Easton and Repatriation Commission

[2008] AATA 524

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 524

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No V 200600411

VETERANS'        AFFAIRS        DIVISION		)
Re		ALBERT EASTON

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr Egon Fice, Member

Date24 June 2008

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

...................[Sgd]......................

Egon Fice
  Member

Veterans’ Affairs – War Caused Disease – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Diagnosis Of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Application of DSM IV – General Anxiety Disorder – Statement Of Principles – Alcohol Abuse – Diagnostic Criteria For Alcohol Abuse

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission 2001 34 AAR 270

Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331

Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200

Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327

Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 s7, 9, 9A, 13(1), 120, 120(1), 120(3), 120A(3)

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 June 2008 Mr Egon Fice, Member      

1.      On 22 November 2004 Mr Easton lodged a claim with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) for a disability pension on the basis that his bilateral sensorineural loss, bilateral tinnitus, solar keratosis of the face, neck and arms, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse were war-caused.  The Repatriation Commission (the Commission) accepted his claim for bilateral sensorineural loss, bilateral tinnitus and solar keratosis of the face, neck and arms.  However, his claims for PTSD and alcohol abuse were disallowed.  He was granted the disability pension at 30 percent of the general rate. 

2.      Dissatisfied with the decision regarding his claims for PTSD and alcohol abuse, Mr Easton sought review of the Commission’s decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB).  On 28 March 2006 the VRB affirmed the Commission’s decision to deny Mr Easton’s claims for PTSD and alcohol abuse on the ground that those conditions were not war-caused.  Mr Easton now seeks a review of that decision.

3.      The diagnosis of PTSD was disputed.  Dr Christopher J Percival, a psychiatrist, diagnosed Mr Easton as suffering from PTSD.  However, Dr Nigel Strauss, also a psychiatrist, while agreeing that Mr Easton suffered from a psychiatric condition, did not consider that he suffered from PTSD, but rather, a generalised anxiety disorder (GAD).  There seems to be no dispute about the diagnosis of alcohol abuse.  Therefore, the issues which I need to resolve include:

(a)whether Mr Easton suffers from PTSD;

(b)if Mr Easton does not suffer from PTSD, whether he suffers from GAD; and

(c)whether Mr Easton’s conditions were war-caused within the meaning of that term as it is defined in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VE Act).

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

4.      Mr Easton left school at 14 years of age to work on the family farm.  After three years he obtained employment as a labourer with the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission.  Mr Easton said his upbringing was strict, particularly regarding smoking and alcohol consumption.  He said he…