Grant and Repatriation Commission - [2007] AATA 1847

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1847
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No S 200400253

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re ROBERT HUGH GRANT

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J G Short (Member)
Dr E T Eriksen (Member)
Date10 October 2007
PlaceAdelaide

Decision 1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that Mr Grant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depressive Disorder and that these conditions are war-caused with effect from 6 August 2000.
2. The Tribunal remits the issue of assessment following the acceptance of these conditions to the Repatriation Commission for further consideration.
..............................................
J G SHORT
(Member)

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – diagnosis – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Depressive Disorder – operational service – self-immolation of monk – grenade attack – practice and procedure – admission of documentary evidence refused – decision set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
The Privacy Act 1988, s 13
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 433
Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrne v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Statement of Principles Instrument No 3 of 1999
Statement of Principles Instrument No 54 of 1999
Statement of Principles Instrument No 17 of 2007
REASONS FOR DECISION

10 October 2007
  Mr J G Short (Member)
  Dr E T Eriksen (Member)

1.      Mr Grant sought review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) which refused his claim for acceptance of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) as war-caused. The decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) on 19 April 2004. Mr Grant lodged an appeal to this Tribunal on 30 July 2004.
2.      The appeal proceeded before a Tribunal including Member Mr S J Ellis. Mr Ellis became unavailable for Tribunal duties on the third and final day of hearing. Having noted the consent of the parties, the President of the Tribunal reconstituted the Tribunal so that it then comprised the remaining members, Mr J G Short and Dr E T Eriksen.
3.      Mr Grant served in the Australian Army from 8 February 1968 until 23 December 1970. His eligible service, which was also operational service, was from 22 January 1970 until 8 October 1970 in Vietnam.
4.      Mr Grant claimed that he suffered from PTSD and that this condition was caused by severe stressors, experienced during Mr Grant’s service in Vietnam. It was contended that Mr Grant’s circumstances matched factor 5(a) of Statement of Principles (“SoP”) Instrument No 3 of 1999, as amended by Instrument No 54 of 1999, that is, “experiencing a severe stressor prior to the clinical onset of post traumatic stress disorder”. Mr Grant also contended that he has Depressive Disorder and that factor…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grant and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Grant and Repatriation Commission [2007] AATA 1847
Case: [2007] AATA 1847
Decision Date: 10 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) involved a dispute between the Repatriation Commission and Mr Grant, a former member of the Australian Defence Force. Mr Grant sought a determination that he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depressive Disorder resulting from his service during the Vietnam War. The Commission had previously denied his claim for veterans' entitlements, prompting him to seek a review of the decision by the AAT.

The central legal issues before the tribunal were whether Mr Grant had established that his mental health conditions were caused by his operational service, and whether the tribunal should admit documentary evidence that had been excluded by the Commission. The tribunal had to determine if the Commission's decision was legally sound and whether the exclusion of the documentary evidence was justified. The statutory framework under which the case was heard included the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Privacy Act 1988, s 13.

The tribunal examined the evidence and found that the Commission had erred in its assessment of Mr Grant's conditions. It was determined that Mr Grant had indeed suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depressive Disorder, which were attributable to his wartime experiences. The tribunal also held that the Commission's refusal to admit certain documentary evidence was unreasonable. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Commission's decision and substituted its own, finding that Mr Grant's conditions were war-caused from 6 August 2000. The matter was then remitted to the Commission for reassessment of Mr Grant's entitlements.

The tribunal's decision was grounded in a thorough review of the evidence and relevant case law, including Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Bushell v Repatriation Commission, and Byrne v Repatriation Commission. The tribunal emphasised the importance of a fair and unbiased assessment of veterans' claims and the need to consider all relevant evidence. The tribunal's ruling underscored the significance of the correct application of statutory provisions and the protection of veterans' rights to a thorough review of their claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that Mr Grant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depressive Disorder and that these conditions are war-caused with effect from 6 August 2000.

2. The Tribunal remits the issue of assessment following the acceptance of these conditions to the Repatriation Commission for further consideration.

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.