Groves and Repatriation Commission

[2003] AATA 381

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 381

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2001/585

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		ASHLEY JOHN FRANKLIN GROVES

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr EK Christie, Member

Date29 April 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.  This means Mr Groves' application for review is unsuccessful.

...................(Sgd)...........................

EK Christie
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – pension – whether rate of pension properly assessed – special rate – whether the applicant is entitled to pension at the special rate – whether the applicant’s accepted disabilities alone prevented him from working – ameliorative provision – whether accepted disabilities were the “substantial cause” for the applicant being unable to obtain or continue in remunerative work

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6C, 23(1)(c), 23(3)(b), 24(1), 24(2)(b), 120(4)

Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1

Re Starcevich and Repatriation Commission (1986) 10 ALN 202
Re Doyle and Repatriation Commission (1986) 47 ALD 187
Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564

Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
Hornery and Repatriation Commission [1998] AATA 602
Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317

REASONS FOR DECISION

29 April 2003  Dr EK Christie, Member    

1.      This is an application by Ashley Groves for a review of a decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) made on 1 May 2001 that decided to affirm the decision under review that his pension continue at 100% of the General Rate.

2.      In reaching its decision, the VRB concluded:

“21.     In summary, the Board finds that it is not the veteran’s accepted disabilities alone, which prevent him from working or continuing to work, and it does not accepted [sic] that he has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work since leaving his last paid employment.  It also does not accept that he left his last paid employment because he was unable to continue solely because of his accepted war caused disabilities.” (T4, Folio 80)

3.      At the hearing, Mr D O’Gorman of Counsel represented Mr Groves.  The respondent was represented by Mr D McAninly, a Departmental Advocate.

4. The Tribunal had before it documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the “T” Documents) and the various documents tendered by the parties.

5.      Oral evidence was given on behalf of the applicant, by Mrs Helen Coles, an Occupational Therapist in private practice, Dr Julie Conway, a General Practitioner and Dr Ivan Yaksich, Director, Back Rehabilitation and Pain Management, The Noosa Hospital and Specialist Centre.  The respondent called no witnesses.

Facts

6. Mr Groves rendered service as a member of the Defence Force from 22 October 1962 to 21 October 1966. Mr Groves’ four months service in Vietnam, from 31 May 1966 to 15 August 1966, is regarded as operational service under section 6C of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”).

7.      Mr Groves has the following accepted…