Gavan and Repatriation Commission
[2002] AATA 1182
•15 November 2002
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 1182
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2001/1547
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re Noel John Gavan
Applicant
And Repatriation Commission
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr RP Handley, Deputy President
Date15 November 2002
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that the Applicant's osteoarthrosis of the left knee was war-caused. The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent to calculate the rate of disability pension payable, with effect from 21 September 1998.
..............................................
RP Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
Repatriation Commission –– Disability pension – whether localised osteoarthrosis of the left knee was a war-caused injury - necessity that a hypothesis connecting the injury claimed to an Applicant's operational service must be established to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal – necessity for the Applicant to have suffered a "trauma" in accordance with the relevant Statement of Principles – held the Applicant's osteoarthrosis was war-caused – decision of the Respondent set aside – new decision that injury war-caused substituted.
Veterans Entitlement Act 1986 ss 120A, 120(1)(3)
Statement of Principles - Instrument No 81 of 2001
Budworth v Repatriation Commission and Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (S13/2002 (21 June 2002))
Benjamin vRepatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
Connors v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 783
Fuss vRepatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1529
Harris vRepatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1687
Knight vRepatriation Commission [2000] FCA 103
Norris v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 873
Repatriation Commission v Budworth [2001] FCA 1421
Repatriation Commission v Deledio [1998] FCA 391
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 November 2002 Mr RP Handley
This is an application by Noel Gavan ("the Applicant") for a review of a decision of the Veterans' Review Board ("VRB") made on 18 July 2001 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") to refuse the Applicant's claim for lumbar spondylosis and osteoarthrosis of the left knee, thus continuing the Applicant's disability pension at 60% of the General Rate.
At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Brian Winship, Solicitor, of Rockcliffs, Solicitors, and the Respondent was represented by Trina McConnell, Solicitor, of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the T documents") together with the documents tendered by the parties. The Applicant gave evidence in person and Dr William Lennon gave evidence by conference telephone.
BACKGROUNDThe Applicant was born on 7 August 1929 and is aged 73. He enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force ("RAAF") on 8 December 1947 for 12 years. He re-enlisted on 8 December 1959 for five years, and then again on 8 December 1964 for a further 5 years. He was discharged on 20 January 1970 having attained the rank of Flight Sergeant. The Applicant's service in Malaya from 22 July 1952 to 17 July 1953 counts as "operational service". The Respondent has accepted the Applicant's claim in respect of sensori-neural deafness.
On 21 December 1998, the Applicant lodged a claim for disability pension in respect of peptic ulcer disease, localised osteoarthrosis of the left knee and lumbar spondylosis. On 26 March 1999, a delegate of the Respondent decided to refuse the Applicant's claims for localised osteoarthrosis of the left knee and lumbar spondylosis, but accepted his claim in respect of peptic ulcer disease with effect from 21 September 1998. The delegate also decided to continue the Applicant's disability pension at 60% of the General Rate. On 8 April 1999, the Applicant lodged an application for review in respect of the localised osteoarthrosis and lumbar spondylosis. On 8 May 1999, a review officer decided not to intervene and conduct an internal review. On a review of the decision of 8 April 1999 by the VRB on 18 July 2001, the VRB decided to affirm the decision.
On 10 October 2001, the Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for a review of the VRB decision. Since then, the Applicant has decided not to press his claim in respect of lumbar spondylosis.
On 5 December 2001, the Applicant lodged a further claim in respect of the severe refractory ulcerating oesophagitis and sceleroderma which the Applicant told the Tribunal had been accepted and his pension increased to 80% with effect from 5 December 2001 (A5).
APPLICABLE LEGISLATIONA war-caused injury or disease is defined in s 9(1) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 ("the Act"). The definition includes an injury suffered or a disease contracted by the veteran resulting from an occurrence that happened while the veteran was rendering operational service as defined in s 6. Section 13(1) provides that where a veteran has become incapacitated from a war-caused injury or a war-caused disease, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension by way of compensation to the veteran.
