Griffin and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 513

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 513
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V02/193

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re JOHN JAMES WILLIAM GRIFFIN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J Handley, Senior Member
Date21 May 2004
PlaceMelbourne

Decision
1.    The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review with respect to hypertension and diabetes and in substitution it is decided those conditions are war-caused.

2.    The decision with respect to hyperlipidaemia is affirmed.

3.    The applicant is entitled to pension at the Special Rate.

(Sgd) J Handley
Senior Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – applicant has a number of accepted disabilities – in receipt of pension at 50% of general rate – application to connect other injuries to service – objective to qualify for special rate – examination of Statements of Principles – whether factors exist as a minimum – sub-hypothesis involving an accepted disability – limited period of operational service – generalised anxiety disorder – whether events in service occurred before or during period of operational service – whether clinical onset or clinical worsening – decision in part set aside – veteran entitled to special rate pension
Veterans’ Entitlements Act (Cth) s5B(2), s6C and s6D, s.24 and s24(1)(a), s120(1) and s120A
Gorton v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 286
McKenna v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 323
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Statement of Principles Instrument No.25 of 1999
Statement of Principles Instrument No.31 of 2001
Statement of Principles Instrument No.35 of 2003
Statement of Principles Instrument No.3 of 2004
Statement of Principles Instrument No.82 of 1999
Statement of Principles Instrument No.1 of 2000
Statement of Principles Instrument No.9 of 2001
Statement of Principles Instrument No.91 of 2001
REASONS FOR DECISION

21 May 2004

  Mr J Handley, Senior Member

1.      The applicant applies to review a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) made on 29 January 2002. The VRB then decided to affirm a decision previously made by the respondent to refuse his application for acceptance of the conditions of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes.
2.      The hearing of the application commenced in Bendigo on 4 July 2003 and concluded in Melbourne on 16 September 2003. Mr De Marchi appeared on behalf of Mr Griffin and Mr Douglass appeared on behalf of the respondent in Bendigo and Mr Rudge in Melbourne. The applicant and his wife gave evidence. A number of documents were received into evidence and similarly will also be referred to in this decision.
3.      Mr Griffin is presently 67 years of age having been born on 27 December 1936. He is currently in receipt of pension at 50% of the General rate by reason of the accepted condition of generalised anxiety disorder. He had previously made an application for acceptance of the condition of post traumatic stress disorder but withdrew that application when the respondent conceded generalised anxiety…

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 Griffin and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Griffin and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 513
Case: [2004] AATA 513
Decision Date: 21 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Griffin and Repatriation Commission, the applicant sought a review of several decisions made by the Commission regarding his eligibility for certain war-related health conditions and the appropriate rate of pension. The dispute was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had the task of determining the correctness of the Commission's decisions.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the applicant's hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidaemia were caused by his service in the Australian Defence Force, and if the pension rate should be set at the Special Rate. The tribunal needed to examine the evidence provided, the relevant legislative framework, and the Commission's reasoning to make its determination.

The tribunal found that the Commission had erred in its assessment of the applicant's hypertension and diabetes, concluding that these conditions were indeed war-caused. This was based on the applicant's medical history, the nature of his service, and the medical evidence presented. Regarding hyperlipidaemia, the tribunal found no fault in the Commission's decision to deny war-causation for this condition. As for the pension rate, the tribunal determined that the Special Rate was appropriate, taking into account the applicant's war-related health conditions.

The tribunal set aside the Commission's decisions with respect to hypertension and diabetes, substituting its own decision that these conditions were war-caused. The decision concerning hyperlipidaemia was affirmed. The tribunal also ruled that the applicant was entitled to a pension at the Special Rate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review with respect to hypertension and diabetes and in substitution it is decided those conditions are war-caused.

2. The decision with respect to hyperlipidaemia is affirmed.

3. The applicant is entitled to pension at the Special Rate.

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.

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN JAMES WILLIAM GRIFFIN