Crookham and Repatriation Commission - [2001] AATA 507

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 507

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/1295

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re DOUGLAS stewart CROOKHAM
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Dr P D Lynch, Member

Date15 May 2001
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No N2000/1295
  )
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION                )

Re: DOUGLAS STEWART CROOKHAM
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date 15 May 2001

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision, namely THAT:

1.    The Applicant, DOUGLAS STEWART CROOKHAM, is entitled to pension for the war-caused disease of Lumbar Spondylosis as and from 13 June 1999; and
2.    This matter is remitted to the Respondent so that it might assess the rate of pension to be paid for all war-caused diseases and injuries suffered by the Applicant.
(Sgd)  M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Lumbar spondylosis. Whether injury to spinal cord as opposed to soft tissue injury. Effect of altered gait upon lumbar spondylosis.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

Repatriation Commission v Deledio 83 FCR 82
Dixon v Repatriation Commission 29 AAR 235
Harris v Repatriation Commission [2000] fca 1687

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen
Dr P D Lynch, Member

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen
Dr P D Lynch, Member

Signed: Kwai-Ling Wong
..................................................................................……………………………….
Associate

Date of Hearing  15 May 2001
Date of Decision  15 May 2001
Counsel for Applicant                 Mr N Dawson
Representative for Applicant     R L Whyburn & Associates
Advocate for Respondent          Ms P Hook, Department of Veterans' Affairs

DRAFT DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N2000/1295
By SENIOR MEMBER ALLEN and DR Lynch, Member
CROOKHAM and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
SYDNEY, 15 MAY 2001
MR ALLEN: In this matter, the applicant, pursuant to an application, lodged with the Tribunal on 5 May 2000, sought review for the decision of the respondent dated 16 September 1999 refusing…

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 Crookham and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Crookham and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 507
Case: [2001] AATA 507
Decision Date: 15 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Repatriation Commission and Mr. Crookham, a veteran seeking compensation for injuries sustained during his service. The primary dispute centred on the nature and extent of his lumbar spondylosis and whether it was caused by an injury to the spinal cord or a soft tissue injury. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court needed to address included determining the precise cause of Mr. Crookham's lumbar spondylosis and assessing the impact of his altered gait on the condition. This necessitated a careful examination of the evidence regarding his service history, the nature of his injuries, and the subsequent development of lumbar spondylosis. The court also had to consider relevant case law, particularly Repatriation Commission v Deledio and Dixon v Repatriation Commission, which provided precedents on the interpretation of veterans' entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

The court found that Mr. Crookham's lumbar spondylosis was indeed linked to his service-related injuries, but it was primarily due to a soft tissue injury rather than an injury to the spinal cord. The altered gait that resulted from his service-related conditions exacerbated the lumbar spondylosis, but this did not alter the fundamental nature of the injury. The court relied on the decision in Harris v Repatriation Commission to support its findings. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Mr. Crookham, granting him the compensation he sought for his service-related lumbar spondylosis.

The final orders included a determination that Mr. Crookham was entitled to compensation for his lumbar spondylosis, recognising the impact of his service-related injuries and the subsequent development of the condition. The court's decision provided clarity on the distinction between spinal cord injuries and soft tissue injuries in the context of veterans' entitlements.

Orders