Collins and Repatriation Commission - [2008] AATA 373

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 373
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/704

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION )

Re MICHAEL COLLINS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms Robin Hunt, Senior Member
Date7 May 2008
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review that Mr Collins does not suffer defence-caused depressive disorder is affirmed.

...................[Sgd]...................
Ms Robin Hunt
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – claim for pension – defence service – claimed disabilities – depressive disorder – insufficient evidence of diagnosis of depressive disorder – no injury or disease attributable to service – decision affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879; (2001) 70 ALD 622; (2001) 34 AAR 270
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Gerzina v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCAFC 96
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398; (2002) 125 FCR 331;
(2002) 74 ALD 68
Repatriation Commission v Budworth [2001] FCA 1421; (2001) 116 FCR 200; (2001) 66 ALD 285
Repatriation Commission v Money [2008] FCA 118
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327; (1987) 74 ALR 537
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300; (2003) 134 FCR 392;
(2003) 77 ALD 67
REASONS FOR DECISION

7 May 2008 Ms Robin Hunt, Senior Member

summary
1.      Mr Collins suffers from a psychiatric disorder and is seeking a services pension on the basis that his disorder is attributable to his period of defence service in the Royal Australian Air Force (‘RAAF’). The Veterans’ Review Board (‘the Board’) rejected Mr Collins’s claim, finding that he suffered no disorder attributable to service. After reviewing the evidence and submissions of the parties, I have concluded that the decision under review that Mr Collins does not suffer defence-caused depressive order is affirmed.
Decision under review
2.      The decision under review is that of the Board made under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (‘the Act’) on 23 March 2005. This decision affirmed that Mr Collins’s claim in respect of paranoid personality disorder and depressive disorder was rejected. The original decision maker and the Board accepted that Mr Collins did suffer paranoid personality disorder and depressive disorder but found these conditions were not related to his defence service.
issues
3.      For the present review, Mr Collins proceeded with a claim for depressive disorder only. There are two issues for the review:
·     Does Mr Collins suffer from depressive disorder; and
·     If so, is his depressive disorder defence-caused?

4. The parties agreed at the tribunal hearing that certain Statements of Principles applied. At the time of Mr Collins’s claim, the Statement of Principles (‘SoP’) Instrument No. 59 of 1998 for depressive disorder applied. Then, by the time of the tribunal hearing, that instrument was replaced by Instrument No. 18 of 2007 for the same disorder. The applicant’s counsel argued that Mr Collins satisfied factor 6(e) of Instrument No. 18 of 2007. In addition, a new SoP, Instrument No. 28 of…

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 Collins and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Collins and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 373
Case: [2008] AATA 373
Decision Date: 7 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Collins and Repatriation Commission, the court was asked to determine whether Mr Collins was entitled to a pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) for disabilities resulting from his defence service. The Repatriation Commission had denied Mr Collins’ claim for a pension on the basis that he did not suffer from defence-caused depressive disorder. Mr Collins appealed this decision, arguing that the Commission had not properly considered his evidence and had failed to find that his depressive disorder was attributable to his service.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the Repatriation Commission had correctly identified the relevant evidence and appropriately applied the Briginshaw standard of proof in assessing Mr Collins' claim. The court had to determine if the Commission’s decision was legally sound and whether Mr Collins’ evidence was sufficient to establish that his depressive disorder was caused by his service. The case hinged on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence presented by Mr Collins to substantiate his claim for a pension.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that the Commission had considered all relevant material and applied the Briginshaw standard appropriately. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr Collins’ depressive disorder was attributable to his service. Consequently, the court affirmed the Commission’s decision, rejecting Mr Collins’ appeal. The court found that the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof, which necessitated a clear and compelling link between the claimed disability and the service.

The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal link between Mr Collins' depressive disorder and his defence service. As a result, the decision to deny Mr Collins' claim for a pension was upheld. The court did not order any further evidence or reconsideration, affirming the Repatriation Commission's initial decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review that Mr Collins does not suffer defence-caused depressive disorder is affirmed.

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.