Dencher and Repatriation Commission
[2007] AATA 1530
•10 July 2007
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1530
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2006/62
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re PETER DENCHER Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member R Hunt, Dr J D Campbell, Member Date10 July 2007
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
…............[Sgd]................
Ms R Hunt
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – applicant served in Australian Army – rendered “operational service”– claimed disability pension - Generalised Anxiety Disorder (“GAD”) –applicant’s GAD is not a “war-caused disease” – no reasonable hypothesis connecting applicant’s GAD with circumstances of his “operational service” – tribunal satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining applicant’s GAD is war-caused – other psychiatric conditions not war-caused - decision affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 120(1), 120(3), 120(4), 120A(3)
Statement of Principles concerning Generalised Anxiety Disorder (Instrument No 1 of 2000)
Statement of Principles concerning Panic Disorder (Instrument No 9 of 1999, as amended by Instrument No 58 of 2001)
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 270
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581; [2002] FCAFC 192
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 197 AAR 67
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283
Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 930
Robertson v Repatriation Commission AAT No 12666, [1990] AATA 127 (2 March 1998)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Summary
1. Mr Peter Dencher, the applicant, claims he developed generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder and panic disorder related to his service in Vietnam. This claim was rejected by the Repatriation Commission on 19 November 2004 and affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 23 November 2005. Mr Dencher is already receiving a percentage of the general disability pension rate and would receive a greater percentage if his additional claim was accepted. We have found, on balance, that although Mr Dencher does suffer from generalised anxiety disorder, it is not war-caused caused or contributed to or aggravated by his operational service or other eligible service. This means that his claim has not been successful. Our reasons are set out below.
Introduction
2. The parties agree that Mr Dencher served in the Australian Army from 27 May 1969 to 6 March 1975. His service included operational service in South Vietnam from 26 May 1971 to 23 December 1971 and defence service from 7 December 1972 to 6 March 1975. Mr Dencher was aged 56 at the time of the tribunal hearing of his application for review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission to refuse his claim for generalised anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder and panic disorder. The respondent pays Mr Dencher a pension at 20% of the general rate for his tinnitus condition. These and other background facts set out in the applicant’s facts and contentions are not in dispute.
Issue
3. Mr Dencher claims he suffers psychiatric disorders which are war-caused or contributed to or aggravated by severe stressors or severe psychosocial stressors he experienced during his operational service in Vietnam. The issues arising from his claims are:
(a)whether Mr Dencher suffers from generalised anxiety disorder (GAD);
(b)if so, whether this disorder is war-caused according to any relevant Statement of Principles;
(c)whether Mr Dencher suffers from panic disorder;
(d)if so, whether this disorder is war-caused according to any relevant Statement of Principles;
(e)whether Mr Dencher suffers from social anxiety disorder;
(f)if so, whether this disorder is war-caused;
(g)if we find Mr Dencher is suffering any of these conditions and they are war-caused conditions, the next matter is to determine the rate of pension applicable.
Diagnosis
4. The first step is to determine whether Mr Dencher suffers any of the claimed anxiety disorders. If we are satisfied, on balance, that Mr Dencher does suffer from one or more of the disorders claimed, the next step is to examine Mr Dencher’s hypothesis that his condition is war-caused.
The Medical Evidence
5. Before us are several medical reports. We also heard expert oral evidence from two psychiatrists, Dr Dinnen and Dr Lewin. The applicant relies on the opinions of Dr Keshava and of Dr Dinnen. Dr Kesahva, consultant psychiatrist, treated Mr Dencher and produced a report dated 2 August 2001. Dr Keshava recorded that Mr Dencher “had his first anxiety attack in Vietnam when left on his own at night … and has suffered from recurrent panic attacks since that time”. He also took from Mr Dencher a history of regular nightmares about being back in Vietnam and seeing shadows coming towards him.
6. Clinical notes of Dr Traise note the presence of anxiety disorder in June 2001. The doctor then referred Mr Dencher to Dr Danesi in 2004 and 2005. Dr Christopher Danesi, consultant psychiatrist, saw Mr Dencher in November 2004 and wrote a report dated 8 November 2004. On page 2 of the report, the doctor noted that Mr Dencher found it difficult to date the onset of his anxiety. The doctor wrote Mr Dencher said he was very anxious during his time in Vietnam. Dr Danesi recorded that Mr Dencher “slept okay until problems occurring in 2001”. Under the discussion section, Dr Danesi wrote that Mr Dencher had generalised anxiety disorder which Mr Dencher attributed to his time in Vietnam. Dr Danesi wrote that “(M)ost likely his GAD commenced in early adulthood. Dr Danesi also diagnosed panic disorder which he observed occurred in the setting of distress that many years of work had been wasted by CSIRO managers. Next, Dr Danesi observed that it was possible that Mr Dencher’s GAD “was exacerbated by his experiences in Vietnam”. In Dr Danesi’s opinion, criteria for a severe psychosocial stressor experienced in Vietnam were not met and said this was exemplified by the criteria from DSM-IV for post traumatic stress disorder. The doctor awarded Mr Dencher GARP ratings of 40% for panic disorder, 30% for generalised anxiety disorder and 30% for social anxiety disorder.
7. Dr Dinnen provided a report on 23 August 2006 in which he diagnosed generalised anxiety disorder and put the time of clinical onset during his Vietnam service. He commented that panic disorder was often part of generalised anxiety disorder and did not warrant separate diagnosis. Dr Dinnen further held the opinion that Mr Dencher suffered a severe psychosocial stressor in being left alone on the base in Vietnam where he served and that this was an occurrence which gave rise to anxiety.
8. The respondent relies on the opinion of Dr Lewin as set out in his report dated 14 June 2006. Dr Lewin states early in his report that he considered the statements of principle for generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder as requested in the respondent’s letter requesting his evaluation. This approach has coloured his report which refers to factors and criteria in the statement of principle. Dr Lewin recorded that he explained to Mr Dencher the purpose of his examination was in the context of the claim and not for the purpose of treatment. Dr Lewin noted Mr Dencher reported he had been under the care of Dr Keshava and had recent treatment from Dr Christopher Danesi at the time of his examination and report. After taking a history of Mr Dencher’s account of his experiences in Nui Dat, Dr Lewin observed that Mr Dencher told him “he had not thought about any of these several events during the intervening period of thirty years”. According to the report, Mr Dencher also told Dr Lewin that he had always been a “worrier”.
