Dore and Repatriation Commission

Case [2004] AATA 646

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 646

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No. N2002/1103

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re RAYMOND CHARLES DORE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date15 June 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

(Sgd)  M D Allen   
  ...................................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – not satisfied on balance of probabilities Applicant suffered PTSD as causative events not experienced by veteran - mere apprehension of an event happening does not equate to threatened death or injury - necessity for some actual event to have occurred – claim for Anxiety State rejected as unable to ascertain time of clinical onset so as to conform to Statement of Principles  – requirement that clinical onset be within two years of stressor

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 – s 6C, ss 120(1), (3), (4) and (6), s 120A

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Hancock (2003) 37 AAR 383

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Gerzina v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCAFC 96

Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200

State of New South Wales v Seedsman [2000] NSWCA 119

Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108

Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398

Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750

Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192

REASONS FOR DECISION

15 June 2004   Senior Member M D Allen   

1.      By application made on 5 August 2002, the Applicant sought review of a determination by the Respondent as affirmed by a Veterans' Review Board (“VRB”) that rejected his claim to have the condition described as post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) attributed to his war service.

2.      Other conditions were also claimed by the Applicant at that time but the only matter pursued before this Tribunal was that of PTSD.

3.      The Applicant had service in Malaya with the 111 Light Anti Aircraft Battery, Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery from 9 June 1964 to 30 May 1996. Of that period, originally only the period between 23 October 1964 to 21 November 1964 was eligible service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“VEA”). Pursuant to amendments to the said Act by the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2000 Schedule 4, the Applicant’s eligible service was between the periods 17 August 1964 to 31 May 1965 as and from 1 January 2001. This amendment does not effect eligibility criteria but would have affected the rate of pension to be paid to the Applicant had he been successful in his application.

4. As the Applicant had operational service as that term is defined in section 6C VEA, the standard of proof in this matter is that mandated by subsections 120(1) and (3) VEA. That is to say that the Tribunal shall grant the Applicant’s claim unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. The Tribunal…

Continue reading Dore and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dore and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 646
Case
[2004] AATA 646
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dore v Repatriation Commission involved the applicant, Dore, who sought to have his claim for veterans' entitlements recognised for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Anxiety State. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The Repatriation Commission contested Dore's claims, arguing that he did not meet the statutory criteria for PTSD and that there was insufficient evidence to establish the onset of his Anxiety State within the requisite timeframe.

The court was tasked with deciding whether Dore had suffered PTSD due to events experienced during his service, and if his Anxiety State was linked to a stressor within the two-year period stipulated by the legislation. The court also had to consider whether the mere apprehension of an event occurring was sufficient to qualify as a causative event under the law. The determination hinged on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the weight of evidence provided by Dore.

The court held that Dore's claim for PTSD was not substantiated because he had not experienced the necessary causative events as defined by the legislation. The court clarified that mere apprehension of an event does not equate to the threatened death or injury required to establish PTSD. Furthermore, the court found that Dore's claim for Anxiety State was also unsuccessful as there was no clear evidence to ascertain the time of clinical onset relative to the stressor, thus failing to meet the legal criteria. The court relied on previous case law to support its findings, particularly the necessity for actual events and the specific timeframes for the onset of conditions.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the decision under review, rejecting Dore's claims for both PTSD and Anxiety State.

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.