Furnell and Repatriation Commission

[2011] AATA 149

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 149

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          Nos 2009/4724 & 2009/4729-30

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		ANTHONY FURNELL

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member K Bean
Mr SJ Ellis AM (Member)

Date7 March 2011

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.

..............................................

K BEAN
  (Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Veterans' entitlements - Rate of disability pension – Special rate – Application of ameliorating provisions – Veteran must have ceased looking for work in order to satisfy s 24(2)(b) – Veteran has not ceased looking for work – Veteran’s accepted disabilities are not the substantive cause of his inability to obtain remunerative employment – Decisions under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 19(9), 24

Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) 81 ALD 625
Re Martin and Repatriation Commission (1987) 13 ALD 83
Conway v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 704
Re Hornery and Repatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 317

Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317

REASONS FOR DECISION

7 March 2011   Senior Member K Bean
  Mr SJ Ellis AM (Member)

introduction

1.      The applicant, Mr Furnell served in the Royal Australian Navy from 27 July 1968 to 26 July 1989, rising to the rank of warrant officer.  As a result of his service he suffers from a number of medical conditions including lumbar spondylosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a depressive disorder.

2.      Following his service, Mr Furnell worked for the Adelaide City Council in a variety of roles, until leaving that employment in June 2001.  He has not worked since that time and in October 2004 he first applied for payment of disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VE Act) at the special rate. He has made a number of further claims and applications, some relating to liability for particular conditions and some to assessment of his rate of pension, ultimately culminating in the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) of 11 September 2009. In that decision the VRB reviewed three separate decisions of the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) and determined that Mr Furnell’s depressive disorder was a defence caused condition, but declined to increase his rate of pension to the special rate. In procedural terms, that outcome resulted from the VRB affirming two of the decisions of the Commission and setting aside one.

3.      Mr Furnell has now sought review of that decision by this Tribunal.

procedural history, legislation and issues

4.      In order to establish that he is entitled to be paid disability pension at the special rate, Mr Furnell must demonstrate that he satisfied all of the requirements of s 24 of the VE Act at one time during the assessment period. The assessment period is defined in s 19(9) of the VE Act as the period commencing on the day a particular claim or application was made and ending on the date that the claim or application is determined. As Mr Furnell has made a…