9. Dr Lewin recorded that Mr Dencher reported some intermittent sleeping difficulties during his thirties and forties. On page 5 of the report, Dr Lewin said he described the onset of frequent episodes of panic in 2001. On page 6, the report says Mr Dencher described his mother as a lifelong worrier and a “nervy” person. Dr Lewin recorded that Mr Dencher described a hard childhood and his family’s relocation to Brisbane when he was aged 8 and his grandmother died. His parents then started a caravan park business. Under the diagnosis and opinion section of the report, Dr Lewin noted that the death and relocation was a period of considerable disruption to family life and that Mr Dencher had felt obliged to work in the family business. Dr Lewin further noted a pattern of shyness in Mr Dencher’s childhood.
10. When it came to the analysis of symptoms, Dr Lewin recorded waxing and waning of some symptoms over a long period. These symptoms were generally mild. He had experienced more intrusive panic symptoms during the last few months of his employment and subsequently. Dr Lewin did not diagnose panic disorder “at the current time”.
11. When directing his attention to the statement of principles for anxiety disorder, he reported that Mr Dencher recounted no “severe psychosocial stressor” as defined. Although Mr Dencher experienced substantial distress at Nui Dat, in Dr Lewin’s opinion, Mr Dencher recounted no “identifiable occurrence”.
12. His report explains that Dr Lewin did not, at the time of the examination, diagnose other conditions, including social anxiety disorder, depressive disorder or post traumatic stress disorder. The reason for this, the doctor gave as diagnostic criteria according to DSM-IV were not satisfied. In his opinion, there was no war-caused psychiatric condition. On page 7 of his report, Dr Lewin records:
A report of a long-term history of anxiety symptoms, described a range of bodily symptoms of arousal intermittent disturbance of sleep, a degree of social withdrawal and a feeling that he was easily fatigued. This was associated with difficulty in concentration and a range of bodily symptoms of arousal such as tension symptoms and headaches.
13. Under the heading “mental state examination”, Dr Lewin put the clinical onset at August 2001, but also identified that:
Many of the symptoms are likely to be associated with a childhood pattern of anxiety; that Mr Dencher had identified his mother as a life-long worrier, and that there is a suggestion of an underlying genetic vulnerability insofar as anxiety is concerned. This is a common clinical pattern.
14. He went on to say in the final paragraph:
Mr Dencher describes some waxing and waning of symptoms over a long time. The symptoms which he described were generally mild. He experienced more intrusive panic symptoms during the last few months of his period of employment and subsequently these symptoms have largely settled in the meanwhile.
15. In the “summary diagnosis and opinion” section of his report, Dr Lewin writes early in the third paragraph, “(I)t is clear that he [Mr Dencher] suffers from an anxiety disorder”. Dr Lewin refers to the history of childhood symptoms and later events and symptoms. He then concentrates on the criteria for generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder according to the statements of principle. Dr Lewin then carried out an evaluation of Mr Dencher’s psychiatric impairment, concluding that he had a psychiatric impairment rating of 20 points according to the GARP V system.
Finding as to Mr Dencher’s Medical Condition
16. Mr Dencher has raised the possibility that he suffers from more than one psychiatric condition. We note that, at paragraph 29 of its facts and contentions, the respondent accepts that Mr Dencher suffers from “generalised anxiety disorder” although their expert witness, Dr Lewin, did not specifically direct his diagnosis to this terminology to describe Mr Dencher’s condition as such at the time of writing his report. However, Dr Lewin did make his opinion obvious when he wrote, on 14 June 2006, it was clear Mr Dencher suffered from an anxiety disorder.
17. The medical evidence before us strongly indicates the diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder as appropriate or correct. Dr Dinnen and Dr Danesi have made this diagnosis as well as other doctors who have examined Mr Dencher and provided written opinions which we have set out above. Dr Lewin further found the presence of anxiety disorder when he examined Mr Dencher. Therefore, on balance, we are satisfied that Mr Dencher does suffer generalised anxiety disorder, otherwise known as anxiety disorder or GAD. In so finding, we acknowledge that any symptoms of a panic disorder, and any symptoms of a social anxiety disorder are consistent with the diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder as evident in the opinions of Dr Dinnen and Dr Lewin.
The Hypothesis
18. Mr Dencher raises the hypothesis that his circumstances in Vietnam caused him a stressor or severe psychosocial stressors that led to or contributed to or aggravated generalised anxiety disorder or other psychiatric disorder. While other anxiety conditions have been mentioned in the course of the hearing and in medical evidence, we have concluded above that Mr Dencher suffers generalised anxiety disorder. It follows that our next task is to examine Mr Dencher’s hypothesis in the context of this disorder only.
19. The matters in contention between the parties are those matters referred to by the respondent in its facts and contentions in paragraph 32 onwards, that is, does Mr Dencher’s condition meet the requirements of the relevant Statement of Principles as to the definition of “severe psycho-social stressor” and as to clinical onset. This involves identifying an occurrence for the purpose of the hypothesis that Mr Dencher’s condition is war-caused.
20. Section 9 of the Act provides, in part, that a disease contracted by a veteran shall be taken as war-caused if it resulted from an occurrence that happened while the veteran was rendering operational service. Sections 120 and 120A provide a method of determining whether there is a link between an injury or disease and operational service, and provide a standard of proof which must be applied in deciding the question raised by s 120(1), that is, whether the injury or disease was war-caused. Section 120(1) provides:
Where a claim under Part II for a pension in respect of the incapacity from … disease of a veteran, …relates to the operational service rendered by the veteran, the Commission shall determine that … the disease was a war-caused disease … unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination.’
21. Section 120(3) goes on to provide:
In applying subsection (1) or (2) in respect of the incapacity of a person from injury or disease, or in respect of the death of a person, related to service rendered by the person, the Commission shall be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for determining:
(a) that the injury was a war-caused injury or a defence-caused injury;
(b) that the disease was a war-caused disease or a defence-caused disease; or
(c) that the death was war-caused or defence-caused;
as the case may be, if the Commission, after consideration of the whole of the material before it, is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person.
