DAVID CROOK and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

[2010] AATA 580

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 580

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/1897

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		DAVID CROOK

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Dr S H Toh, Member

Date5 August 2010   

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is set aside and instead the Tribunal decides that Mr Crook suffers from alcohol dependence, major depression and anxiety disorder, all of which are war caused. The date of effect of this decision is 6 November 2007.

...................[sgd]............................

Ms N Bell, Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS - Veterans’ Entitlements – causation - anxiety disorder – alcohol abuse and/or depednance – post traumatic stress disorder – stressors

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Dr S H Toh, Member

1.      David Crook served in the Royal Australian Navy between 10 July 1960 and 18 September 1968. He was 16 years old when he joined the Navy.

2.      Mr Crook had the following operational service for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986:

·24 March 1966 to 24 April 1966 in Malaysia and Singapore on the Melbourne;

·25 April 1966 to 6 May 1966 in Vietnamese waters on the Melbourne; and

·25 May 1966 to 9 June 1966.

3.      Mr Crook suffers from major depression, a condition that has been accepted by the Repatriation Commission as war caused, and there is no dispute that he also suffers from alcohol abuse and/or alcohol dependence.  Mr Crook contends that he suffers from an additional psychiatric condition that has attracted various diagnoses by medical experts.  He maintains that all of his psychiatric conditions, including alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, are war caused.

4.      The Commission, while accepting that Mr Crook suffers from major depression and alcohol abuse and/or dependence, initially contended that he suffers from bipolar disorder and denied that he suffers from generalised anxiety disorder or any other psychiatric condition.

5.      Later in the proceedings, the Commission abandoned its contention that he suffers from bipolar disorder.

issues

6.      The first issue for us to consider is the correct diagnosis of Mr Crook’s psychiatric condition or conditions.  We must be satisfied of this on the balance of probabilities.  In this respect, we note the Commission has accepted that Mr Crook suffers from war caused major depression and from alcohol abuse and/or dependence.

7.      It remains for us to consider whether Mr Crook’s conditions, including his alcohol dependence, are war-caused. In doing so we must apply the standard of reasonable hypothesis, in this case, by identifying the applicable Statement of Principles (SoP) and considering whether any hypothesis raised by the material before us conforms with one of the factors in the SoP.  If so, then we must consider whether we are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the condition is not war-caused. 

8.      In so…