Gray and Repatriation Commission

[2004] AATA 224

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 224

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2002/454

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		DAVID GRAY

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal SP Estcourt, QC

Date4 March 2004

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(signed)
SP ESTCOURT QC

(Deputy President)

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS - Generalised Anxiety Disorder - whether condition is war-caused – experiencing “severe psycho-social stressor” - whether clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder within two years of the events

Statement of Principles, Instrument No.1 of 2000.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss120, 196B(2)

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 March 2004 SP Estcourt QC (Deputy President)

1.      This is an application to review a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board of 28 October 2002 affirming a decision of the Repatriation Commission of 9 May 2002 rejecting a claim by the applicant for “generalised anxiety disorder” as a war caused disability under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”).

2. The applicant’s relevant service was operational service in the Royal Australian Army in South Vietnam between 6 January 1971 and 29 October 1971 and accordingly the standard of proof is governed by s120 of the Act, applied in accordance with the four stages of analysis prescribed by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 at 97.

3.      In the present case it is common ground between the parties that the Tribunal can be reasonably satisfied that the applicant has the condition of “generalised anxiety disorder” and the question therefore is whether the whole of the material before the Tribunal points to an hypothesis connecting the applicant’s condition with the circumstances of his particular service. If so, the question is whether that hypothesis is a reasonable one.

4. There is in effect a relevant Statement of Principles determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority under s196B(2) of the Act, namely Statement of Principles No.1 of 2000 concerning “Anxiety Disorder”.

5.      The applicant’s case is that some five separate incidents or situations he encountered in South Vietnam were connected to the condition from which he suffers and on the face of it the material he advances points to that hypothesis.

6.      It falls therefore to the Tribunal to determine whether the hypothesis is a reasonable one. To be so, it must be consistent with the template found in the relevant Statement of Principles, and contain the factors which the Authority has determined to be the minimum which must exist.

7.      In respect of “generalised anxiety disorder”, the factors which must exist as a minimum before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the condition with the circumstances of a person’s relevant service are;

“experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors within the two years immediately  before the clinical onset of the disorder.”

8.      “Severe psychosocial stressor” is defined as meaning;