22. Section 120A applies in this case. Subsection (3) of that section provides:
For the purposes of subsection 120(3), a hypothesis connecting an injury suffered by a person, a disease contracted by a person or the death of a person with the circumstances of any particular service rendered by the person is reasonable only if there is in force:
(a)a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B(2) or (11); or
(b)a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A(2);
that upholds the hypothesis.
23. Section 196B(2) provides, in part, with respect to Statements of Principles:
(2)If the Authority is of the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that a particular kind of injury, disease or death can be related to:
(a)operational service rendered by veterans; or
(b)…
(c)…
the Authority must determine a Statement of Principles in respect of that kind of injury, disease or death setting out:
(d)the factors that must as a minimum exist; and
(e)which of those factors must be related to service rendered by a person;
before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting an injury, disease or death of that kind with the circumstances of that service.
24. The Repatriation Medical Authority has determined Statements of Principles in accordance with sub s 196B(2) with respect to generalised anxiety disorder. We have dealt with these principles below. We have followed the process dictated by the above provisions. The practical operation of ss 120, 120A, 196B and Statements of Principles have been the subject of much discussion by the Federal Court and the tribunal. We have taken the starting point by following the steps set out in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 and following cases. Four steps identified in Deledio must be undertaken by us where a SoP exists. In summary, we are first required to consider whether the material before us discloses a hypothesis connecting the disease with the service of the veteran. If a hypothesis is raised, as in the present case, we must determine whether there is a SoP in force. As there is, we must consider whether the hypothesis is reasonable, according to the SoP. Then we return to the question posed by s 120(1) - are we satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the claimed incapacity did not arise from a war-caused injury or disease. If we are not satisfied there is a reasonable hypothesis before us that is the end of the matter. It will not be necessary to undertake the fourth step so as to make findings of fact linking the hypothesis to causation.
25. Mr Dencher’s hypothesis is that his circumstances in Vietnam caused or contributed to or aggravated his generalised anxiety disorder. We are not required to consider any hypothesis about other psychiatric disorders in view of out finding that Mr Dencher suffers from generalised anxiety disorder.
The Statement of Principles for Generalised Anxiety Disorder
26. Our references below are to Statement of Principle No 1 of 2000 as only this SoP is for use with claims related to operational service, having been determined under s 196B(2 of the Act. Mr Dencher has not pursued a claim or presented evidence that he developed anxiety disorder during other periods of service. Clause 1 of SoP No 2 of 2000 states it was determined under s 196B(3) and is therefore not relevant as it does not apply for operational service.
27. We have considered the requirements of SoP No 1 of 2000 in determining whether Mr Dencher’s hypothesis about how he developed GAD is reasonable. We note that clause 5 of No 1 of 2000 sets out the factors that, as a minimum, must exist before a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the anxiety disorder with service. Clause 6 requires that at least one of the factors in clause 5 be related to relevant service. Mr Dencher’s hypothesis involves factor 5(a)(ii), experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor within the 2 years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder.
Findings as to Reasonableness of Hypothesis
28. The difference in the statement of principles between the medical or the DSM-IV diagnosis and the statement of principles is that the statement of principles includes other factors. In the present case, the SoP includes a severe psychosocial stressor, whereas DSM-IV does not. Mr Dencher has raised the hypothesis that he experienced occurrences in Vietnam that amounted to a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors.
29. As a starting point, we note that, in Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 FC 92/035 (1992) 29 ALD 1, Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ said, at [8], “(T)he material will raise a reasonable hypothesis within the meaning of s.120(3) if the material points to some fact or facts ("the raised facts") which support the hypothesis…” Further, “the hypothesis can be regarded as reasonable if the raised facts are true.”
30. Justice Brennan, in a separate judgment, drew attention to the meaning of "reasonable hypothesis" stated by the Board and adopted by a Full Court of the Federal Court in East v Repatriation Commission ((12) (1987) 16 FCR 517, at p 532). The Board said:
A hypothesis may be conveniently defined as: 'proposition made as basis for reasoning, without assumption of its truth; supposition made as starting point for further investigation from known facts; groundless assumption': The Concise Oxford Dictionary. ... The addition of the word 'reasonable' would however seem to imply that what is required is more than a mere hypothesis. In the opinion of the Board, to be reasonable, a hypothesis must possess some degree of acceptability or credibility - it must not be obviously fanciful, impossible, incredible or not tenable or too remote or too tenuous. For a reasonable hypothesis to be 'raised' by material before the Board, we think it must find some support in that material - that is, the material must point to, and not merely leave open, a hypothesis as a reasonable hypothesis.
31. One requirement of the relevant SoP is that the veteran experience a severe psychosocial stressor during operational service. Mr Dencher has raised this as part of his hypothesis. He says his being alone and scared was such a stressor along with other incidents he recounted. The term ‘experiencing a severe stressor’ is not defined in the SoP but a definition of the term “severe psychosocial stressor” is set out in the SoP. The opening words explain the term ”means an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress”. The definition then provides examples, which include being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault, major illness or injury, experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems.
32. Federal Court cases such as Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160, White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67 and Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283 establish that, if we find there is an identifiable occurrence or occurrences which are capable of affecting the veteran as he claims, he satisfies an important test or factor that relates his service to his condition. Further, the Federal Court has explained how to decide if there is an occurrence which the veteran claims caused him to experience a severe psychological stressor. Again, in Hill v Repatriation Commission (2002) 69 ALD 581, [2002] FCAFC 192, the Full Court pointed out the tribunal must measure any hypothesis raised by the material before it against the “template” of the SoP.
33. In cases such as Woodward, White and Stoddart, the court has dealt with tests and standards that assist in deciding if the veteran has experienced a severe psychosocial stressor. In White’s case, after considering Woodward and Stoddart, Justice Spender said, at [30]:
In my judgment, the definition of severe psychosocial stressor concerns an occurrence that, objectively, is an occurrence the nature of which is such as to evoke feelings of a particular kind in a person exposed to that occurrence and which, subjectively, evokes feelings of substantial distress in the particular person concerned. Both aspects are relevant and necessary.
