Carseldine and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 326

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 326

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

) No  Q2003/643

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		SYDNEY GEORGE CARSELDINE

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member McCabe

Date12 April 2005

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – disability pension – war caused injury during operational service – diagnosis of psychiatric condition – generalised anxiety disorder – depression – alcohol dependence – hypertension – clinical onset of war caused condition in issue – clinical onset of war caused condition not within the time frame embodied in the relevant statements of principle – decision under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, s 120

Repatriation Commission and Cornelius [2002] FCA 750; BC200203231

Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1998) 83 FCR 82; (1998) 49 ALD 193; (1998) 27 AAR 144; BC9801313

Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398; (2002) 125 FCR 331; (2002) 74 ALD 68; (2002) 36 AAR 484; BC200207343

Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691; BC200408850

REASONS FOR DECISION

12 April 2005  Senior Member B J McCabe

introduction

1.      Sydney Carseldine suffers from hypertension and alcohol dependence. He is also suffering from a psychiatric condition. He says those conditions are attributable to his experiences during operational service in Vietnam. He sought compensation under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA) on the basis that his conditions are war-caused. The Repatriation Commission rejected his claim. The Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB) affirmed the Commission’s decision although it concluded the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety disorder in addition to depression. Mr Carseldine has asked the Tribunal to consider his claim.

2.      I do not think the applicant’s claim can succeed because I cannot be reasonably satisfied the onset of his psychiatric condition occurred within the time frame contemplated by the relevant statements of principle. I explain my reasons in more detail below.

The material before the tribunal

3. The documents required under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975 were tendered in evidence. The following additional documents were also tendered:

·Applicant’s statement dated 5 December 2003 (exhibit 2);

·Applicant’s statement dated 24 March 2004 (exhibit 3);

·Applicant’s statement dated 29 June 2004 (exhibit 4);

·Service documents and Applicant’s personnel file lodged and received 2 February 2004 (exhibit 7);

·Writeway report of Mr Hugh Conant dated 31 May 2004 (exhibit 9).

4.      A number of medical reports were also considered. Some of them were included in the T documents. The following additional documents were tendered in evidence:

·Report of Dr Clarke dated 12 October 2004 (exhibit 5);

·Service medical documents dated from 1974 to 1986 (exhibit 6);

·Report of Dr Athey dated 23 January 2004 (exhibit 8).

5.      The applicant gave evidence in person, as did Drs Athey and Clarke and Mr Conant of Writeway Research. 

6.      The applicant was represented by Mr Jarro of counsel. Mr Williams represented the respondent.

the factual background to…