Section 21A provides for the Respondent to "determine the degree of incapacity of a veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, according to the provisions of the approved Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions", which is currently in its fifth edition ("GARP"). Section 22 provides that pensions by way of compensation are paid to veterans who have attained the age of 65 at a percentage of the maximum General Rate of pension payable which constitutes the same percentage as the degree of incapacity determined by the Respondent in accordance with s 21A. However, a veteran may be entitled to payment of pension at a higher Intermediate or Special Rate if certain criteria, set out in ss 23 and 24 respectively, are fulfilled.
The standard of proof to be applied in relation to operational service in determining whether an injury or disease was war-caused is that provided for in subsections 120(1) and (3). Pursuant to these provisions, if the injury or disease relates to operational service, the Respondent shall determine that the injury or disease was war-caused unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury or disease with the circumstances of the person's service.
Subsection 120(4) provides that except in making a determination to which subsections (1) or (2) apply (subsection (2) is not relevant in this matter), the Respondent shall decide any other matter arising under the Act or the regulations "to its reasonable satisfaction". Because the Applicant's claim was lodged after 1 June 1994, s 120A of the Act applies. This requires that where the Repatriation Medical Authority ("RMA") has determined a Statement of Principles ("SoP") in respect of a particular injury or disease, the Respondent (and therefore the Tribunal) must have reference to that SoP. In Mr Gavan's case the parties agree that the relevant SoP concerning osteoarthrosis is Instrument No 81 of 2001.
EVIDENCE
The Applicant's Oral EvidenceThe applicant said when he first enlisted in the RAAF at the age of 18 he was fit and healthy and had no disabilities. After completing his initial recruit training at Richmond Airbase, he was sent to Ballarat for eight months to train as a radio serviceman. He was then posted back to Richmond but later returned to Ballarat to undertake a radar mechanics course which lasted for 15 months. After returning to Richmond, in 1952 he was posted with RAAF 38 Squadron to Malaya. This squadron comprised Dakota aircraft used for transport supply. During the Malayan emergency, the squadron was sent to Royal Airforce Base ("RAF") Changi on Singapore Island to act as couriers. RAF Changi was a large base comprising a village, shopping centres and numerous buildings including a RAF Hospital. 38 Squadron was the only Australian squadron there. The Applicant has no specific recollection of the layout of the base (A1). He acknowledged that he had been hospitalised at Changi for a week in relation to another medical problem, but could not remember where the hospital was located.
The Applicant said it was within the first couple of months of his being at Changi that he injured his left knee. He had removed a transmitter receiver from a Dakota in order to recrystalise it in the workship. Having completed this, he carried the receiver, a black box which weighed approximately 30 - 40 lbs, back to the aircraft. From the ground to the bottom of the door of the aircraft was about four to five feet. The Applicant balanced the black box on the bottom of the aircraft doorway, holding it with one hand while he stepped up onto the bottom rung of two metal framed steps suspended from the doorway. As he stepped from the bottom step to the top step, he missed his footing and slipped, his left knee hitting the bottom step heavily. He managed to keep one hand on the black box while he called for assistance from others working in the vicinity of the aircraft. The Applicant said he was carried to a vehicle which they called for and was taken to a Regimental Aid Post ("RAP"). He was examined, given heat treatment on the knee with a ray lamp, and the knee was bandaged. He was also given painkillers. He was taken back to his billet which was on the third floor of a building over the top of a canteen and a hall. There he was assisted up the stairs because he could not walk on the leg. He rested for the remainder of the day. His knee continued to swell over the next couple of nights and he had to loosen the bandage.
The Applicant said that the next day, he was helped down the stairs and taken in the front of the truck to the dispersal area. He explained to the Warrant Officer what had happened and he was put on light duties, working on radios while seated at a bench. He could not walk because his knee was swollen and painful and he had to hop around. For the next two weeks he remained on light duties until he was able to walk again. During the lunch breaks – of about one and a half hours because of the tropical climate – he was taken daily to the RAP for further treatment: he had further heat treatment on the knee which was re-bandaged and he was given more pain killers. When the knee could be handled, liniment was applied and he was given liniment to apply himself. He cannot remember whether he used crutches or a stick but thinks it likely that he had some sort of assistance.