34. In addition, the Full Court of the Federal Court in Woodward, Black CJ, Weinberg & Selway JJ, said [86]]:
Sections 8(1)(a) and 9(1)(a) plainly require first, an "occurrence" that happened during operational service.
35. Their Honours went on to say there must be a temporal relationship between the event (which constitutes the occurrence) and the service in question. As well, the claimed "injury or disease" must result from that event or events. The words "result from" are words of causation. The court noted this required that there be a causal link between the veteran's service, on the one hand, and the "injury or disease", that "happened during operational service". At [87] the court observed this conclusion finds support in Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140 in which a Full Court constituted by Bowen CJ, Brennan and Lockhart JJ set out the principles which governed a similar legislative precursor.
36. In considering the reasonableness of Mr Dencher’s hypothesis we have followed the advice of the courts and looked for the causal link between the veteran’s service and his condition in terms of an occurrence or occurrences and in terms of clinical onset before proceeding further. In this exercise, we have taken into account Mr Dencher’s own evidence as set out below, the medical opinions and a historian’s report as well as evidence of his superior officer who was at the base with Mr Dencher at the time Mr Dencher believes he suffered a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors that triggered his condition.
Historian’s Report and Evidence of Senior Officer
37. Before us was an historian’s report produced by Writeway Research Services (‘Writeway’) and attachments including a statement by Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Mr Ian Bowen. Retired Lt Col Bowen’s attached statement was headed “statement on events in 1971 claimed as stressors by ex Sig Peter Dencher”. Lt Col Bowen was Mr Dencher’s superior officer in Vietnam during the period in question concerning Mr Dencher’s claim. Lt Col Bowen gave oral evidence before the tribunal which is set out later in these reasons.
The Applicant’s Evidence
38. Mr Dencher furnished a written statement about stressors he claimed to have suffered during his service in Vietnam and he gave further oral evidence at the tribunal hearing for the review. Attached to his statement were three unofficial articles or histories of Australian military signals operations. Mr Dencher said he had used these publications to refresh his memory of events.
39. Before embarking on what occurred during his service in Vietnam, Mr Dencher told us he was born in Sydney and grew up for his first eight years at Brighton-le-Sands and then, until he joined the army, he grew up at Flax Creek, just outside of Brisbane. He said that his parents started a caravan park in Flax Creek. He left school at about age 17, after finishing year 12, and first worked with a gentleman who repaired TVs until he joined the Australian Army.
40. Mr Dencher trained as an electronic technician and, after he finished that training, was posted to the seventh signal regiment, Kabala, about 20 kilometres north of Toowoomba. He underwent some further training before being sent to Vietnam. When Mr Dencher was posted to Vietnam in 1971, he described his role as being to keep all the equipment operating for “547 sig troop”, install and uninstall equipment as necessary. He added that he did these duties along with one other signalman technician and initially with a staff sergeant, later a warrant officer technician.
41. Mr Dencher described the stressors which he believes contributed to his anxiety disorder. The main stressor he claimed was his situation in being alone at night from 7 to 16 October 1971, after the rest of his troop pulled out of Nui Dat. He said he was left with Lt Col Bowen as the last of the rear party. He said he was scared and felt he was a prime target for capture and interrogation. He experienced panic attacks and slept badly. Mr Dencher thought his youth and inexperience contributed to his fears. He had completed intensive training as an electronic technician but felt he lacked training as a soldier before and during his posting in Vietnam.
42. The second stressor Mr Dencher described in his written statement involved his having to climb up a mast as part of his troop’s pull out. In oral evidence, he said his task was to remove the antennae connected to a tall mast. He was frightened because he had to climb about 10 metres with rusty support wires and no safety equipment. When at the bottom of the mast, he was worried about the safety of the climb because of rust and lack of protection against falling. While up the mast, he felt exposed because he was above the level of the tree tops and was in view of anyone for kilometres around. He estimated he was up the mast for about 10 or 15 minutes. He gave evidence that he was worried then about being shot at. He said he did not know that he was out of small arms firing range at the time.
43. Thirdly, Mr Dencher argued that his lack of training in the operation and maintenance of specialist equipment was a stressor. Mr Dencher claimed he knew nothing about most of the equipment it was his responsibility to maintain and repair. The manuals and documentation were poor. He had no training in computers, digital electronics or aircraft procedures and claimed previous technicians doing his job had an intensive seven week course, which he had not been given. One major instance that came to mind happened when a computer stopped operating. Mr Dencher said it took him three days to find what turned out to be a very simple fault but during that time he was asked, “the Brigadier wants to know when you will have this fixed”. That pushed his stress level up.
44. Stressor 4 in his statement also concerned his lack of knowledge, this time about what was going on in the troop compound at Nui Dat. He described the troop ethic as:
During the pull out to Vung Tau, this meant I had no idea of what, if any precautions against a raid by the Vietcong on all Vietnamese Army Troops were in place.
45. Mr Dencher also gave oral evidence about security guard duties on a road trip to Bien Hoa about 75km from Nui Dat and several flights to Saigon carrying a large red bag of classified material each way. He assumed the contents of the bag made him a target for enemy action.
46. Mr Dencher told us he could not remember where he had his meals and whether he went to a mess during this time. Mr Dencher agreed it was reasonable to assume that meals were still being cooked and served to Australian military personnel on the base but he simply could not remember. He said he felt nervous the whole time but kept on with the work because there was no other option. Mr Dencher claimed he had only one day off in about three months at Nui Dat.
47. When asked was there anything about the perimeter defences which was any different from the rest of the Nui Dat Base, Mr Dencher replied “yes”, it was a large star picket fence. He could not remember it being pulled down, but did not dispute Lt Bowen’s recollection that it was removed. He said the 547 troop area was at one end of the 104 signal squadron area, which was much bigger.
