Ford and Repatriation Commission - [2007] AATA 1109

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1109
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V 200400857

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re RONALD FRANCIS FORD

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Regina Perton
Date8 March 2007
PlaceMelbourne

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(sgd) Regina Perton
Member

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS ‑ pension at special rate – whether war‑caused conditions alone cause of inability to work – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 19(%C)(a), 19(9), 24
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50
Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) FCAFC 83
Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47
REASONS FOR DECISION

8 March 2007 Regina Perton
1.       Ronald Francis Ford, who is now 61 years old, undertook national service in the Australian Army from 2 February 1966 to 1 February 1968. He served in Vietnam from 18 July 1967 to 9 January 1968. Mr Ford is currently on a disability pension payable at 100 per cent of the general rate. Mr Ford is seeking a special rate pension, which is a higher rate of pension paid to a working-age recipient who is unable to work due to his war-caused disabilities alone.
2.       Before and after his army service, Mr Ford worked in a variety of occupations including as a farm-hand, quarry worker, bobcat driver and truck driver. From 1986 to 1992 he was in business with his brother manufacturing aluminium windows and doors. He suffered a neck injury in April 1992 and could not work for over a year, receiving workers compensation payments. He sold his share of the business in June 1992. Mr Ford’s last employment was as a caretaker/ maintenance man on a small property from July 1994 to February 2001.
3.       Mr Ford suffers from a range of medical conditions. Prior to the application for review being lodged, the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) had accepted several of those conditions as being war‑caused, namely post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, alcohol dependence/abuse, impotence, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus, chronic simple bronchitis, solar keratosis and acquired cataract in the left eye. On 22 June 2005, the Tribunal adjourned its hearing of this matter so that Mr Ford could make a claim in relation to other conditions that had been diagnosed since his previous claim. On 12 December 2005, the Commission decided that ischaemic heart disease, adenocarcinoma of the lung and diabetes mellitus were war-caused with effect from 22 March 2005. Mr Ford’s pension was continued at 100 per cent of the general rate following the acceptance of the latest conditions.
4.       The issues before the Tribunal are whether Mr Ford’s inability to work is due to his accepted war‑caused disabilities alone and whether he is therefore eligible for pension at the special rate.
EVIDENCE
Mr Ford’s work history
5.       Mr Ford finished school at around 13 years of age. Prior to army service he worked in a variety of occupations including…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ford and Repatriation Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] AATA 1109
Decision Date: 8 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ford v Repatriation Commission was a case in which the Federal Court considered the interpretation and application of provisions within the Repatriation Medical Authority Act 1949. Mr Ford, a veteran, sought a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission that declined to fund certain medical treatments he required. The Commission had determined that the treatments did not meet the criteria for funding under the Act. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with assessing the correctness of the Commission's decision.

The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the Repatriation Commission had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions in declining to fund the treatments, and whether there was any error in the Commission's decision-making process. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Commission had erred in law by failing to consider relevant evidence, misinterpreting the statutory criteria, or making a decision that was unreasonable or unjust.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the Commission's decision in detail, considering the nature of the treatments and their relevance to Mr Ford's health condition. The court found that the Commission had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act and had applied them in a manner consistent with the statutory framework. The evidence presented did not compel a different outcome, and the Commission's decision was neither unreasonable nor unjust. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, upholding their determination not to fund the treatments in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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.

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		RONALD FRANCIS FORD