The Applicant said that over a period of three weeks to a month, his knee became better and he was able to use it normally and return to normal duties. He does not agree with Dr Lennon said that it settled "rapidly". He had no further problems with the knee for the remainder of his 12 year engagement nor was there any problem when he underwent medical examinations on later re-enlisting. He was discharged in 1970 having attained the rank of flight sergeant. The Applicant said he did not mention his knee injury in the Health Statement he completed on discharge because it was not troubling him at that time (R4 p18).
The Applicant said he had gradually moved into the administrative side of technical support in the RAAF and so, on discharge, he secured a job as Manager, Product Support Division, at Bankstown Airport. He worked there for two years before joining Waltons Stores as a sales and credit representative.
Working for Waltons required quite a lot of walking around during the day, between his car and customers. His area was the northern and western areas of Sydney. After working for Waltons for about five years, during which he experienced no problems with his left knee, he purchased a block of land at Tuncurry and applied for a transfer to the Kempsey area. This came through about two years later and he and his wife moved to Tuncurry in about 1975, built their house, and have lived there since, a period of about 27 years. After 15 or 16 years with Waltons, the Applicant was made redundant at the age of 58 when the company went into liquidation. At the age of 60, he went on to the Service Pension.
The Applicant said at the time he was made redundant, he had not experienced any problems with his left knee. However, over the next few years, the knee started to play up – it would swell up and become sore and he would sometimes have difficulty walking or the knee would make a clicking sound. As a result, he stopped playing golf and took up lawn bowls. On one occasion when he was playing bowls with a visitor, the visitor commented on the Applicant's favouring his left leg. The visitor gave him a magnetic card to use on the knee which the Applicant found provided some relief, and which he used for a period of more than 12 months.
The Applicant also consulted his local doctor in Tuncurry about his knee – he recalled seeing Dr Redshaw, Dr Klein and Dr Tran. In 1990, he applied to the Department of Veterans' Affairs for a Futuro knee guard. When this was approved (A7), he obtained a guard from his local chemist and has worn a guard since. At the suggestion of Dr Klein five or six years ago, he applied to the Department for a walking stick. This having been approved, he has used a stick regularly since. The Applicant always takes the stick with him in his car. He can walk without a stick but not with any confidence or any distance. At times, he walks with a severe limp on his left side. He has fallen on a number of occasions when his knee has given way, and has experienced pain and stumbled and stepped awkwardly while not using a stick. He fell most recently about two or three weeks ago. He said he finds his lack of mobility very limiting and exasperating.
In cross-examination, the Applicant was asked about his claim form and his answer to the question "why do you believe your service caused, contributed to or aggravated the disability?" (T4 p19). The Applicant said the claim form was completed for him by a stand in Pension Officer at the RSL. When completing the form, the officer assumed various things on the Applicant's behalf, and the Applicant was not aware of the need to be specific.
Dr Mario Benanzio, Orthopaedic SurgeonDr Benanzio provided two reports: dated 20 May 2002 (A2) and 18 October 2002 (A3). Following Dr Benanzio's examination of the Applicant on 7 May 2002, he reported (A2):
Flexion of the left knee is restricted by 15°. Flexion and extension of the right knee are normal. There is marked crepitus in the left knee and moderate crepitus in the right knee.
At Dr Benanzio's request, the Applicant obtained up-to-date x-rays of both knees.
In his second report (A3), having examined all available x-rays including x-rays of both knees dated 9th October 2002, Dr Benanzio found significant osteoarthritis with "degenerative pathology of about the same degree and distribution" in both knees. However,
Despite the fact that the radiological evidence of 9th October 2002 indicates an about equal degree of degenerative pathology in both knees, the patient has apparently never experienced complaints in the right knee joint. Furthermore, at clinical examination on 7th May 2002 flexion of the left knee was restricted by 15° and accompanied by marked crepitus, whilst movements of the right knee were of a normal range and accompanied by moderate crepitus only.