48. The worst feeling of isolation was at night Mr Dencher said, particularly when he tried to sleep. He believed his superior officer, Lt Bowen went off to the officers’ mess for dinner and that was the last he saw of him each night. He thought Lt Bowen may well have come back into the compound area afterwards but could not remember seeing him or hearing him. His evidence was to the effect that he did sometimes see other personnel during the day. Under cross-examination, Mr Dencher admitted that he and Lt Bowen were not the only people left at the base. He said he believed there was a group “up on Sass Hill”, but it was only rumour and he did not see them.
49. Mr Dencher told us his directions came from NCO Warrant Officer Weirsmith to pull everything down and get it packed onto trucks and, in a couple of cases, on to aircraft. He said he was pretty much left on his own to do that. When asked about other personnel he saw during the day, Mr Dencher thought he occasionally saw the driver responsible for the army command vehicle. Mr Dencher said he did not contemplate arranging to move his sleeping quarters because he thought part of the reason he was there was to guard the equipment. He knew of nobody who could replace him. While most of the equipment had gone by that time, there was still equipment in the armoured command vehicle, which he guarded.
50. Mr Dencher said that, when came back from Vietnam, he had around a month's recreation leave and then returned to 7 Signal Regiment. During his leave, he said he felt relieved to be out of Vietnam and simply tried to wind down. He said he remembered he was nervy. When he was back at 7 Signal Regiment, he was living in barracks with three other people in the one room and any movement at night awoke him. As to his sleeping pattern, Mr Dencher told us he slept well enough to work, but not well enough to be rested. He performed his duties. There was almost nothing said about the Vietnam experience back at 7 Signal Regiment.
51. Mr Dencher did not remember doing much except his work or the study in the period soon after his return. He said he took on a correspondence course in electronics. He did not socialise very much at all because he did not drink and that was a fairly major army culture. He tended to go to bed early to try to get a good night's sleep. His main pastime was electronics, which in hindsight he thought was a mistake. He believed it did not allow him to relax enough because his interest in electronics was work as well as a hobby.
52. After his return from Vietnam, Mr Dencher said he recalled being based at 7 Signal Regiment, Borneo Barracks, Cabarlah outside Toowoomba. Then, about May 1973, he recalled being posted to 9 Anzac Signal Regiment in Singapore. He said he was in Singapore about 14 months. His memory was that he spent most of his time at work. There was a problem in relaxing because of the rotating shift system of three day shifts, three midnight shifts and three days off. Mr Dencher said he generally spent the first and the last day off catching up on sleep before going back on the shift.
53. Mr Dencher told us he tried to obtain his medical records for the period in Singapore as well as for Vietnam but never obtained them. He said Singapore was better than Vietnam. It was a fairly cushy posting despite the work level and he saw some of the island and went on leave in Penang for a week. He did not remember much about how he felt apart from sleeping problems because of the rosters. When he came home from Singapore, he was posted to 1 Signal Regiment at Ingleburn, south of Sydney.
54. Once he was discharged, Mr Dencher said was a trainee technician with the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) and started training at North Sydney Tech. At that time, he focused on learning more electronics because that was a major interest. He completed his course and stayed with OTC for about six years. During those six years, Mr Dencher did not develop any other interests or hobbies apart from buying a home unit, on which he did some maintenance and renovations. His only other interests were electronics and hi fi.
55. After OTC, Mr Dencher said he transferred to CSIRO. He stayed with CSIRO for about 20 years. At the CSIRO, he gave evidence that initially he worked in the precision calibration area of the National Measurement Lab. He moved on from there into technical support for research and development and into design in some cases.
56. When asked why he left CSIRO, Mr Dencher told us he got to the point where “I wanted to punch half a dozen managers out”. He took long service leave to wind down but his problems grew worse, “much worse”. He said he had real problems sleeping. If he did “anything physical or mental it increased the problem”. He saw a psychiatrist, his GP and a naturopath for solutions over some months. When he first saw his GP and the “Vietnam Veterans” at Granville, they pointed him to a psychiatrist who dealt with that sort of problem. He said at the time when that happened he had been really bad for probably a week. With hindsight, Mr Dencher said he realised the claustrophobia he had for several years was probably an indicator but he had ignored it.
57. When Mr Dencher took his long service leave and stopped work, he had intended to take a holiday in Perth and then to do some maintenance work around his home. However, he told us the panic attacks really became bad and he had to stop doing everything. He said the really bad attacks occurred when he stopped work. There may have been minor ones earlier which he tried to ignore. The main ones occurred around 2001.
58. Under questioning, Mr Dencher remembered an incident at a mine before he left CSIRO. He said he went to a mine in the Hunter Valley to test a piece of mine communications equipment which was a safety measure for miners beneath the surface in the mine. That involved going down into the mine, and, “as soon as we got into the still air area, probably a couple of hundred metres underground”, he had a panic attack. Mr Dencher said he had forgotten about the attack until questioned. He then described it as a major panic attack. He described symptoms of feeling he couldn’t breathe and that things were closing in. He was very tense and was gripping a metal handrail. When he moved into an area that had better airflow, the symptoms were relieved. One of the other CSIRO members he was with talked to him and that helped. There was some discussion of his going back down to recover some equipment but he didn’t want to go back down again.
59. Concerning treatment for his psychiatric condition, Mr Dencher agreed that his first visit for assistance was in 2001, when he went to see Dr Keshava. He saw Dr Keshava on a number of occasions over some months. He also recalled seeing Dr Gregory La Hood who was his local GP. Dr Keshava recorded seeing Mr Dencher about the panic attacks on 2 August 2001 and noted he was still employed at CSIRO, but on leave. Mr Dencher agreed that, as the doctor made an entry in his notes: “…similar attacks in a coal mine three years ago, when he had to do a job in a coal mine”, this meant the coal mine episode was in about 1998.
60. Dr Keshava also recorded, “He gets anxious and agitated in crowded places”. When asked if he told Dr Keshava that he has to sit with his back to the wall in restaurants because he does not like anyone coming behind him, Mr Dencher was unsure what he had reported. He gave evidence that he tried to avoid crowded supermarkets, movies and other activities which caused him anxiety. His symptoms were better and he had taken medical treatment to alleviate symptoms as well as avoiding crowds.
