Gerzina v Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] FMCA 490


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GERZINA v REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2003] FMCA 490
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – post traumatic stress disorder – Veterans Entitlements Act 1975 – war caused disease – whether diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder requires finding of “intense horror” or “horror” – meaning of “intense fear, helplessness or horror”.

Veterans Entitlements Act 1975, ss.9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 13(1)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s.44

Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 160 ALR 17
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 270
Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 54 FLR 335
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2001) FCA 1775
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Richardson v Austin (1911) 12 CLR 463
Harris v Repatriation Commission (2000) 32 AAR 84
Knight v Repatriation Commission (2002) FCA 103

Applicant: ALDO ANDRE GERZINA
Respondent: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File No: MZ 668 of 2003
Delivered on: 7 November 2003
Delivered at: Melbourne
Hearing Date: 6 October 2003
Judgment of: McInnis FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Moore
Solicitors for the Applicant: Peter J Liefman
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P. Hanks QC, with Ms J. McDonnell
Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

  1. The Application dated 1 April 2003 be dismissed.

  2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to the Federal Court scale up to and including the date of transfer from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Court and thereafter pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules with the costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 668 of 2003

ALDO ANDRE GERZINA

Applicant

and

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By an application filed in the Federal Court and dated 1 April 2003 Aldo Andre Gerzina, the applicant, seeks to appeal from a decision of the Veterans Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  The decision which is the subject of the appeal was made by the AAT on 5 March 2003.  This application was transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia by order of the Federal Court made on 19 June 2003. 

  2. The appeal relates to a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal following a decision before that tribunal of the Repatriation Commission made on 9 September 1999, affirmed by the Veterans Review Board (VRB) on 5 December 2000. 

  3. The notice of appeal in the present application essentially raises a single ground of appeal.  The ground of appeal in the notice reads as follows:

    “The Tribunal erred in law in finding that the diagnostic criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ICD_9-CM CODE 309.81) set out in the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ Fourth Edition required it to find on the evidence before it that the Applicant's response to a traumatic event involved ‘intense horror’, and distinct from ‘horror’ simpliciter, before it could conclude that…

Continue reading Gerzina v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gerzina v Repatriation Commission [2003] FMCA 490
Case
[2003] FMCA 490
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Gerzina and the Repatriation Commission. The dispute arose from a claim made by Gerzina for benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Federal Magistrates Court was tasked with adjudicating the matter. The crux of the dispute centred around the interpretation and application of specific provisions within the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, particularly concerning the eligibility criteria for certain benefits and the procedural correctness of the Commission's decision-making process.

The court had to determine whether the Repatriation Commission correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in denying Gerzina's claim. Additionally, the court needed to assess if there were any procedural flaws in the Commission's decision-making that might have prejudiced Gerzina's rights. The court also examined whether the Commission's interpretation of the statutory provisions was consistent with the legislative intent and whether there were any errors in law that warranted overturning the Commission's decision.

After a thorough review of the statutory provisions, the legislative intent, and the Commission's decision-making process, the court found that the Repatriation Commission had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The court held that there were no procedural errors that prejudiced Gerzina's rights, and the Commission's interpretation of the statutory provisions was consistent with the legislative intent. Consequently, the court dismissed Gerzina's application. The court also ordered that Gerzina pay the Repatriation Commission's costs in accordance with the specified scale and rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application dated 1 April 2003 be dismissed.

2.

The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to the Federal Court scale up to and including the date of transfer from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Court and thereafter pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules with the costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.