Dorsett and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Dorsett, for the special rate of disability pension under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth). The applicant had lodged claims for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol dependence, which were accepted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). The dispute arose because the DVA determined that the applicant was not entitled to the special rate of pension, as he had retired from the workforce in 2006 and was not currently seeking employment, with other factors contributing to his inability to work. The applicant sought a review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the special rate of pension under section 24 of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was "totally and permanently incapacitated" and, crucially, if he was, by reason of his accepted war-caused conditions alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work. This involved examining whether non-accepted conditions or other factors played a role in his inability to work, thereby potentially failing the "alone" test.

The Tribunal applied the established principle from *Repatriation Commission v Watkins* and other Federal Court decisions, which holds that the "alone" requirement is not satisfied if non-war-caused factors contribute to preventing a veteran from engaging in remunerative work, even if those factors are of secondary importance. The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was prevented from continuing remunerative employment by reason of his accepted conditions alone. While the applicant's PTSD and alcohol dependence were accepted, the Tribunal noted that other factors, including his muscle and bone pain (which were not accepted as distinct conditions), his age, lack of recent work experience, and personal preferences, were considered by the respondent to have prevented him from obtaining work. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the "alone" test under section 24(1)(c) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent, finding that the applicant was not entitled to pension at the special rate. The applicant's disability pension was continued at 100% of the general rate.