Callander and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Callander, for a special rate pension under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (VE Act). The applicant had served in the Royal Australian Air Force and, after discharge, ran a business fixing and trading second-hand cars until 2014, when he ceased working. He sought a disability pension for a range of conditions, with some initially accepted and others deferred or found not to be service-related. Following review by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB), several conditions, including osteoarthritis of the shoulders and fracture of the left tibia and fibula, were accepted as defence-caused. The matter was remitted for consideration of the pension rate.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for the special rate of pension, specifically whether his incapacity from his war-caused conditions was of such a nature as to render him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week. This required the Tribunal to determine if his major depressive disorder, among other conditions, prevented him from undertaking office work for more than 8 hours per week.

The Tribunal considered conflicting medical evidence, particularly between Dr Adesanya, the applicant's treating psychiatrist, and Dr Synnott. Dr Adesanya opined that the applicant's psychiatric conditions, including Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), contributed to his incapacity for any work. The applicant argued that Dr Adesanya's opinion should be preferred due to his consistent observations since 2018 and the fact that he was the treating psychiatrist. Conversely, Dr Synnott assessed the applicant as experiencing normal bereavement that had resolved and disagreed with Dr Adesanya's assessment of employment capacity. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's war-caused conditions alone prevented him from doing office work for more than 8 hours per week, finding that the applicant had not established this crucial element.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the special rate of pension.