Dawson and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 718

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 718

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No Q2002/764

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

)
Re KEITH DAWSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr IR Way, Member

Date29 July 2005 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.   

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

IR Way
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – pension – whether the veteran’s conditions were war caused – PTSD – impotence – lumbar spondylosis – anxiety disorder

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 9, 119, 120, 120A, 196B

Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564

Devereaux v Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 557

East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517

Hillier v Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA897

Morgan v Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 458

Repatriation Commission v Cooke [1998] FCA 1717

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193

Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) FCA 334

White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633

REASONS FOR DECISION

29 July 2005  Mr I R Way, Member           

1. This is an application by Keith Dawson for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 7 December 2001, affirmed by the VRB on 31 May 2002, which determined that the applicant does not suffer from war-caused post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), impotence or lumbar spondylosis within the meaning of section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).

2. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T6) and other documentary evidence as follows:

§Exhibit A1     Report of Dr Mungomery dated 14 February 2003

§Exhibit A2     Statement of Keith Dawson dated 6 November 2002

§Exhibit A3     Report of Dr Herbert dated 23 January 2003

§Exhibit A4     Australian War Memorial File November 1964 to April 1965

§Exhibit A5     Affidavit of Michelle Beatty

§Exhibit A6     Inpatient Record – 20 June 1965 to 2 August 1965

§Exhibit A7     Confidential Daily Medical Record HMAS Cerberus dated 22 July 1965

§Exhibit A8     Clinical Notes dated 7 February 1978 and 16 February 1978

§Exhibit R1     Report of Dr Hoyle dated 3 January 2003

§Exhibit R2     Discharge Medical Record

§Exhibit R3     Writeway Research Report dated 17 March 2003

§Exhibit R4     Applicant’s smoking questionnaire dated 26 July 1993

§Exhibit R5     Curriculum Vitae of Capt Rothwell

§Exhibit R6     Report of Dr P Mulholland dated 9 November 2004

3.       The applicant was represented by Ms S J Armitage and Mr B Williams appeared for the respondent.  The applicant, Ms H Tosi and Dr P Mulholland (psychiatrist) gave oral evidence.  Mr Q Mungomery (consultant psychiatrist), Dr K Hoyle (urologist) and Captain W Rothwell (RAN Rtd) gave evidence by telephone. 

4.       This matter first came on for hearing on 4 and 5 September 2003.  The hearing was adjourned so that additional medical evidence could be obtained about the applicant’s psychiatric condition.  This evidence was subsequently obtained from Dr P Mulholland after considerable delays arising from a number of unfortunate medical…

Continue reading Dawson and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dawson and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 718
Case
[2005] AATA 718
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was between Dawson and the Repatriation Commission, concerning the eligibility of the veteran for certain pension benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The central issue was whether the veteran’s medical conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, impotence, lumbar spondylosis, and anxiety disorder, were attributable to his war service. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether these conditions met the statutory criteria for war-related disabilities, which would entitle the veteran to the pension benefits in question.

The primary legal questions revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 9, 119, 120, 120A, and 196B of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The court had to establish whether the veteran's conditions were indeed war-caused and, if so, whether they warranted the pension benefits contested. The Tribunal examined precedents such as Bull v Repatriation Commission, Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, and East v Repatriation Commission, among others, to ascertain the appropriate legal standards and criteria for assessing the war-related nature of the veteran's ailments.

After a thorough review of the evidence and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the veteran's conditions were not sufficiently established to be considered war-caused under the applicable sections of the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning hinged on the lack of adequate medical evidence linking the conditions directly to the veteran's service, as well as the application of relevant case law that underscored the need for a strong causal connection between the war service and the claimed disabilities. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Repatriation Commission, finding that the veteran was not entitled to the pension benefits sought.

The Tribunal’s decision was affirmed, with the veteran’s claim for pension benefits being rejected based on the insufficient evidence of a war-related causation of his medical conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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.