Campbell and Repatriation Commission

[2007] AATA 1217

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1217

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  Q 2004/637

VETERANS APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		BRADLEY JOSEPH CAMPBELL

Applicant

And  REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe
 Dr G Maynard, Member

Date 11 April 2007

Place Brisbane

Decision  The decisions under review are affirmed

................[Sgd]..............................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – applicant claiming adjustment disorder and alcohol abuse as a result of service – contradictory medical evidence – relevant statement of principles – condition not linked to eligible service

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 120(4)

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 April 2007	Senior Member B J McCabe Dr G Maynard, Member
introduction

1.      Bradley Campbell says he suffers from an Adjustment Disorder With Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood and Alcohol Abuse, albeit that the Alcohol Abuse is currently in remission. He says the conditions were brought on as a result of events that occurred during the course of his eligible defence service in the Navy. He referred in particular to an incident in Singapore in 1979. He has asked for a pension on that basis under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA). The respondent disagrees with the diagnoses offered by the applicant’s medical experts. It says he suffers from a Personality Disorder that is not attributable to service.

2.      For reasons we will explain, we prefer a diagnosis of Paranoid Personality Disorder. That means the decision under review must be affirmed.

3.      The application for review also asks us to consider the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board to reject Mr Campbell’s claim in respect of Hypertension, Benign Inter-cranial Hypertension and Fourth Trochlear Nerve Palsy (right). The evidence at the hearing did not deal with these conditions, and they were not referred to in submissions. We assume the applicant has not persisted with those aspects of the application. In any event, we do not have sufficient evidence before us to suggest it is appropriate to set aside the decisions in relation to those matters.

the material before the tribunal

4. The Tribunal was provided with the material required under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. We were also provided with a number of medical records and reports, and heard from the applicant and medical experts called by both sides.

5.      Mr Clutterbuck of counsel represented the applicant. Mr Smith, a departmental advocate, represented the Commission.

the factual background to the applicant’s claim

6.      The applicant was born on 22 September 1957. He had a difficult relationship with his father. He told Dr Alcorn that Mr Campbell Snr (the applicant’s father) was verbally and physically aggressive on occasions. We heard Mr Campbell Snr did not foster the applicant’s academic endeavours. The applicant also told Dr Alcorn about difficulties at school. Mr Campbell said he suspected teachers were not well-disposed towards him, perhaps because of the influence of his father’s behaviour at the school. He said he felt picked on. He believed he was blamed for things that were not his fault, and that other boys talked about him. He also spoke about an incident in which a pitchfork was thrown at him. The implement had to be pulled out of his foot, although it is unclear if he was badly injured. The evidence suggested he was a loner, and that he was wary of other people.

7.      Mr Campbell decided to join the Navy after he finished school. He enlisted and rendered eligible service between 21 August 1978 and 20 August 1991. He left the Navy for a period but re-enlisted in 1994 for another two years. He left the Navy not long after he was diagnosed as suffering from Paranoid Psychosis.

8.      The applicant was a member of the crew of HMAS Torrens when the ship visited Singapore in 1979. An incident occurred during the course of a drunken outing while the applicant was on shore leave in the company of another sailor. It is not necessary to rehearse all of the evidence in relation to that incident here. The applicant said he was teased about the event from that date forward. He said he was bullied and harassed by fellow sailors. He said even the commanding officer was aware of the incident and held it against him.

9.      The applicant also referred to an incident involving two other sailors on board the submarine on which the applicant was serving. He says he became aware of rumours circulating to the effect that he was involved in the incident. There was also evidence about a brawl in a bar where the applicant said he was unfairly targeted for blame.

10.     Mr Campbell said he regularly drank beer before he joined the Navy. He says he began to drink more heavily some time after the incident in Singapore in 1979. The evidence about his consumption is confusing. The applicant said in his oral evidence that he started drinking more heavily immediately following the incident in 1979. He says his drinking continued at a high level thereafter. He said he would also consume his beer ration and then cadge more beer from his shipmates while he was at sea. He said he would drink particularly heavily on leave. But he told Dr Alcorn that his drinking pattern did not increase markedly until after he attended a course at HMAS Cerberus some time after he returned from Singapore. Dr Alcorn noted the applicant denied experiencing problems with drinking into the mid-1980s, although the applicant accepted he regularly drank a lot. He told Dr Alcorn his alcohol consumption began to fall by the time he left the Navy on the first occasion, although he occasionally still had binges on weekends. The story recounted by Dr Alcorn in particular suggests Mr Campbell’s alcohol consumption became a problem during his second period of enlistment, but the parties agreed that period is not relevant for present purposes.