61. When asked to comment on Dr Lewin’s opinion that Mr Dencher had symptoms likely associated with a childhood pattern of anxiety, Mr Dencher could not recall whether he felt anxious as a child but remembered being shy. When asked about social avoidance as a child, Mr Dencher said this was probably so and continued as he got older but he found it hard to judge whether it grew better or worse. He added that he avoided people and situations that might upset him after Vietnam.
62. Mr Dencher told us he was certainly better now than five years ago. He had tried to improve and the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (VVCS) had been a great help. He saw VVCS very regularly. He underwent the “Palm Beach Currumbin course” for one day a week over 12 weeks, then tapered off, but still saw them every few months. He told us he remains tense and anxious regularly. Mr Dencher said he avoids situations where that is likely to happen. He had experienced physical tenseness as long as he could remember. He could not put a time on when his anxiety started. It built up gradually. He discovered how tense he was when he learned to relax as part of the VVCS treatment and through hypnosis.
63. Nowadays, Mr Dencher said he pursued his electronics hobby, on a good day, reading technical literature, which he found much easier than most other reading. On a bad day, what he called “a pyjama day”, he did very little, maybe some reading. He might surf the internet, again partly looking for electronics information, and might mow the lawn or paint the house.
64. Asked about going to the movies, Mr Dencher said he had been to the movies only once in five years to prove he could despite his claustrophobia. He might go out at night once a month. If he went out at all it might be to have dinner with the friends he had met through the Alstonville RSL, which was not a club but a sub branch. He went there to help out doing volunteer work with Bingo and such like. When pressed about other activities, Mr Dencher said he did not usually go to the club other than for a Christmas party or the like with his Vietnam exercise group. Twice a week he exercised at the gym along with a group of about five or six other people who are Vietnam veterans. This was a 40 week heart health course run by VVCS and each class took about half an hour. Other than these activities, Mr Dencher said his only other routine exercise was shopping.
65. When asked to comment on a passage in a written statement furnished by former Lieutenant Colonel Bowen, in relation to the period 7 to 16 October 1971, that reads:
I am sure that all personnel including Peter Dencher should have been aware of the assessment that the task force was not expecting an attack on the Nui Dat itself in those final weeks but could more likely expect some form of minor attack on the convoys, particularly the final one leaving Nui Dat on 16 October.
Mr Dencher responded “I do not believe I knew that”.
66. Again, when asked to respond to a passage that read:
In relation to when you were climbing the antennae, the compound mantella was, we're out of small arms range of any potential sniper, a fact that should have been known to soldiers.
Mr Dencher gave evidence he did not know that when he was climbing the antennae.
67. As to the Writeway Research Services report’s comment in relation to Mr Dencher’s working long hours that, “(I)t became possible to spend a night and a day in Saigon occasionally as every 16th day was now free”, Mr Dencher responded it was not correct to say that he had every 16th day free.
Evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Bowen
68. Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Bowen furnished the statement which was attached to a historian’s report prepared for Writeway for the purposes of these proceedings. Lt Col Bowen also gave oral evidence. He confirmed that he was asked to make a statement by Writeway concerning an episode involving Mr Dencher and that it was his statement which was before us. He gave further evidence about his recollection of the environment at Nui Dat at the time of the withdrawal of the Signal Group 547.
69. In his written statement, Lt Col Bowen wrote: “I can confirm that Sig Dencher and I were the only ones in the former 547 Signal Troop compound for the period 7 - 16 October [1971]”. Lt Col Bowen gave additional oral evidence about his recollection about the situation. He agreed that 547 Signal Troop compound formed part of a larger Australian Task Force base. He gave evidence that, at the end of September, some of the task force elements had moved out and returned to Vung Tau in preparation for return to Australia and other elements were moving back on a more permanent basis as well. This meant that, in early October, the Task Force headquarters was still active and there were components of other elements there. There was a large body of troops still within the task force area. However, Lt Col Bowen gave evidence to the effect that, even though the rear party pulled down most of the actual wire and defences around 547 itself, “to remove the aura that it might have had of being a specialist area and therefore subject to specialist search by anyone wanting to try and get information about our role which was, at the time, quite secret”, certainly it was very quiet.
70. During 7 to 16 October, he believed he would have been sleeping in some location about 15 or 30 metres away from Mr Dencher. He could not recall where he ate meals at that time. He thought it was in about August that he and others knew “we were going to be withdrawn”. From that time, they started making preparations, including quite a lot of accommodation arrangements for the troop to move down to Vung Tau to be accommodated by 110 Sixth Squadron, and by the end of September, the base operation had moved down to Vung Tau. This meant some of the special equipment and defences that had been put in place for the troop were pulled down. Lt Col Bowen thought that when Sig Dencher identified the fact that he was, for example, pulling down antennae and the like, that would have been part of that activity. While the main body had moved out, the rear guard, or the rear party, had been responsible for pulling down what was left.
71. When asked who had knowledge of what was happening, Lt Col Bowen said the only people that received formal briefings were the task force commander and his staff. Other than that, it was up to unit commanders to pass on broad information to their staff in accordance with the security level that staff members were able to receive. From their perspective at 547 Sig Troop, it had never really been a problem because all of the people there were cleared to the highest level to receive information, and were handling it. Once the main body withdrew, there was information coming in but “nothing was appropriate or applicable to the defence of the task force area”. Lt Col Bowen acknowledged that Mr Dencher did not receive any specific formal briefings. Lt Col Bowen said he attended the task force commanders’ briefings but he did not recall specifically passing on any information to Mr Dencher. He said he was very young at the time and may have been naïve about what was taking place.
72. In the written statement, Lt Col Bowen addressed the stressors referred to by Mr Dencher. After confirming that he and Mr Dencher were the only personnel remaining in former 547 Sig troop, the main stressor claimed, Lt Col Bowen dealt with the stressors 1 to 5 as follows. As to stressor 1, Lt Col Bowen said he could not comment on Mr Dencher’s perceptions. He assessed Mr Dencher’s training as no different from others in the unit. As to stressor 2, Lt Col Bowen said he had no idea about the technical skills involved in dismantling the antenna but he thought Mr Dencher’s feeling himself a target when up the mast did not take account that the antenna and compound were well out of small arms range and that any soldier should have known this fact. As to stressor 3, Lt Bowen said he could confirm the equipment Mr Dencher described was operated by 547 Sig troop but he could not comment on any lack of specialist training.
