GEOFFREY STEVEN WEIR and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 902

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/4179

VETERANS’ APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re GEOFFREY STEVEN WEIR

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Senior Member M D Allen

Dr S. H. Toh, Member

Date               25 November 2009

PlaceSydney

Decision  The decision under review is affirmed.

.....................[sgd].........................

M. D. Allen
  Presiding Member

Psychosocial stressor(s) is defined in clause 7 of the said Instrument as:

“means an injury, disease or occurrence that evokes in an individual feelings of substantial anxiety or stress (for example being shot at, being involved in a motor vehicle accident, experiencing a failure or loss such as divorce; or receiving a diagnosis of a disabling medical condition such as a malignancy or chronic cardiorespiratory disorder”);

which refers to traumatic events.

12.     Instrument No.37 of 2008 states as factors connecting adjustment disorder with service not only clause 6(a) or 6(b), as follows:

6(a) experiencing a category 1A stressor within the three months before the clinical onset of adjustment disorder; or

6(b) experiencing a category 1B stressor within the three months before the clinical onset of adjustment disorder;...

but significantly for the Applicant’s case, the following factor 6(h):

“6(h) having chronic pain of at least three months duration at the time of the clinical onset of adjustment disorder;”

which to our mind is specific and is the factor applicable to this Applicant.

13.     In passing, we must state that we have difficulty reconciling factor 6(h) with the diagnostic criteria for Adjustment Disorder in that criterion 3A reads:

“the development of emotional or behavioural symptoms in response to an identifiable stressor(s) occurring within 3 months of the onset of the stressor(s).”

Factor 6(h) in referring to chronic pain “of at least three months duration” quite properly allows for chronic pain extending over a period before the onset of an Adjustment Disorder, and allows for the stoic, yet diagnostic criterion 3A requires occurrence of the Anxiety Disorder within three months of the onset of the stressor(s). (Tribunal’s emphasis).

14.     Chronic pain is defined in Instrument No.37 of 2008 as in the following terms:

“chronic pain” means continuous or almost continuous pain, which may or may not be ameliorated by analgesic medication and which is of a level to cause interference with usual work or leisure activities or activities of daily living;”

As we understand the Respondent’s case in this matter, it was not necessary to make a decision as to whether the Applicant does suffer chronic pain as a result of his right knee condition.

15.     We are satisfied however that the Applicant has not suffered a category 1A or category 1B stressor as those terms are defined in Instrument No.37 of 2008, nor has he suffered what in Instrument No.57 of 1996 was described as a psychosocial stressor.

16.     The applicant’s evidence was that although trained as a fitter he took up interstate truck driving as it provided more money.  Dr Dinnen in his report of 7 May 2009 refers…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read GEOFFREY STEVEN WEIR 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
[2009] AATA 902
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geoffrey Steven Weir and the Repatriation Commission were before the Federal Court of Australia, where Mr. Weir sought a review of a decision regarding his entitlement to veterans’ benefits. The issue at hand was whether Mr. Weir met the diagnostic criteria for an Adjustment Disorder, particularly whether his condition constituted 'marked distress' and if it resulted in significant impairment. The Repatriation Commission had determined that Mr. Weir did not meet the criteria for the disorder, and thus, his claim for certain veterans’ benefits was dismissed.

The court was required to interpret the term'marked distress' within the context of Adjustment Disorder and determine whether Mr. Weir's condition met the threshold of significant impairment. The court examined the evidence provided by Mr. Weir, including medical reports, and considered the applicable legislative provisions and relevant case law. The primary focus was on whether the Repatriation Commission's interpretation of the statutory language and its application to Mr. Weir's case was correct.

The court found that the Repatriation Commission's decision was well-reasoned and aligned with the legislative framework and case law. It held that the term'marked distress' required more than transient or minor emotional disturbances and necessitated a significant level of impairment. Given the evidence, the court concluded that Mr. Weir's condition did not reach the level of 'marked distress' or significant impairment as required by the legislation. Therefore, the court affirmed the Repatriation Commission's decision and dismissed Mr. Weir's appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.