EARLE MEMBREY and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Case [2009] AATA 942


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 942

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   2008/3622

VETERANS'      APPEALS        DIVISION )
Re EARLE MEMBREY

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Dr Kerry Breen, Member

Date9 December 2009

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision of the Veterans' Review Board made on 11 April 2008 is affirmed.

(Sgd)  John Handley
  Senior Member

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS – Applicant fell onto his outstretched left arm during service in South Vietnam – severe dislocation of left elbow and ulnar nerve lesion resulting – osteoarthrosis of left shoulder later diagnosed and claimed – SOP 31 of 2005 and factor 6(g) considered – whether applicant suffered a trauma to his left shoulder – virtual impossibility in satisfying definition at paragraph 9 of the SOP – decision affirmed – recommendation to consider review of the definition

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 196B(2) and s 196W

Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth) s 5

Arnott v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 262

Connors v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 783

Harris v Repatriation Commission (2000) 31 AAR 270

Harris v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1687

Knight v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 103

Mason v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1409

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Statements of Principles Instrument No 31 of 2005

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 December 2009

Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Dr Kerry Breen, Member

1.      Mr Membrey, the applicant in these proceedings, applies to review a decision made by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) on 11 April 2008 which affirmed a decision previously made by the respondent on 6 August 2007 to refuse his claim for acceptance of osteoarthrosis of the left shoulder and left rotator cuff syndrome.

2.      The applicant is presently 62 years of age and was a member of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) between 1967 and 1979.  He served as a telecommunications technician in the No 2 Squadron in South Vietnam between 15 April 1970 and 14 April 1971.  He presently receives disability pension at 60 percent of the general rate by reason of the accepted conditions of osteoarthrosis of the left elbow, dislocation of the left elbow and left ulnar nerve lesion.

3.      The applicant asserts, by this review, that he suffered injury to his left shoulder at the same time as he injured his left elbow.  The shoulder injury progressively deteriorated and has been diagnosed as osteoarthrosis.

4.      On 22 February 1971 the applicant was sitting on a railing on the edge of a balcony in the mess area at Phan Rang Air Base.  The balcony was located approximately six feet above ground level.  The applicant overbalanced and fell to the ground.  His left arm was outstretched to protect his fall however he struck a metal spike fixed to the ground.  He did not lose consciousness but there was a large open wound on the inside of his left elbow.  The elbow was also dislocated.  The applicant described his pain, then, as…

Continue reading EARLE MEMBREY and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
EARLE MEMBREY and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2009] AATA 942
Case
[2009] AATA 942
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Earle Membrey, the applicant, appealed a decision of the Veterans' Review Board, which had affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission. The applicant sought a review of the Board's decision that denied his claim for a war-connected disability pension. The Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit of Australia was called upon to determine whether the Board's decision was legally sound.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Board erred in its assessment of the applicant's claim for a war-connected disability pension. Specifically, the court examined whether the Board appropriately considered the evidence presented regarding the applicant's disability and whether the Board's decision was supported by the evidence. The court also had to determine whether the Board correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislative provisions.

The court found that the Board's decision was legally sound and appropriately based on the evidence presented. The Board had considered the applicant's evidence and the medical assessments provided. The court held that the Board correctly interpreted the legislative provisions and applied them to the facts of the case. The evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's disability was connected to his war service, and the Board's conclusion was reasonable. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning or application of the law.

The orders of the court affirmed the decision of the Veterans' Review Board made on 11 April 2008. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the Board's decision denying the claim for a war-connected disability pension was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Veterans' Review Board made on 11 April 2008 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.