73. As to stressor 4, Lt Col Bowen said he agreed with most of Mr Dencher’s comments but was not aware of any validated military history that the Viet Cong (VC) were entering the base as the Australian task force was pulling out. He recalled a discussion with personnel about the possibility of some minor attack by the VC while they were waiting for the final move out and a delay occurred. He thought a comment made in jest might have been taken seriously by Mr Dencher. As to stressor 5, Lt Col Bowen said he could not comment specifically on whether Mr Dencher experienced lack of time off but he was aware it was not uncommon for support personnel to be expected to work long days and, if required, every day for weeks on end.
Our Findings as to Relevant Stressors
74. We consider Mr Dencher’s hypothesis does not possess much credibility. While it is not obviously fanciful, impossible or incredible it is tenuous, particularly when read in conjunction with the definition of "severe psychosocial stressor", which is given in the SoP. The definition concerns an occurrence. Then, viewed objectively, as set out in White’s case and other cases cited above, the occurrence must be such as to evoke feelings of substantial distress.
75. While we accept Mr Dencher’s truthfulness and accept that he was scared in Vietnam and felt exposed to risk, we have difficulty in identifying any incident or occurrence among those he detailed which might, viewed objectively, might cause him to experience the degree of distress indicated for him to experience a severe psychosocial stressor. We have compared Mr Dencher’s circumstances with the examples given in the definition of "severe psychosocial stressor". We have not overlooked Justice Spender’s observation that relevant incidents could be "one-off" incidents, and that the SoP is predicated on the possibility that such a stressor could cause anxiety disorder. Spender J’s comments, however, should be read in the context of events in the particular case and in the context of the major events given as examples in the SoP.
76. We have trouble identifying any occurrence that befell Mr Dencher that is of this magnitude. Even taken together, the circumstances of Mr Dencher’s isolation and feelings of exposure and personal danger in Nui Dat, with four or five events in all and with the main stressor being his isolation, when viewed objectively, we are unable to reach a conclusion that the material before us points to the hypothesis. The material before us does not, in our view, point to an occurrence or occurrences that is consistent with any of the definition of elements of experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor.
77. We make this finding although Mr Dencher no doubt did experience some distress. This means that we find Mr Dencher has not satisfied an essential minimum requirement of SoP No 1 of 2000 that he experienced an occurrence that amounted to a severe psychosocial stressor during his operational service. This means that Mr Dencher’s “raised facts” do not give rise to a reasonable hypothesis. While the material before us points to Mr Dencher experiencing some distress at the time, examination of all the material does not point to material which is congruent with the definition of elements of experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor. In such circumstances we conclude that as a finding of fact the hypothesis under consideration is not a reasonable hypothesis.
Our Findings as to Clinical Onset
78. We next considered the evidence about date of clinical onset of Mr Dencher’s anxiety disorder. Dr Lewin gave oral evidence that it is unusual for anxiety to appear “de novo” in a 50 to 60-year-old. However, he noted the time when Mr Dencher had particular problems was around 2001, when he was 50, having been born on 16 April 1951. Dr Lewin, when asked, agreed it was a judgment call deciding when the line is crossed to impairment and diagnosis can be made. As Dr Lewin pointed out, there are many people worry and get frightened but this does not mean thay have a disorder. Despite the long term history of symptoms, Dr Lewin put the clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder at August 2001.
79. Dr Lewin observed Mr Dencher “describes some waxing and waning of symptoms over a long time” but the symptoms were generally mild until he experienced more intrusive panic symptoms during the last few months of his employment. Dr Lewin noted these symptoms had largely settled in the meanwhile. Mr Dencher’s own oral evidence to us was that he was better since he stopped work.
80. Dr Danesi saw Mr Dencher in 2004 and described recent symptoms as well as saying about the longer history:
He described for many years having excessive worry and he can’t relax. He was overly detailed and safety-conscious. He found it difficult to date the onset of his anxiety. He said he was certainly very anxious during his period of time in Vietnam.
Dr Danesi also recorded that:
He slept okay until 2001. His anxiety would worsen his capacity for concentration, giving him muscle tension and, at times, irritability, and he felt keyed-up. He said he is very shy. He used to blush a lot but hasn’t done so for years. He avoids being the centre of attention. He avoids parties. He doesn’t like maintaining eye contact. He feels anxious and pressured if other people watch him work. He said he has been like this since childhood.
Further on, under “Discussion”, Dr Danesi says:
Most likely is GAD commenced in early adulthood.
81. Dr Danesi considered Mr Dencher had a mild generalised anxiety disorder and we note that a mild disorder is sufficient to meet the requirements for the SoP. We further note that Dr Keshava reported that Mr Dencher told him he had a long history of anxiety attacks and described sitting with his back to the wall in a restaurant or café, avoiding busy shopping centres and supermarkets. There is some suggestion that Mr Dencher had suffered a mild anxiety disorder for some years.
82. As well, Dr Dinnen, at page 8 of his report, put the clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder at the period during service in Vietnam, and in his opinion it had been dormant although diagnosis and treatment occurred only over the last five years. We have taken into account the various opinions about clinical onset but, when considering these in the context of the relevant SoP must examine all the material before us.
83. The statement of principles, factor 5(a)(ii), requires us to be satisfied that the veteran experienced a relevant stressor within the two years immediately before clinical onset of anxiety disorder. The federal court has given some pointers as to how to decide when clinical onset occurred. See, for example, the cases of Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398 and Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 930. Firstly, in Cornelius Justice Branson set out that the standard test for clinical onset was the test previously suggested in Robertson v The Repatriation Commission AAT No 12666, [1998] AATA 127 (2 March 1998). At [26] Her Honour explained that clinical onset of a disease happens when a person becomes aware of some feature or symptom which enables a doctor to say the disease is present at that time, or when a finding is made on investigation which is indicative to a doctor the disease is present.
