Delahunty and Repatriation Commission - [2003] AATA 914

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 914
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1171

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re GRAHAM DELAHUNTY

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Rear Admiral A R Horton AO, Member
Date16 September 2003
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
[sgd] Rear Admiral A R Horton AO,
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – whether applicant has post traumatic stress disorder – psychiatric condition – RAN service – operational service in Korea – whether causal connection of psychiatric condition with service – coal mine accident – resultant psychiatric condition – whether SoP factor(s) met – reasonable hypothesis
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 sections 9, 13(1), 120, 120A
Statement of Principles Instrument Number 58 of 1998, concerning Depressive Disorder
Statement of Principles Number 3 of 1999 as amended by Instrument Number 54 of 1999, concerning Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4^th Edition (DSM IV)
AUTHORITIES
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 326
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Connors v Repatriation Commission (2000) 59 ALD 61
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Re Slattery and Repatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 90
REASONS FOR DECISION

16 September 2003 Rear Admiral A R Horton AO, Member

1.      This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (”the Tribunal”) by Graham Wallace Delahunty (“the Applicant”). The Applicant seeks review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) dated 30 July 2002 which affirmed a decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the Respondent”) dated 28 July 2001 refusing a claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”).
2.      At the hearing before the Tribunal on 26 June 2003, the Applicant was represented by Mr M Vincent of Counsel. Mr J Marsh, Senior Advocate, represented the Respondent. The Applicant, his wife Mrs C Delahunty, Dr A Dinnen, Consultant Psychiatrist, and Dr R Haik, Consultant Psychiatrist, gave evidence.   The Hearing was adjourned after the hearing of evidence, oral closing submissions being made on 18 July 2003.
3.      The Tribunal had before it as evidence the following documents:

Exhibit

Description

Date

T1-13 pp1-70

Documents pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

T1

Additional T documents (14 pages)

A1

Report by Dr A Dinnen

15 January 2003

A2

Report by Dr A Dinnen

24 February 2003

A3

Report by Dr A Dinnen

20 June 2003

A4

Report by Dr A Dinnen

25 June 2003

A5

Extract from DSM IV pages 428 - 440

R1

Report by Commodore P M Mulcare for Writeway Research Service

23 January 2003

R2

Report by Dr R Haik

27 February 2003

R3

Clinical Notes from Dr S…

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 Delahunty and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Delahunty and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 914
Case: [2003] AATA 914
Decision Date: 16 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal involved an application for a disability pension by a veteran, Delahunty, against the Repatriation Commission. Delahunty sought the pension on the basis that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from his service in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) during the Korean War. The Commission had denied the claim, and Delahunty appealed this decision to the Tribunal. The central legal issue was whether Delahunty's PTSD was causally connected to his military service in Korea, or if it resulted from a coal mine accident he experienced after his service.

The Tribunal examined the medical evidence and testimonies presented by both parties. It was established that Delahunty had experienced a coal mine accident, which resulted in a psychiatric condition. The Tribunal had to determine if this condition was a result of the coal mine accident or if it was connected to his military service. The Tribunal assessed whether the statutory factors outlined in the relevant legislation met the criteria for a reasonable hypothesis that Delahunty's psychiatric condition was connected to his military service.

The Tribunal concluded that Delahunty's PTSD was not causally connected to his military service in Korea. The evidence showed that his psychiatric condition was more reasonably attributed to the coal mine accident he experienced after his military service. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the statutory factors did not support a reasonable hypothesis that the psychiatric condition was connected to his military service. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision of the Repatriation Commission denying Delahunty's claim for a disability pension.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review 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.

Exhibit	Description	Date
T1-13 pp1-70	Documents pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
T1	Additional T documents (14 pages)
A1	Report by Dr A Dinnen	15 January 2003
A2	Report by Dr A Dinnen	24 February 2003
A3	Report by Dr A Dinnen	20 June 2003
A4	Report by Dr A Dinnen	25 June 2003
A5	Extract from DSM IV pages 428 - 440
R1	Report by Commodore P M Mulcare for Writeway Research Service	23 January 2003
R2	Report by Dr R Haik	27 February 2003
R3	Clinical Notes from Dr S…