Member

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – operational service in Vietnam – stressors – diagnosis of psychiatric condition – whether psychiatric condition war-caused – Statements of Principles ‑ satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that psychiatric condition not war-caused – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 9, s 120, s 120A, s 196A, s 196B
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Meehan v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 1371
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200
Repatriation Commission v Codd [2005] FCA 888
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
REASONS FOR DECISION

9 December 2011 Brigadier C Ermert (Ret’d), Member

1.        Mr Michael Byrne, the veteran, was born in 1948. He served in the Australian Army from 29 January 1969 to 28 January 1971. Mr Byrne had operational service in Vietnam from 26 November 1969 to 19 November 1970, serving in 102 Field Workshop located at Vung Tau.
2.        Mr Byrne contends that during his operational service he experienced a number of incidents that caused him to fear for his life.
3.        After his discharge from the Army, Mr Byrne had a very successful career in industry. He held a variety of responsible senior positions in Australia and overseas. Over the years he suffered headaches and nightmares. In December 2004 Mr Byrne began to realise he could not continue to work. In June 2005 he ceased work on the advice of his doctor. He sought treatment for his psychiatric conditions. He continues to receive treatment, albeit at a greatly reduced level. Mr Byrne contends that his psychiatric conditions are war-caused.
4.        On 17 December 2007 Mr Byrne submitted a claim to the Repatriation Commission for anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). On 2 June 2008 a delegate of the Repatriation Commission determined that the appropriate diagnosis of Mr Byrne’s condition was depressive disorder but decided that the condition was not war-caused. Mr Byrne sought a review of that decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB). On 14 October 2010 the VRB varied the diagnosis of the condition to major depressive disorder in remission but otherwise affirmed the decision. This matter is an application for review of the VRB decision.
THE HEARING
5.      At the hearing, Mr C Thomson of counsel represented Mr Byrne. Mr G Purcell, of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, represented the Commission. Mr Byrne gave evidence. The Tribunal also heard evidence from Mrs Byrne, Dr G Mathews, Dr L Walton and Dr A Velakoulis, consultant psychiatrists, and Mr T Stream, who was with Mr Byrne during his period…

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 Byrne and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Byrne and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 875
Case: [2011] AATA 875
Decision Date: 9 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Byrne and Repatriation Commission involved a dispute between a veteran, Byrne, and the Repatriation Commission regarding whether his psychiatric condition was caused by his operational service in Vietnam. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central issue was whether Byrne's psychiatric condition, diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder, was attributable to his service in Vietnam. Byrne argued that his condition was a result of the war, while the Commission contended that it was not.

The Tribunal had to determine whether Byrne's psychiatric condition was "war-caused" within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This required an assessment of whether the condition arose out of Byrne's operational service in Vietnam and whether it was directly attributable to that service. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including medical reports, statements, and other relevant documentation. The decision hinged on the Tribunal's assessment of the credibility and weight of the evidence, particularly in relation to whether Byrne's condition was sufficiently linked to his service to be considered "war-caused."

After a thorough review of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the Repatriation Commission was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Byrne's psychiatric condition was not caused by his service in Vietnam. The Tribunal found that while Byrne had experienced stressors during his service, the condition he suffered from did not meet the statutory criteria for being considered war-caused. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, rejecting Byrne's claim for compensation related to his psychiatric condition.

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.