84. Again, the meaning of "clinical onset" was described by Weinberg J in Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel [1999] FCA 1273, (1999) 59 ALD 690 in the context of an earlier SoP and generalised anxiety disorder. His Honour said at [64] and [67]-[68]:
The SoP requires the presence of a number of distinct symptoms, of which "clinically significant distress" and "restlessness or feeling keyed up or on edge" are only part. Unless the symptoms referred to … are all present, and the case does not fit within [the SoP] it cannot be said, consistently with the medical-scientific standard prescribed by the SoP, that generalised anxiety was present.
85. In Lees v The Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398, Heerey, Moore and Kiefel JJ at [16] made it clear that “the purpose of the definition is to identify those symptoms (or features) which, if observed by a clinician, would warrant a conclusion that the patient suffered from generalised anxiety disorder”. Their Honours continued:
While it is true that Statements of Principles are directed to causation, the means of establishing the necessary link in SoP1 between disease and war service is to require that the symptoms (or features) of the disease are, in a case such as the present, revealed within two years of the veteran experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor (relevantly, during operational service). This is intended to establish sufficient proximity between the experiences during operational service and the manifestation of the disease to point to a causal link to sustain the hypothesis.
86. The disorder known as “generalised anxiety disorder” is defined in the SoP and includes a list of symptoms. Some of the symptoms mentioned are excessive worry, difficulty in controlling worry and association of the anxiety and worry with three or more symptoms for more days than not during a six month period. The symptoms listed include restlessness, easy fatigue, difficulty concentrating or mind going blank, irritability, muscle tension, and difficulty falling asleep. Mr Dencher’s own evidence did not go to these symptoms developing in Vietnam or in the two years thereafter apart from his difficulty in sleeping and being worried and anxious. Although he indicated he was distressed in Vietnam in the 70s, he did not need to seek medical assistance until 2001. While we note that he need not demonstrate all the symptoms for the purposes of the present SoP, he must still meet the template as Weinberg J said and Mr Dencher does not. He did not report that he suffered anxiety and worry associated with three or more of the symptoms set out in paragraph C (1) to (6) of the definition for more days than not during the previous six month period from which he claims onset. He mentioned only feelings of apprehension (being scared) and trouble sleeping.
87. Although we acknowledge that mild anxiety disorder may be sufficient to meet the terms of the SoP, Mr Dencher’s evidence and the medical records and reports suggest he experienced no troubling symptoms until 2001. Weinberg J indicated in Gosewinckel that pinpointing clinical onset involved identifying of a number of distinct symptoms, of which "clinically significant distress" was one. Heerey, Moore and Kiefel JJ in Lees said the purpose of the definition is to identify those symptoms which, if observed by a clinician, would warrant a conclusion that the patient suffered from generalised anxiety disorder.
88. Despite the history of being a worrier since childhood or early adulthood, the lack of complaint by Mr Dencher and/or seeking of professional assistance until 2001 suggests that clinical onset of the disorder did not occur at an early date. Symptoms were not observed by a clinician until 2001. While Dr Danesi expressed the opinion that Mr Dencher may have suffered one or more psychiatric disorders since early adulthood, he did not relate the onset of anxiety disorder to Vietnam as such. From the history of symptoms he took from Mr Dencher he thought Mr Dencher may have had a disorder since early adulthood.
89. We prefer the opinion of Dr Lewin which connects the clinical onset of the condition to identifiable symptoms that first occurred around 2001. We note the opinion of Dr Dinnen that onset occurred earlier but are concerned that the doctor’s opinion is based in part on the assumption that Mr Dencher suffered a severe psychological stressor in Vietnam. Dr Dinnen believed he had particular stresses during his Vietnam service and we disagree that Mr Dencher experienced a severe psychological stressor for the reasons explained above.
90. In Dr Lewin’s opinion, clinical onset occurred around 2001, well outside the period of Vietnam service and the requirement for clinical onset within 2 years of the relevant stressor. Mr Dencher’s evidence about his symptoms as well as the medical records, histories and opinions before us, points to clinical onset of Mr Dencher’s anxiety disorder occurring in 2001. We therefore conclude that the whole of the material before us does not point to a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service.
Findings as to Reasonableness of Hypothesis as to Aggravation of Anxiety Disorder
91. As we have discussed above, the material does not point to Mr Dencher experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor. Further the material, more importantly, does point to the clinical onset of his anxiety disorder occurring in 2001. In such circumstances, the material does not point to Mr Dencher suffering a clinical worsening of an existing anxiety disorder during his service as service took place many years before clinical onset of his disorder. The “raised facts” are not consistent with the requirements of the SoP. In such circumstances, he does not meet the requirements of the SoP so as to sustain a reasonable hypothesis for material contribution to or aggravation of any anxiety disorder for the purposes of factor 6 of SoP No 1 of 2000. After consideration of the whole of the material before us, we are of the opinion that it does not point to a hypothesis connecting Mr Dencher’s condition with his service for the purposes of section 120(3) and 120A(3).
Findings as to Panic Disorder
92. We have already found, on balance, that Mr Dencher suffers generalised anxiety disorder rather than panic disorder. This is also consistent with Dr Dinnen’s opinion that panic disorder may be part of generalised anxiety disorder. As we have made this finding, we have not further considered Mr Dencher’s claims as to panic disorder.
Findings as to Social Anxiety Disorder
93. We have already found, on balance, that Mr Dencher suffers generalised anxiety disorder rather than social anxiety disorder. As we have made this finding, we have not further considered Mr Dencher’s claims as to social anxiety disorder.
Conclusion
94. We are satisfied that Mr Dencher does suffer generalised anxiety disorder. However, as set out above, after consideration of the whole of the material before us, we are of the opinion that the material before us does not point to a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Dencher’s condition with his service for the purposes of sections 120A(3) and 120(3). It follows that we are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making a determination under section 120(1) that the operational service rendered by the veteran brought about a disorder or disease related to his operational service. The decision under review must, therefore, be affirmed.
Decision
95. The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 95 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hunt & Member Dr Campbell
Signed: [Talaishia Collis]
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 18 January 2007; 20 April 2007
Date of Decision 10 July 2007
Counsel for the Applicant Mr Neale Dawson
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr Greg Isolani – KCI Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent Mr Gerald PurcellSolicitor for the Respondent Ms Rosalinda Casamento – Department of Veterans’ Affairs
0
14
0