Coghill and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Coghill for an intermediate or special rate pension under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether Mr Coghill's accepted conditions, in combination with other factors, rendered him incapacitated for remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week. The decision was made by Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Coghill met the eligibility criteria for an intermediate rate of pension under section 23(1)(b) of the Act, or a special rate of pension under section 24(1)(b) of the Act. These provisions require the applicant to demonstrate, to reasonable satisfaction, that they are incapacitated for remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week due to war-caused injury or disease.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the weight given to medical evidence. It preferred the evidence of Dr Smith, finding his report to be thorough. The Tribunal noted that the opinions of Doctors Rosenthal and Chase did not adequately consider the impact of Mr Coghill's bladder cancer diagnosis and surgery on his capacity to work, a factor acknowledged by Doctors Dinnen and Smith. The Tribunal found Dr Chase's expertise in PTSD questionable and his oral evidence unpersuasive, particularly as he had not considered earlier reports. Dr Rosenthal's assessment was also found to be ill-considered regarding the impact of the urostomy bag. The Tribunal found Dr Smith's diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder persuasive and concluded that Mr Coghill was incapacitated from remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week due to a combination of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, significantly influenced by his bladder cancer and subsequent surgery. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that incapacity from war-caused injury or disease *alone* prevented Mr Coghill from undertaking remunerative work otherwise than on a part-time or intermittent basis, or for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week, during the assessment period.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Coghill did not satisfy the requirements of section 23(1)(b) or section 24(1)(b) of the Act during the assessment period. The decision under review was affirmed.