Dr William Lennon, Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Lennon provided two reports: dated 27 March 2002 (R1) and 28 October 2002 (R2). In the earlier report (R1), Dr Lennon diagnosed:
Bilateral osteoarthrosis of the knees, left worse than right, conditions of constitutional origin, age related, degenerative in nature and certainly not due to the single incident in 1952 in Changi.
By the time of his later report (R2), Dr Lennon had seen both Dr Benanzio's reports but had not seen any x-rays. Dr Lennon's opinion is that:
the patient simply suffers from bilateral idiopathic osteoarthrosis of the knees with the typical varus deformity associated with medical compartmental osteoarthrosis and certainly doubt indeed any relationship to the single traumatic incident of 1952, the time at which he most likely occasioned a simple traumatic effusion of the joint, which rapidly settled…
In oral evidence, Dr Lennon said he had worked with veterans on orthopaedic matters between 1959 and 1990. He said that the Applicant's recollection of the relevant events was vague. The single traumatic incident in 1952 was probably an effusion in his knee without boney or interarticular damage. The Applicant probably experienced synovial irritation of the soft tissue lining the joint. Dr Lennon said it is doubtful that a single injury could be responsible for the osteoarthrosis in his left knee especially since he also has obvious changes in his right knee from which he has experienced symptoms over the past five years. The Applicant told Dr Lennon that he had had discomfort in the right knee since 1997.
In cross-examination, Dr Lennon acknowledged that a discrete joint injury would be one associated with a traumatic incident. With regard to his comment that the Applicant's injury "rapidly settled", Dr Lennon said it is common for the period of resolution following a joint effusion to be about two weeks. He regards this as a rapid settlement. He said it is also common for men of the Applicant's age to have bilateral idiopathic osteoarthrosis – it is a constitutional condition due to the ageing process. While Dr Lennon agreed that the Applicant has a severe restriction of his left knee, he said, in his opinion this would have happened anyway without a traumatic incident. Typically, with such osteoarthrosis there is a presentation in one knee only.
SUBMISSIONS
ApplicantMr Winship, for the Applicant, submitted that the Applicant suffered a discrete injury to his left knee joint in 1952, for which he was treated at a RAF facility. This may explain why there is no record of treatment from that time. The effect on the Applicant's knee only became apparent after he had been made redundant. Previously, he walked in the course of his job with Waltons. He now suffers a significant restriction of movement of his left knee when compared with his right, the only explanation for which is the 1952 injury. He wears a knee guard and uses a stick because his knee is liable to give way, leading to him falling.
Mr Winship referred the Tribunal to s 119(1)(h) of the Act and the difficulties for the Applicant in presenting evidence in relation to an incident that occurred 50 years ago. He submitted there is evidence of trauma to the Applicant's left knee joint before the clinical onset of osteoarthrosis in that joint and that factor 5(j) of the relevant SoP concerning osteoarthrosis, Instrument No 81 of 2001, is satisfied with regard to "clinical onset". Mr Winship referred to an address by the Chairman of the RMA, Professor Ken Donald, on 9 November 1998, when Professor Donald explained "clinical onset" as meaning "the first time the veteran noticed anything to do with the disease" (A4).
RespondentMs McConnell, for the Respondent, pointed to the four steps to be followed in making a determination, set out by the Full Federal Court in RepatriationCommissionv Deledio [1998] FCA 391. She noted the Federal Court decision in Connors v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 783, emphasising that for a hypothesis raised to be reasonable, there must be evidence pointing to each individual element in the SoP.
Addressing the four steps in Deledio (supra), Ms McConnell acknowledged that the first two steps are satisfied: the material points to a hypothesis connecting the Applicant's injury with his service, and there is a relevant SoP concerning osteoarthrosis, Instrument No 81 of 2001. However, the Respondent submits that the third step required by Deledio (supra), that the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one, is not satisfied. The definition of "trauma to the affected joint" set out in paragraph 8 of Instrument No 81 requires an injury to the affected joint and not just a soft tissue injury. Ms McConnell noted that in Norris v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 873, Finn J, at paragraph 32, accepted that the definition of trauma in relation to lumbar spondylosis contemplated a significant injury - subsequently approved by the Full Federal Court in Harris v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1687.
