Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 813
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/1518
VETERAN'S APPEALS DIVISION ) Re GILBERT DENIS WALLBANK Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
CORRIGENDUM
The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application as follows:
Replace the whole of paragraph 72 with:
72. As I am satisfied that the Applicant does not suffer from PTSD or any Anxiety condition, nor has any hypothesis been raised linking alcohol abuse with operational service, the decision under review is affirmed.
.....................[sgd].............................
M D Allen
Senior Member
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Date23 October 2009
PlaceCoffs Harbour
Decision The decision under review is AFFIRMED .................[sgd].............................
M D Allen
Senior Member
14. Of the factors that must as a minimum exist before a reasonable hypothesis can be said to exist connecting a PTSD with the circumstances of a Veteran’s relevant service, factors 6(a) and (b) read:
“(a) experiencing a category 1A stressor before the clinical onset of post traumatic stress disorder; or
(b)experiencing a category 1B stressor before the clinical onset of post traumatic stress disorder.”
15. The terms ‘category 1A’ and ‘category 1B’ stressor are defined in Instrument No 5 of 2008 as:
“(9) A ‘category 1A stressor’ means one or more of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) experiencing a life-threatening event;
(b)being subject to a serious physical attack or assault including rape
and sexual molestation; or
(c) being threatened with a weapon, being held captive, being kidnapped,
or being tortured.
A ‘category 1B stressor’ means one of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) being an eye witness to person being killed or critically injured:
(b) viewing corpses or critically injured casualties as an eye witness;
(c)being an eye witness to atrocities inflicted on another person or person;:
(d)killing or maiming a person; or
(e) being an eye witness to or participating in, the clearance of critically injured casualties.”
16. For Anxiety Disorder, of the factors that must exist before the condition can be connected with service, factors 6(a)(ii) and (iii) read:
“ (ii)experiencing a category 1A stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of the anxiety disorder; or
(iii)experiencing a category 1B stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder;
Whereas factor 6(a)(v) reads:
(v)experiencing a category 2 stressor within the one year before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder.”
17. The terms ‘category 1A’ and ‘category 1B’ stressor have the same meaning in Instrument No 5 of 2008. A category 2 stressor is defined as:
“ One or more of the following negative life events, the effects of which are chronic in nature and cause the person to feel on-going distress, concern or worry:
(a) being socially isolated and unable to maintain friendships or family
relationships, due to physical location, language barriers, disability, or medical or…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read GILBERT DENIS WALLBANK 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] AATA 813
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had experienced a traumatic event during his service that warranted a diagnosis of PTSD. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the diagnosis of PTSD, or alternatively an anxiety disorder, was supported by the evidence and aligned with the relevant Statement of Principles governing such claims. The court was required to interpret the evidence and determine if it sufficiently established the applicant's entitlement to the claimed benefits.
The Federal Court, in its decision, concluded that the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that the applicant had experienced a traumatic event during his service that would justify a PTSD diagnosis. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence did not support the diagnosis of PTSD or an anxiety disorder that would meet the criteria outlined in the applicable Statement of Principles. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission to deny the applicant's claim for veteran's entitlements related to PTSD.
The court's decision affirmed the earlier determination of the Repatriation Commission, upholding the denial of the applicant's claim for veteran's entitlements. This ruling underscores the importance of substantial evidence in establishing a traumatic event and a diagnosis in line with the relevant criteria for compensation claims.
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.