Gawley and Repatriation Commission

Case [2010] AATA 1017

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 1017

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/1450

VETERANS'       APPEALS         DIVISION )
Re RONALD ALEXANDER GAWLEY  

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr Egon Fice, Senior Member
Miss E A Shanahan, Member

Date17 December 2010

PlaceMelbourne

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board on 28 February 2008

[sgd] Egon Fice

Senior Member

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – anxiety disorder – depressive disorder – dysthymic disorder – alcohol abuse – alcohol dependence – post traumatic stress disorder – experiencing a severe stressor – traumatic event – standard of proof – diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder – reasonable hypothesis – clinical onset – category 1A stressor – category 1B stressor – experienced witnessed or having been confronted with an event – DSM-IV-TR – DSM-IV – stressors including work conflict with children – suicide – psychologist – psychiatrist – diagnostically meaningful trauma – meaning of a threat – confronted physically – confronted in the mind – actual threat of death or serious injury – attributable to operational service

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564

Government Insurance Office (NSW) v R J Green and Lloyd Pty Ltd (1966) 114 CLR 437

Law v Repatriation Commission (1980) 29 ALR 64

Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] 86 ALD 62

Morales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 51 ALD 519

Re Gawley and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 284

Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321

Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581

Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327 

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283

Walsh v Rother District Council [1978] 1 ALL ER 510

Woodward and Another v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473

Repatriation Act 1920

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 7, 9, 9A, 13(1), 120, 120A, 120A(3), 120(1), 120(3), 120(4), 196B(2), 196B(11)

Statement of Principles – Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse - Instrument No 76 of 1998

Statement of Principles – Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse - Instrument No 17 of 2008

Statement of Principles – Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse - Instrument No 1 of 2009
Statement of Principles – Depressive Disorder - Instrument No 17 of 2007
Statement of Principles – Depressive Disorder - Instrument No 27 of 2008
Statement of Principles – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - Instrument No 5 of 2008

Statement of Principles – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - Instrument No 3 of 1999 as amended by No 54 of 1999

American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edn

Chamber’s 21st Century Dictionary

REASONS FOR DECISION

17 December 2010 Mr Egon Fice, Senior Member
Miss E A Shanahan, Member       

1.      On 14 February 2007 Mr Ronald Gawley lodged a claim with the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) seeking a disability pension…

Continue reading Gawley and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gawley and Repatriation Commission [2010] AATA 1017
Case
[2010] AATA 1017
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Gawley, appealed a decision of the Veterans' Review Board concerning the denial of a disability pension. The dispute involved whether Gawley's conditions, including anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, alcohol abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were attributable to his operational service. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue was whether Gawley's PTSD was attributable to his operational service and whether the correct standard of proof was applied by the Veterans' Review Board. The court had to determine whether Gawley's PTSD was caused by a category 1A or 1B stressor, and if the Tribunal should have accepted the applicant's evidence regarding the onset of his conditions. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Board appropriately considered the evidence provided by Gawley's psychologist and psychiatrist.

The Tribunal found that the Board had erred in its assessment of the evidence and in applying the correct standard of proof. It was determined that Gawley's PTSD was attributable to his operational service, and the Board should have accepted the applicant's evidence regarding the onset of his conditions. The Tribunal emphasised that a reasonable hypothesis should have been adopted where there was uncertainty about the precise time of onset, and the Board should have considered the evidence of the applicant's psychologist and psychiatrist. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Board's decision was flawed and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision made by the Veterans' Review Board on 28 February 2008, but ordered a reassessment of Gawley's claim for a disability pension, taking into account the Tribunal's findings on the appropriate standard of proof and the consideration of all relevant evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board on 28 February 2008

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.