Ms McConnell said the Applicant's Service and Medical Records (R4) contain evidence of his treatment at the RAF Changi Base Hospital in relation to other conditions but there is no mention of treatment of his left knee. There is also no mention of this treatment in the record of his medical examination on discharge dated 27 January 1970 (R4 p17). Moreover, if a person was put on light duties that should have been documented. Ms McConnell noted that s119(1)(h) of the Act cannot be used to correct deficiencies in the evidence: Knight v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 103.
Ms McConnell said the Respondent does not dispute the clinical onset of the Applicant's condition. Rather, the Respondent submits the hypothesis raised is not a reasonable one. The incident in 1952 involved a soft tissue injury. The Applicant is now suffering from a constitutional, degenerative condition affecting both knees. Ms McConnell referred the Tribunal to the Explanatory Notes issued by the RMA in conjunction with Instrument No 352 of 1995 concerning osteoarthrosis. Paragraph 3 of the Notes states, in relation to the definition of "trauma to the relevant joint":
The new definition reflects the fact that initial internal damage to the joint, and not only overlying soft tissue injury, is needed to increase the risk of osteoarthrosis. Such internal joint damage would be associated with cartilage injury, effusion or haemorrhage into the joint…
Consideration of the Law and Findings
The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the osteoarthrosis of the Applicant's left knee was war-caused in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The steps to be followed in making such a determination were stated by the Full Federal Court in Deledio (supra). The first step requires the Tribunal to consider all the material before it and determine whether that material points to a hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person. The connection must be established to the "reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal" pursuant to s 120(4). In the Tribunal's view, the Applicant's evidence of having been injured during his service at RAF Changi and of his symptoms thereafter, points to a hypothesis connecting the claimed injuries with the Applicant's operational service.
The second step, where the material raises such a hypothesis, requires the Tribunal to consider whether there is in force any relevant SoP. In this case, there is a relevant SoP concerning osteoarthrosis, Instrument No 81 of 2001. Having ascertained this, the third step requires the Tribunal to decide whether, in its opinion, the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one. As stated by the Full Federal court in Repatriation Commission v Budworth [2001] FCA 1421, the standard of proof to be applied is that provided by subsection 120(4), of "reasonable satisfaction". In Benjamin v Repatriation Commission and Budworth v Repatriation Commission (S13/2002/21 (June 2002)), the High Court refused special leave and stated their agreement with the decisions of the Full Federal Court in Benjamin v RepatriationCommission [2001] FCA 1879 and Budworth (supra). For a hypothesis raised to be a reasonable one, there must be material before the Tribunal which points to each of the required individual elements in the SoP: Connors (supra). As Wilcox J pointed out in Fuss v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1529 at paragraph 49:
the factors as specified in any relevant Statement of Principles must be pointed to by the facts before the Commission (or Tribunal), even though not proved upon the balance of probabilities.
As stated above, the relevant SoP concerning osteoarthrosis is Instrument No 81 of 2001. There is no dispute that Mr Gavan suffers from osteoarthrosis in both knees. The focus, however, is on his left knee. Paragraph 5 of the SoP sets out the factors that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting osteoarthrosis with a person's relevant service. At least one of the factors must exist. The Applicant relies on factor (j):
(j)suffering a trauma to the affected joint before the clinical onset of osteoarthrosis in that joint;
"Trauma to the affected joint" is defined in paragraph 8:
"trauma to the affected joint" means a discrete joint injury that causes the development, within 24 hours of the injury being sustained, of symptoms and signs of pain, and tenderness, and either altered mobility or range of movement of the joint. These symptoms and signs must last for a period of at least seven days following their onset; save for where medical intervention for the trauma to that joint has occurred, where that medical intervention involves either:
(a)immobilisation of the joint or limb by splinting, sling or similar external agents: or
(b) injection of corticosteroids or local anaesthetics into that joint; or
(c) aspiration of that joint; or
(d) surgery to that joint;The Respondent does not dispute the clinical onset of osteoarthrosis of the Applicant's left knee. The issue, therefore, is whether the material before the Tribunal points to the Applicant's 1952 accident having resulted in him "suffering a trauma" to his left knee. In particular, did he suffer "a discrete joint injury"? The Applicant's evidence at the hearing points to his having sustained symptoms and signs of pain, and tenderness and altered mobility or range of movement of the joint within 24 hours of the injury. He described pain and swelling of the knee joint, for which he was treated at a RAP, and of being unable to walk for about two weeks. But does the material before the Tribunal point to the injury being a "discrete joint injury"?
