Geoffrey Richmond and Repatriation Commission

[2013] AATA 421

[2013] AATA 421

Division	VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
File Number	2011/5116
Re	Geoffrey Richmond
APPLICANT
And	Repatriation Commission
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Regina Perton, Member
Date	20 June 2013
Place	Melbourne

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 – reason why applicant stopped working – decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 24(1)(a), (b) and (c), 24(2)(a)

Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1

Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50

Repatriation Commission v Alexander (2002) 75 ALD 329

Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] 76 ALD 47

REASONS FOR DECISION

Regina Perton, Member

20 June 2013

1. Geoffrey Robert Richmond, who is now 68 years old, served in the Australian Army for two years from 2 February 1966 to 1 February 1968.  This included operational service in Vietnam between April and December 1967.  Mr Richmond currently receives a service disability pension at 70 per cent of the general rate.   He suffers from multiple medical conditions, of which hyperkeratoses, basal cell carcinoma, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus, non melanotic malignant neoplasm of the skin, alcohol dependence and generalised anxiety disorder have been accepted by the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) as having been war caused.  

2. On 15 August 2007 Mr Richmond lodged a claim for increase in pension.  He was unsuccessful at having a psychiatric condition, which he believed to be post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), recognised by the Commission or the Veterans Review Board (VRB) as being a war caused condition.  On 30 August 2010 after Mr Richmond had lodged a claim with this Tribunal, he and the Commission settled the dispute with the Commission accepting that Mr Richmond suffered the war-caused conditions of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependency.  The agreement submitted and subsequently endorsed by the Tribunal expressly rejected the proposition that Mr Richmond suffered from PTSD.  The matter was remitted to the Commission for calculation of the rate of pension to which Mr Richmond was entitled.

3. On 14 February 2011 the Commission determined that Mr Richmond was entitled to disability pension at 70 per cent of the general rate with effect from 15 August 2007.  On 4 April 2011 Mr Richmond applied to the VRB for review of the Commission’s decision.   Mr Richmond, who was under 65 years of age when he lodged the claim in 2007, believes he is entitled to 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 accepted disabilities alone. 

4. On 10 November 2011 the VRB affirmed the Commission’s decision that Mr Richmond was not eligible for a pension at a special rate.  On 1 December 2011 Mr Richmond lodged the application currently under consideration by the Tribunal. 

5. In deciding whether Mr Richmond is eligible for pension at the special rate, the Tribunal needs to consider:

   ·Is Mr Richmond unable to undertake remunerative work for…