the medical evidence

11.     The applicant called Dr Majumdar to give evidence. He said the applicant suffered from a Chronic Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Dr Majumdar says it was brought on by the incident in Singapore in particular and the other incidents, and as a result of the teasing and harassment Mr Campbell experienced at the hands of his colleagues in the aftermath of some of those incidents. Dr Majumdar says the applicant developed Alcohol Abuse while he was suffering from the Adjustment Disorder.

12.     Dr Cook examined the applicant at the request of the respondent. He provided a report but he was not called to give oral evidence. The report refers to a generally happy childhood. It also noted there was no evidence of excessive alcohol intake. Dr Cook concluded the applicant suffered from a Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type. He said the condition was related to the conditions of the applicant’s service. Dr Cook declined to diagnose an alcohol-related disorder, although he agreed the applicant’s consumption was excessive and unwise.

13.     Dr Alcorn opined that the applicant suffered from a long-standing Paranoid Personality Disorder that predated his enlistment in the Navy. While Dr Acorn acknowledged one might develop Paranoid Personality Disorder following trauma, he said it was more likely to be constitutional in nature. He recounted details of the applicant’s childhood suggesting a history of paranoia. He said that evidence clearly supported his diagnosis. We note the information about the applicant’s childhood was not available to Dr Cook – although the conclusion the applicant suffered from a paranoid disorder of some sort is clearly consistent with Dr Cook’s views as to the nature of the condition, if not its causation. Dr Alcorn said it was inappropriate to make a differential diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder following the incident in Singapore. He pointed out that diagnosis would be surprising given the applicant’s decision to re-enlist in the Navy several years later. Dr Alcorn noted the medical evidence did not suggest excessive alcohol intake, although he observed in his report “[I]n the past he would have satisfied diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Abuse”.

the law and its application

14. The first issue in dispute in this case is the diagnosis. Section 120(4) of the VEA says that question (among others) must be resolved to the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker.

15.     We prefer the opinion of Dr Alcorn. He took a much more extensive history than either of the other doctors whose evidence was tendered before the Tribunal. We accept his explanation that a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder should only be made when no other diagnosis was available. We are persuaded by his evidence that a diagnosis of Paranoid Personality Disorder explains all of his symptoms, which means a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder is inappropriate. We note Dr Cook also refers to a paranoid condition. We are also prepared to accept the applicant suffered from Alcohol Abuse, although it is currently in remission.

16.     The next step is to identify the relevant statement of principles (SoP). Mr Smith, for the respondent, referred the Tribunal to Instrument No 144 of 1995 (amended by Instrument No 14 of 1997). That SoP deals with a range of personality disorders, including Paranoid Personality Disorder.

17.     Paragraph 1(a) of the 1995 SoP requires evidence of a catastrophic experience. None of the events or experiences described by the applicant would satisfy the SoP because they were not catastrophic in the ordinary sense of that word. They were at most psycho-social stressors – but that is not what is required to make out a causal connection between service and this kind of condition. They could not be described as severe stressors for the purposes of the SoP in relation to Alcohol Abuse (No 77 of 1998) either. The events in question are not of the same kind or magnitude as the examples of recognised severe stressors set out in the SoP.

18.     It follows we are satisfied the applicant’s psychiatric condition is not linked to his eligible service.

19.     The evidence does not clearly establish the date of onset for a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse. That does not ultimately matter because the condition cannot be attributed to his service in the absence of a service-related psychiatric illness or a severe stressor within the meaning of the relevant SoP. We are satisfied none of the factors referred to in the SoP were present in this case. In those circumstances, the claim for Alcohol Abuse must also fail.

conclusion

20.     The decisions under review are affirmed.

I certify that the 20 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Bernard J McCabe and Dr G Maynard, Member.

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate      Stephen O’Grady

Date of Hearing  18-19 January 2007
Date of Decision  11 April 2007
The applicant was represented by Mr Clutterbuck, of counsel.

The respondent was represented by Mr Smith, a departmental advocate.