Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 254
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2002/131
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re RAYMOND LESTER GREGORY Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr O Rinaudo, Member Date12 March 2004
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. .................. (Sgd)..................
O Rinaudo
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements - post traumatic stress disorder – generalised anxiety disorder – severe stressors suffered during operational service – clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder not within two years preceding severe psychosocial stressor
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 70, 120(1), 120(3), 196B(2), (11)
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Benjamin V Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 522
Budworth V Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA317
Repatriation Commission V Hill [2002] FCAFC 192REASONS FOR DECISION
12 March 2004 Mr O Rinaudo, Member Decision Under Review
1. The applicant seeks review of a decision made by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission dated 29 August 2000 which refused the applicant’s claim for post traumatic stress disorder. This decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 27 November 2001.
History
2. The applicant was born on 9 March 1947. The applicant rendered operational service from 25 March 1971 to 21 December 1971. The applicant also had defence service from 7 December 1972 to 22 April 1977. The applicant suffers from the following service-related disabilities:
· Sensori-neural hearing loss
· Solar keratoses
· Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease
Eligible for Treatment (not service related)
· Post traumatic stress disorder – treatment only
3. The applicant suffers from the following non-service-related disabilities:
· Bronchitis
No Incapacity Found
· Nervous disorder
· Post traumatic stress disorder
4. The applicant stated that whilst in Vietnam he was posted to 161 Recce Flight at Nui Dat as an air frame fitter. In addition to his duties as an air frame fitter carrying out maintenance and repairs on various aircraft, the applicant also volunteered for visual reconnaissance flights. What this entailed was the applicant flying in aircraft of different types (helicopters and fixed wing) looking for enemy activity in the area. The applicant said that he flew as an observer and that flights would last for 2 hours or so flying at tree-top level in enemy territory.
5. On one occasion when the applicant was flying in a Bell helicopter, a bullet came through the floor of the helicopter and passed out through the perspex dome. Exhibit 9 shows the point of entry and exit of the bullet in the Bell helicopter. The applicant was sitting on the left hand side of the helicopter with the pilot on the right. The applicant was immediately aware of what had happened and stated that he was fearful for his life. He was concerned that more bullets might come through the floor of the aircraft. He said there was armour plating directly under the seat and behind the seat. The perspex bubble was 5 mm perspex. The helicopter had no doors.
Continue reading Gregory and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gregory and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 254
- Case
- [2004] AATA 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the interpretation and application of sections 9, 70, 120(1), 120(3), 196B(2), and 196B(11) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The court had to determine if Mr Gregory's GAD was sufficiently linked to his service and whether the clinical onset occurred within the stipulated timeframe. The case drew on precedents such as Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Benjamin V Repatriation Commission, Budworth V Repatriation Commission, and Repatriation Commission V Hill to assist in interpreting the legislative provisions.
The Tribunal found that Mr Gregory's GAD did not meet the criteria set out in the Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that the clinical onset of GAD did not occur within two years preceding the severe psychosocial stressor. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that Mr Gregory was not entitled to the benefits and entitlements he sought based on the evidence and the statutory requirements.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
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.