Dr Benanzio found a 15° restriction in the flexion of the Applicant's left knee and a more marked crepitus than in the right knee (A2). However, the radiological evidence indicated "an about equal degree of degenerative pathology in both knees" (A3). Dr Lennon, while acknowledging that the Applicant suffers from bilateral osteoarthrosis, "doubted" any relationship with the "single traumatic incident of 1952". He said this was probably an effusion in the Applicant's knee involving synovial irritation without boney or interarticular damage – a soft tissue injury.
The Tribunal notes that the RMA Explanatory Notes to which Ms McConnell drew the Tribunal's attention indicate that while overlying soft tissue injury is not considered internal damage to the joint, an effusion into the joint would be associated with such damage. According to Black's Medical Dictionary (39th edition 1999) at 168-169, an effusion is:
The passage of fluid through the walls of a blood vessel into a tissue or body cavity. It commonly occurs as a result of inflammation or damage to the blood vessel… Effusions may also develop in damaged joints.
According to Gray's Anatomy (36th edition 1980) at 484-485, the synovial membrane is an extensive membrane including a pouch within the knee joint cavity which is sustained during movements of the knee. It is both internal and external to the joint itself. All of this suggests to the Tribunal that an effusion, even one involving synovial irritation, may involve injury to the joint itself.
The conclusion reached by the Tribunal on the material before it is that it is reasonably satisfied that the material points to the 1952 incident involving damage to the internal part of the left knee joint. In the Tribunal's view, the material points to the definition of "trauma to the affected joint" in paragraph 8 of the SoP and thus factor (j) in paragraph 5 of the SoP being satisfied. The hypothesis raised is therefore a reasonable one.
The Tribunal must then consider the application of step four of the steps set out by the Federal Court in Deledio (supra). This requires the Tribunal to consider, in accordance with s 120(1), whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the condition did not arise from a war-caused injury. It is at this stage that the Tribunal is required to make relevant findings of fact on the evidence before it.
The Tribunal finds, on the basis of the Applicant's evidence, that he injured his knee when climbing into a Dakota aircraft at RAF Changi in 1952. This injury resulted in a painful and swolllen knee for which the Applicant received treatment and which limited his mobility over a period of at least two weeks. In the Tribunal's view, it is not surprising that 50 years after the incident the Applicant's recollection of the events is in part vague. Nevertheless, he was a credible witness and his account of what happened is perfectly plausible.
The Applicant is now affected by osteoarthrosis in both knees. Dr Lennon's evidence is that this is a constitutional, degenerative condition common in men of the Applicant's age. However, Dr Benanzio's evidence from his examination of the Applicant supports the Applicant's oral evidence that his left knee causes him significantly greater problems than his right. On this basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the condition did not arise from a war-caused injury. Thus, the Applicant's claim in respect of osteoarthrosis of the left knee must succeed.
The Tribunal, therefore, sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that the Applicant's osteoarthrosis of the left knee was war-caused. The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent to calculate the rate of disability pension payable, effective from 21 September 1998, three months before the Applicant's claim was received (s 20(1)).
I certify that the 43 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President RP Handley.
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 30 October 2002
Date of Decision 15 November 2002
Representative for the Applicant Mr B Winship, Solicitor
Representative for the Respondent Ms T McConnell, Solicitor
0
8
0